Originally Posted by
DAL 88 Driver
Right now, we're in the early stages of setting the agenda for C2012. The added debate is a good thing, I think. We need to define our objectives and clearly state our resolve to achieve them. If DPA can do this... or if it forces ALPA to do this... then either way it solves a serious problem.
Good points! Added debate is a good thing. Defining objectives, and more importantly, setting priorities as a
collective group, are essential.
So back to the issue I raised. To what extent should a clear minority be able to drive the agenda? At some point each of us sees our pet issue placed behind other objectives. Want to start a
"Tastes Great!...Less Filling" argument? Ask which is a higher priority - Scope or Compensation.
Now insert into that discussion the claim that raising the Reserve guarantee should be our #1 objective in the next contract. If 10% of the pilot group thinks that, do we bow to their wishes? Do we blow them off? Do we explain to them the need to place their issue farther down the list, and ask them to accept that rank in the name of "unity"?
If we agree on 90% of the issues, are we failing? How about 85%
I think the "serious problem" you mention in your post is actually anger at not getting our way. If just 10% of the pilots who've sent in DPA cards would attend the next MEC meeting, and make their points in person, they would have an impact.
But they won't. They'll spout some drivel like,
"They'll just close the meeting on us!", or "
My reps wont listen!".