Thanks, this is what I'm looking for. I'll put a thread on the main board so more outside AA will see it.

 

Personally I believe each local council should have two reps...a CA rep and an F/O rep. Each should have a vote on the MEC. A "Senate" system as Tony C would say.

You could make the argument that this system give a smaller council more power than it should have versus a much larger local council. The larger councils always have the option of roll call votes if they desire to exercise it.

Block representation effectively eliminates the voice of one of the status reps on small locals by denying him a vote. Usually that is the F/O rep because CAs are larger numbers in all councils due to longer vacations, etc.

Not a fan of block representation.

 

Maybe I don't understand block representation works. I envision a system where the national board is elected, represents and votes for a block of the seniority list, not a base. Base issues like CP representation would be handled by others.

Not possible?

 

TonyC,

It appears our posts fly past each other.

Block representation in my view will not solve the dysfunctionality at APA. The very problem we now have is a due to the self-serving parochial interests created by each block (seniority range).

Senior CA's care about making as much as they can before they have to leave and retirement issues.

Middle range pilots care "mainly" (not only) about quality of life issues.

Junior (particularly previously furloughed) pilots care about movement, upgrades, LOS and reserve issues.

Each group transcends into each other's interests but we fail because most care largely about their block issues and not the overall issues.

Put that into a BOD room and how does it make the unity any better at coming to a decision and coming out unified? Many of you are inaccurately stating the APA leadership is made up of only senior pilots. If that's true look how dysfunctional it is with a similar group with what should be common interests. Block representation is going to make that process better?

Reread my posts. Where did I ever write block representation will allow 22 FO's? It theoretically could (sub 1000 FO's) but that is not what I wrote.

What I wrote is that under our current structure, especially where barely 50% of pilots even vote for elected leaders, a unified junior group that was well organized could sweep the elections of APA leadership positions. You can't do that under a block representation structure.

Problem is, once again, unity. It falls apart throughout our ranks, even the junior ranks.

 

Saab,

Cutting down the size would expedite decisions (somewhat) obviously but the unintended consequence of that would be the concentration of power in fewer hands. Just imagine if your DFW rep was the one to survive the cut. He would control 20% of the voting powers within APA.

Is that better?

 

You mean like why LAA pilots deserve better seniority than LUS? I know I won't let it go. But don't believe me, LAA pilot greed is back at it again and they won't let it go,either:
https://fairintegration.org/pdf/AAPi...t_20170127.pdf

 

The problem I see is not whether good members elect good leaders or whether good leaders produce good members. It's that are our best members and potential best leaders willing to run for leadership positions?

I believe the answer is no. How many elections go uncontested? Why? Most have no desire to get involved in this quagmire of union leadership.

I would bet out of all the posters on this forum less than 1 out of 20 has ever put their name in to run for an elected position yet they very elequently describe how bad our leadership is and how they would fix it (truly not intended at your point).

Why aren't the junior guys elected. How many run? I saw several bases recently run uncontested. Where were those junior pilots that wanted change. That wanted to represent their block.

It's easy to get on a forum post your post about everything the union is doing wrong and how you would change it and then go play a round of golf. It's another to put your name in the hat and actually run for the position.

There are very few pilots running for these positions. If there is a sharp, junior FO out there that wants to make a difference all he has to do is put his/her name in the hat and prove to all he is a better leader than his rival.
I've seen junior pilots elected before.

 

As long as you have senior Captains making almost ten times as much as a new hire, Captain vs. F/O reserves vs. block holders, etc. you will have disparity. Take away seniority and you have nothing. While the theory of the discussion is fun, the reality is 2020 will come and go without a contract.

 

You are too kind, he/they needs his/their balls chopped off.

 

Your exactly right about the seniority range of FO's.

But wouldn't a min calendar day be very important to a mid seniority range Captain who is in a different block? So that's not just a block issue.

That's the problem, even within the block there are diverse interests as illustrated by your example.

I get your point but what I foresee is that block representation does not resolve the problems of APA that was first brought up. How does adding more complexity resolve the prices?

Just to be clear, I did not write FOs have power under "block representation" I wrote they have power "voting as a block".

If it's not an FO issue but a junior issue then they have power to vote as a "junior block". How many of your concerned FO's have run for a position?

Imagine if every pilot in the bottom third of the seniority list in PHL, MIA, LGA voted as a block for a junior pilot running for domicile officer. That pilot would win by a landslide due to common apathy from the other two thirds pilots.

It's about unity. If we cannot unify around a simple issue like floating vacation it doesn't matter what we do, we're doomed.