I think some of you miss the point. Perhaps because you lack most of the facts. The "union" has no right, other than identified in the Constitution and By Laws, to seek punitive action against another union pilot. This is bigger than most of you think.

It's not about JP, it's about all of us. In taking the steps they did, the MEC itself is in violation of several ALPA policies. In spite of what JP may or may not have done, most of us would agree we have a right to face our accusers and the right to hear those grievances in a proper forum. Simply passing a resolution to present a letter disciplinary in nature is not how the process works. This, not what may or may not happen to JP, is what has us upset.

Suppose an MEC member has a hard on for me. He approaches the MEC with allegations about me, gets enough votes to pass a resolution, and the next thing I know I'm on my way to SBY. I was never afforded the right to face my accusers or provided the chance to present my arguments.

Now I get a union rep to present my case. How does that work. On one hand they made allegations and on the other they have to defend me. This, among many other reasons, is why there are procedures to follow. The MEC didn't.

Had the proper protocols been followed, this would have never created a situation for the leak (very damaging for all of us) and still could have achieved the objective the MEC sought.

According to the words of our own leader, ALPA legal is concerned. When faced with their concerns the MEC let a few hot heads on the MEC take them down the wrong road. I like Chuck. In this case he let two idiots run wild. The end result was, the MEC addressed a potential wrong with a definite wrong. The classic example of two wrongs. We know how that ends up.

To quote a word from dash8, "apparently." I did not say I disagreed with the MEC's position, but it needed to be more than "apparently" before proceeding. If conducted properly the Buffalo News would have never had access. In response to your concern of the, "realm of inflammatory," the same applies to the MEC in a more legal fashion. When the MEC goes on record an said someone did something, it needs to be more than apparent, especially if it ends up in the media. If not, it's libel and that can get ALPA national in deep water. That is why ALPA legal is concerned. Bottom line, the MEC should have proven the allegations first in a proper forum and then proceed. I think that is what we would want had it been any of us.