Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
One would think ... but that does not seem to be the way it works in practice. Many of the issues before the Reps do require a very high level of expertise. They typically do not trust line pilots to be right on these issues. The elected Reps seem to value the expertise of the not elected "experts."
When you've got someone as experienced as our Chairman, or Code Share Committee guy, they truly are experts. Mixed in are those who have simply always been in position and mostly survive on the virtue that their continuity brings with them some confidence in their performance.
It quite the Hobson's choice. Do you boot those who are experienced at running the ship because you think the chosen route is very risky (outsourcing) or do you try to install a more conservative crowd who's ideas and methods are untested?
You really want me to answer that?
I say C; A good mix of both. In unionism a good turnover rate is always good. Always mind the will of the pilots, but in the same light, make sure it is not a fools errands without a objective.
In the Republic case, it appears the evidence is there. In some other instances no so much. The end game of course is to recover flying, but even if that is not obtained in this round, the notion of shell corporations to get around pesky contract language is either reaffirmed or squashed. As a result we have a benchmark in which we can build from.