Albie,

I read your comments (as we all do) all of the time, and based on those comments, I respect your opinion and think you would do a great job for the membership. Good on you! I hope you get the job and I feel confident, once in office, you will do your best. I, for one, would like to continue seeing your commentary here on ALPC. I used to look forward to TonyC's opinions, also. I hope that the team that fitted TonyC's muzzle can not fit you as well...

 

Here's an idea out loud for everyone. During a recent conversation with the Sec/Treasurer he commented that the ideas of web meetings and a more open environment get brought up all the time, but ALPA legal has given a lot reasons against it, largely for liability reasons.

My question is that if we DO expose the union/MEC to more liability, can we find an underwriter to protect us with an insurance policy? What would the premium cost? Would the premium be worth the tradeoffs? I have a policy for a commmercial riding stable--and I pay out the yang for it. However--its a cost of doing business, and its worth the premium. I think the "limited communication" is a cop out. I think the muzzle you refer to actually hurts more than it helps in the loss of credibilty and open discussion. I understand WHY some think muzzles are necessary. I just think some of the risks can be mitigate with smart choices, and in necessary--some additionally liability protection.

The current answer is always "call us--talk to us..." However, 4800 x 12 block reps doesn't always work. I don't claim to have EVERY solution for the comm issues. I do think, however, whoever leads the union in the future needs to put a tremendous amount of time, energy, and (perhaps) some money into improving the ability to interact and solicit input from the membership. Yeah...its a representive democracy, but with the damage done so far to the trust and credibility of the MEC, we need to find a way to improve the interaction between the leaders and the members. Period. And win or lose...my biggest hope is that whoever wins puts a lot of time and effort into that issue. Vic swears he will in block 2, and Cory...also running for block 7...mentions communication as well as an area he wants to improve. Good on him and if he wins I'll do all I can to help him there. Whoever does the job--if we want a contract next time that garners 96% of the vote, we need to make sure we are "communicating" through the process and not just "selling" once the deal is done. I thought the input we took on the contract was awesome. I thought the lack of input on the LOA was a huge mistake. STV? Who thought that was a good idea?

I know its a real "chicken and egg..." issue. Which comes first--trust and credibility or performance? I was thrilled with the last contract and how the NC got things done. Six months later I was angry and felt locked out of the age 60 issue. The LOA was even worse--the age 60 battle we could at least atrribute to some outside forces, but the LOA was our own battle. I'm sure the leaders who we were doing the wave for a year ago are wondering "if they loved us then why don't they trust us now?"

So--I propose we accept the risk and open things up. I propose we encourage our reps to get out and speak out--even if sometimes they have to say "oops...I misspoke!" And they will... But I think the maturity of the crew force means that we won't clobber a guy for a sound bite--if there is enough info out there to give it context.

Again--don't claim to have all the answers. But we can do better....

 

I am not a lawyer, but I can't understand the legality issues of a webcast. I think that is BS. Every company does a webcast for their earnings call. Everyone begins with the same disclaimer. A webcast on a presentation at a "hub-turn" cannot have very large legal ramifications. And if so, I am pretty sure some disclaimer saying that ALPA doesn't necessarily agree with what was presented and has no legal accountablity should suffice. In my opinion, that is week.

 

The last time FDX-ALPA/FPA did a webcast, in the Fall of '98, a FedEx manager pilot negotiating across the table from the union negotiators sued the union and certain individuals - he lost his medical for a while too! The results of the eventual settlement have never been disclosed, but I wonder if maybe they (we) are still gun shy!

 

So Albie you going to the block 7&8 hoedown this week. I'm not; but as one of your syncopants I'm wondering if the timing of the meeting is an evil plot. Can we have T shirts made? Would you prefer toadies for Albie?

 

Wow.

No, f#$%ing, WOW......

 

No...unfortunately I already made a committment to train a Delta pilot that day to join our business while I work with a couple of Delta candidates. If I am lucky enough to win I'm going to be pushing more of my business to my team, and this former Hornet driver is going to be helping us on the West Coast. I would love to be there, but synching up two airline guys' schedules is tough and I need to make this happen.

Again--this is the perfect example of why a tele-conference could be handy. There are times when sharing info in public would be a bad idea. There is no reason for the NC to broadcast "...and this is what it would take to get us to sign" or "...and these are our main strategies....". Obviously, anything discipline related needs to stay within the confines of the legal team. However, a routine meeting like this would get a lot more participation if the folks out in the field could listen in.

 

Maybe we should ask to be paid in Phillipine pesos?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...diY&refer=home

 

So it was an evil plot. I wouldn't be surprised if your delta pilot guy is really a MEC member trying to keep you from the meeting.

Anything said at hub turn meeting and 91.83% of what is said at any other open union meeting is known to management. Sounds like what the real fear is of being held accountable.

 

Sued who on what basis...???