T-If you have been paying attention I have answered that.
NO.
But not being happy with part of an organization does not mean I want to 1) leave it or 2) not fix it.
I am not sure you have been reading what everyone is typing that is "Pro-ALPA." I do not see one person on here that says that everything is great, there are no issues, and that there is nothing to see here. What we ALL have been stating is that yep, we agree, there are somethings within the National structure that need changing, but unlike you we feel that this new breed of reps is well aware of this, and that over time they will do just that. Simply, the difference in you and I T is that I beleive that ALPA can reform itself, whereas the Pro-DPA crowd believes that is not possible.
I have seen posts attacking Prater, etc, some attacking the small jet v large jet conflict at National, some the pay structure. From my position, I beleive that electing guys that agree that this stuff is front burner issue stuff will result in changes. Do not like Prater, do not let your Reps re-elect him, do not like the pay, call your rep today and demand that our reps on the Compensation Committee at the BOD stop this type of thing. (One of the FO reps from 44 is on this committee; I beleive) In regard to the conflict, have them change the threshold of Group A and B votes, or some other By-Law change that changes the voting structure.
I know a great many things that National does, really I do. I also know by watching independent unions that are invited to ALPA sponsored and non-ALPA sponsored events that there is a night and day difference to the scope and effectiveness of the work done. These first hand experiences are what give me my opinion that there is truly value within this organization.
If there is tangible proof that the Lawyers are telling major airlines MEC's not to take scope back out of fear of DFR issues, fire them. The policy does not show a conflict. You have seen my posts over the last four and a half years on here. I want what is best for the DAL pilots, and all pilots. I have not been able to find tangible evidence that there is any of this going on. If you find proof, and we can not fix that, then that may in fact be enough for me to see a need for what you propose, but currently, I do not.
The reality is that we blame National on this thread for scope failures and conflicts with the Regional crowd when the truth is that the MEC ratified the agreement and their pilots voted all of the scope changes in.
As for the compensation of Prater, well go do a little research and see how that was approved.
How many times have you gone on-line and printed out the different committees that meet at the bod, then found out what ones your reps were going to be on? It takes work to be a pilot member of any association. The dues are not country club fees. Engagement is not just requested but necessary. You can argue that you have given up as Carl has, but I have not.
I know this is a long longer than the one word answer you want, but asking a question like that is actually the wrong way to go about it. Be specific. If we ever get to the point where there can never be any improvement I will get very concerned.
As for DPA, the idea may be relevant, the secrecy and timing is not. I welcome the opposition for ALPA. It is my opinion that if you do a real Pro Con list the answer is clear. I did and I stand by my original position that ALPA and its warts will still far out weigh an independent union that is loosely tied to a national organization.