It is set up to fail. The member of the BOD “jobs” would be reduced.

 

Would it? The ALPA LEC structure seems similar to our current 2 'jobs' per base system.

 

It doesn’t really matter. There’s nothing to hold the board’s feet to the fire to to get the resolution sent to the membership. When they DO send it to the membership, it has to pass by a >50% vote of the entire membership. Those too lazy to vote will be counted as voting against it. Then it goes back into the vault for 25 years. But rest assured, the BoD will crow that the pilots have finally made their choice.

 

We should make everything require >50% of the group for it to be definitive. Contract, elections, etc.

 

I did not know that, wow that is dirty as ****. They know how apathetic this pilot group is and they took full advantage of it.

 

I agree with you sir. However, I’m of the opinion that the resolution should be decided by those who actively participate and vote. The inaction of the lazy and apathetic shouldn’t influence the decision in any way whatsoever.

It takes all of five minutes and a few button-presses.

 

This would be a significant monumental vote though. It would absolutely generate participation numbers similar to voting on a new contract.

 

I tend to agree. It should easily attract 50%. I'd also argue that a very loud 10% shouldn't get to decide anything for all of us even the apathetic.

I continue to hope they will give us a best of both worlds deal. Otherwise they are really wasting a ton of our money. I appreciate the dues holiday though.

 

I respectfully disagree, and I think that it’s not quite honest to characterize those who are pro-ALPA merger as a 10% vocal minority.

i happen to like most things about APA. But the lack of transparency and the dirty gamesmanship of pretending to give the membership a voice in this matter while designing a process that ensures the “apathetic” who won’t vote carry the day AGAINST the merger is wrong. To add a clause that hamstrings the membership from even bringing the question again for 25 years is the icing on the cake (for the BoD anyways).

 

Thank you for being respectful; I hope I come across the same way. I think all of us want what we honestly believe will be the best for our careers.

I am in full agreement about the dirty tricks. The effort to table it for 25 years is absurd but I'm not sure it's compatible with the bylaws and might be overturned in the future if necessary.

I suspect the pro camp is larger than 10% but the lanyard wearing evangelizers are absolutely a small vocal minority. That doesn't mean they are wrong. Groups like that have done much good politically; they have also done much harm. Some good has already come from the bruhaha with the recall and the changes to the recall rules. Tinpot dictators trying to protect their fiefdoms are bad everywhere they exist.

However, the binary ALPA good, APA bad (which is what seems to come from the lanyard wearers) is an extremely sophomoric position. They have things that are better and we have things that are better. That's why I keep pounding the table about best of both worlds.

I don't care too much about the logo on the door. I care deeply about contract administration and expect our representatives to make sure the company sees the boundaries as clear bright lines and follows them. Life is much easier when we're not personally fighting for every dollar and being pushed.

I want to keep our aeromedical nurses. Having experienced both I can absolutely affirm that they are far superior to AMAS.

I also want to either keep our disability plans or be transferred to the ALPA ones at the maximum benefit level without medical underwriting. For people with existing conditions that can't pass underwriting anything less would be a significant loss of benefits.

So my vote hinges on the terms of the agreement and if I think they will affect me positively or negatively. If our committee and the board are honest they will work to ensure a positive outcome. Time will tell but I will join you in being very upset if they do not do so.