Bitme

Personally I think this is completely misguided. I think what happened is that this legislative effort took them by surprise and they had to go with a gut call and they didn't have the usual time to bring out the vaseline to ease the message.

Realistically we all knew this was coming. Realistically the leadership is doing what they can to mitigate the damage. Realistically the seniority argument holds water. Realistically so many of the back seaters are so close to 65 already the remaining number that would have a shot at returning to the left seat is minimal. So it's a big pill to swallow, but I personally know DW is rabidly against age 65 and is doing what he and alpa can to mitigate the damage. Someone else may take the majority message up the hill, but end up getting more people screwed even with good intentions. This situation is the proverbial rock and a hard place and I think the leadership and MEC deserve a lot more thought put into this by us than this knee jerk reaction.

FWIW I too am against 65, but have known it was just a matter of time and the time has come. Is it really worth tearing apart the Union over a fait acompli. My vote is a resounding no! Think about this.

MD11Fr8Dog

I agree.

MalteseX

I don't think that this will "tear down the union". This may be the spark that will light the fire under members --- it may make us stronger; I think that this may be the issue that wakes the "junior varsity" up....

This is just one of many issues. While I hope you aren't right about "tearing the union down" , maybe it will wake up a vast number of previously "sleeping" members ( I include myself in that group) and make us stronger.

Maybe we can get united under new leadership.

I don't mean this to sound like "ready-fire-aim" but there has been a BIG question raised about the leadership of this union and who they are actually representing. It's worth discussing; it's worth questioning; the discontent has been brewing over small issues and it just came to a head over this one.
The issue of age 65 is being argued on this board, but the big bone of contention is the loss of confidence in the leadership that many, many of our members feel.

THAT is the issue that needs to be addressed---NOT whether the the merits of handling the age 65 issue are "correct" or not. We need to work as a union to ensure our leadership represents ALL of us, or at least we have the confidence they are representing all of us.

Today, that confidence is not there

In a previous life, I was in a union where we threw out the entire MEC and went with all fresh blood. The arguments against doing it were the same-- we'll tear everything down etc. As it turned out, the fresh blood was vastly more productive. I'm not saying we need to do that here, but it won't be the end of the "union" and we won't be torn apart if we do --- however, there MUST be good people to take their place ... otherwise you would be correct, and the union could be damaged.

If we can find people that are "GOOD" and can gain the confidence of the membership, then a discussion to replace the current leadership is not that misguided.

A300_Driver

Maybe it will also wake up the sleepers on the MEC that are not listening to the polling, and are trying to push this "Retroactivity" mess on an already upset group of younger members!!!

Albief15

What happens IF a recall happens?

First--there has to be 25% to even get one on the ballot. That's a challenge--but not an insurmoutable one.

To recall--it will take 66% to remove DW. I don't think that would happen.

However, if "questioning" the motivation of one our MEC leaders or trying to get his attention is so evil and divisive, why would he not in turn support the majority? If anyone on the current board stomps off and says "I'm not playing anymore" because 25% of the membership expressed some concern, I wonder where their true loyalty lies. Are we loyal to our members--or to a guy who's been in office longer than I've been here? Do we really want 10 year term for our leaders or is some fresh blood a good idea?

I'd like Dave to come forward and say "this is why I am the right guy for the job". Everyone makes it sounds like blasphamey to even broach the subject, but our congressmen have to ask for our support every 4 years. I don't think a mandate from the masses putting this to a vote is the end of the world.

In fact--I suspect DW would win a recall by a fair margin. So why do it? So that EVERYONE feels like they got to speak their mind...which is exactly what is NOT happening right now.

nightfreight

Albie,

Agreed. I hope 67% are in favor if a recall is "imminent."

sparkmo

Knowing that the vast majority of an LEC is against a proposal - and every LEC chairman went with the minority (defying any possible odds of actually representing their pilots), I fully understand the feeling of removing the leaders. I am lean in that direction.

T Montana

This is one of those times when we could definitely do without the"leadership" of DW and his minions. The arrogance and cowardice this bunch is displaying right now with regard to the retro provision is an embarassment to this group.

Bitme

I find this like deja vu all over again. I've seen it since 1989. We've been united under this MEC and leadership up until this topic, so the first bump in the road you jump ship? What discontent over small issues do you speak of? You talk of discussing, you talk of questioning, but you're jumping that to recall? OK there may be an eroding of confidence, but I believe with more information the confidence will return. I personally view this as taking a lot of guts. Every one of these guys took a hard stand that they knew would not be popular; maybe we as a membership should put ourselves in their shoes and try and understand why instead of shi+canning them so quickly.

Falconjet

The only way I see these guys not getting recalled is if they are successful in getting the language in the FAA reauthorization bill changed to eliminate the age change so that the FAA NPRM process that has already been announced may have its chance to proceed. That, after all, is the reasoning DW gave as to why it was so important for us to suddenly, after 50 years, change our stance on the Age 60 issue.

IF he was right, then he is a genius and should be elevated to MEC chair for life. IF, however, he was wrong, and we end up with the language as currently proposed in the FAA reauthorization bill and the bill is signed, then he was wrong and has no leg to stand on. He definitely should be recalled (and the rest of the LEC leaders as well) because not only did they ignore the will of the majority because they knew better than us what should be done, they were wrong and will of course blame the membership for not seeing the light sooner. They will never accept responsibility unless there is a recall, and probably not even then.

So although I am completely disenchanted with my LEC and MEC and National ALPA, I think that we should wait to see if the FAA Auth bill is passed as proposed. If not, they were right and a lot of us eat some humble pie, still get hosed, but at least it will be via the NPRM process which is how the change should occur (if it indeed it does).

If, however, we still get the language in the FAA Reauth bill as it stands, they were all dead wrong and all have to go.

Just my opinions, of course.

FJ