Council 44 First Officers’ Report
February 2, 2017
Council 44 Pilots,
We apologize for the continuing intrusions. You have been unwittingly drawn into a soap opera, and for that we sincerely apologize. You deserve better. But, we cannot sit idly by and have our good names and our efforts on your behalf dragged through the mud without a response with real facts (not alternative facts).
While some of our opponents, and now our colleagues, have chosen to resort to personality differences, half-truths, distortions, anger, and falsehoods, we will not engage in any such behavior nor provide you with any titillating ALPA drama to further muddy the waters. No good ever comes from this behavior.
Let’s be clear. The flurry of accusations is simply political payback for not voting for John Malone. We recognize our vote was contrary to the preferences of some line pilots with no political agenda. Others supported a change in direction. And many of you don’t really care either way. At times, it seems we are dealing with 4,000 pilots and 8,000 opinions. There are always winners and losers in elections. Our vote for Captain Bartels was not a vote against John Malone, although that’s the way it’s being portrayed. It was not an easy vote. To the contrary, the easy vote (politically) would have been to vote for John Malone and, if we had, do you think you would be inundated with all the complaints about our “performance”?
We stand by our decision to support Captain Bartels for MEC chairman for a number of reasons—primarily, who best to lead us in the next stages of contract implementation and enforcement. Please also keep in mind that Captain Malone had campaigned on a promise to step down after a TA was achieved.
For brevity, we’ve listed the prominent allegations circulating and responses in the table below:
Allegation
Response
Flower Fund fell to $0 balance
Never dropped below $1,800. Currently over $9,000.
Reluctant to engage in C44 business
False
Refuses to represent pilots in the CPO
False
Unwilling to engage with C44 captain reps
False
Communicates with pilots outside C44
True (who doesn’t?)
Refuses to conduct C44 business unless on FPL
False
Never seen in the crew lounges
False
Didn’t return e-mails
Partially true. Some of the 1,000-plus e-mails we received fell through the cracks during negotiations. Some e-mails are one-directional or abusive and don’t warrant a response.
Captain representatives can’t work with us
True, though the reverse is not true
Out of step with C44 pilots
To be determined by you
For most line pilots, these are petty and trifle matters, but they are tools for stirring up rumors and emotions to justify our removal. Other concerns have substance, but the answers are more nuanced.
Some members have expressed concern we are not in lockstep with the C44 captain representatives with our votes. If that is the desire, why do F/O representatives have a vote in the first place? Each representative should—and must—vote their own conscience, not the conscience of another. We achieve better results with spirited debate and challenging each of our positions, not a go-along-get-along approach (à la TA1).
The “secret meeting” of 12 representatives continues to be blown out of proportion. First, it wasn’t a “secret.” It was a caucus (fancy word for discussion). Yes, both of us participated in that caucus. At the time, it was clear there were hardening positions forming from a minority of the MEC to accept a quicker, lesser deal. The 12 of us needed time to focus our own consensus position and present a united front. We are 100 percent confident the actions of the 12 led to a better deal in the end. While the sky was falling for some who we were “parked” by the NMB, the undersigned pushed the negotiators, the administration, and the minority of the MEC to stand strong. Given the result, we would caucus again similarly in the future if that’s what it takes to get results.
One particularly distorted critique that won’t go away is the fact that Jimmy Johnson voted “yes” and then switched his vote to “no” on the final TA resolution. He simply misunderstood the way the discussion and resolution were presented at a very busy MEC meeting. When he realized his error he immediately corrected his vote. Are there any among us who haven’t misunderstood an ATC clearance and (hopefully) corrected it? This is nothing more than faux outrage being ginned up to get a desired result.
The most vocal of our opponents make interesting bedfellows. Many who now demand our ouster for not voting for Captain Malone openly questioned his candidacy in 2015. Once elected, these same individuals then refused to support the simplest of unity efforts such as wearing the orange lanyard or informational picketing. Keep in mind, when they failed to support these efforts, they weren’t just turning their backs on Captain Malone and the MEC, they were turning their backs on you. Now they’re angry we didn’t support the same guy they refused to support and they want you to follow their lead and get rid of us. Try to follow that pretzel logic.
The report and perspectives you received Monday from the captain representatives, while disappointing, is not surprising. By their own words, they cannot work with us. But, the reverse is not true. We will work with whomever is seated around the table. Just like you, where you don’t get to pick who you fly with, they don’t get to pick who they work with on the MEC—only you do.
This is power politics at its rawest. A vocal group of connected insiders is using their contact list to spread falsehoods and levy personal attacks to regain control. Our union has a long history of picking who is welcome and who is unwelcome to serve. We thought those days were behind us. They clearly are not—yet.
Finally, from a more global view, this recall effort, so personalized, will have a chilling effect on recruiting future representatives who are not in lockstep with the careerists. We need not remind you it was the strength of the minority voices on the MEC that led the way to the rejection of TA1 and paved the way for our new contract. It’s up to you to validate or repudiate the politically motivated attacks and marginalization attempts against us because of our votes.
We welcome the opportunity for all C44 pilots to participate in the electronic vote. The ultimate power of your union rests with you, but only if you stay involved. There are currently many existential threats and more on the horizon. Do not let post-contract apathy set in. Your union is at a crossroads. Will the power further centralize? Or, will the pilots take ownership?
This will be your opportunity to have your voice heard. If you feel you want independent representation, not susceptible to threats and intimidation regarding our votes, and do not wish to see a return of the environment that led to TA1, then we ask you to vote against our recall. If you feel we should be removed for voting our conscience and yearn for a more docile MEC, then this will be your chance to make a course correction. Cast your ballot against our recall at the ALPA website
http://www3.alpa.org/VoteNet/tabid/6263/Default.aspx. Please, as unpleasant as this may be, do not abstain. Each vote matters and only those cast will be counted. Your vote or abstention will send a message to the union, to management, and to your fellow pilots. Don’t let others decide for you. The voting window closes on February 10, 2017.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.
Respectfully submitted,
Christopher Kern and Jimmy Johnson