Originally Posted by
acl65pilot
The second part of your post 88 and what PG states, is where the reality lies. Some of the gripes have merit. The ones that have not pulled their cards feel ALPA cannot make these points their points, and those that have either not submitted cards, and or asked them to be pulled feel that ALPA is hearing them. They are getting the impression that ALPA sees the need for change, and is going in that direction. Add to this point, it is the worst time for a union drive and desertification, and all of these guy that have had a change of heart feel that way. It is better to build strength under ALPA that to fracture going in to this section six cycle.
Okay, fair enough. I agree with you that a "fractured" pilot group is not what we need going into section six. I'm not sure I agree that it's too late to replace ALPA with DPA and build the necessary unity in time for section six. In other words, this would certainly need to be done very soon (we don't have a lot of time), but I'm not sure we're past the point where it is doable.
I can live with ALPA or DPA, as long as restoring our profession and our careers is the focus. I have seen a few signs of ALPA beginning to embrace this (mainly from talking to some of the reps), but it's way too early to tell about the new MEC administration and whether it will change to a "bottom up" structure. Also, I do not know how you solve the conflict of interest at ALPA National. The complete lack of an appropriate objective, combined with the conflict of interest, makes me lean toward making the change to DPA. But, on the other hand, DPA has not been very forthcoming with specific objectives either... and, as PG points out, they seem to be floundering with regard to their stated timeline.
To me, I guess it boils down to whether ALPA will make it crystal clear that restoration is our objective and somehow solve the conflict of interest. Otherwise, by default, I would choose DPA simply because I don't think it could be any worse.