Wake Up - Seattle LEC Election
 

If you want a new contract it's important to have adults in the room that know a good deal when they see one.

3 of the 4 rep candidates can do this. The incumbent Blankenship has shown he cannot be trusted to do so.

He was the ONLY First Officer Rep to vote against LOA 20-04. If you don't remember, 20-04 provided furlough protection for UNA's.

He was against protecting these pilots' jobs. Now he's hoping you won't remember.

By all appearances he is an entrenched DALPA insider that votes the way he's told. His handlers are censoring any attempt to present the real story on the C54 Facebook page and I assume they will be along here shortly to shout this down.

Read for yourself and share with other SEA-based pilots:

c54election.com

LOA 20-04 not only mitigated the furlough of 1941 of our fellow union brothers and sisters but it also reduced the green slip trigger to the lesser of 72 hrs or the ALV - 5 (whichever is less) and permanently reduced the TLV to 73-78 hours improving the quality of life and/or advancement opportunities for most every pilot on the seniority list. It is difficult to comprehend how Blankenship would think he has earned our support for another term after voting against the interests of the pilots he was elected to represent.

Seriously how many threads do you need on the same subject…the website is an anonymous sham.

Feel free to merge them. The other was started because this was not published.

One is enough to shine some light on the record.

Anything factually incorrect with the website?

Or you just don’t like anyone questioning your candidate’s record?

It wasn’t immediately published because your account was started yesterday (22 Oct). There are moderation requirements for new users… I’m surprised you didn’t know that with your obvious acumen for HTML and building websites.

it’s just silly how there’s next to no information about any other candidate on “election watch”. Yawn.

So we can file that under no objections to the facts on the website?

Sure. File it wherever you want.

I guess I’m just trying to figure out the issue you have with our current rep when compared with the other candidate.

I mean, even the platform she’s running on is ridiculous: “I agree with everything our current rep believes, and would have voted the same way he did—even on LOA 20-03 and 20-04—given the feedback received from constituents. I just happened to have been a UNA and didn’t like it.”

Seriously… that’s the platform: Disdain for voting against an LOA that she, herself, said she would have voted the same way for if in his shoes given the feedback received from his constituents.

Let me repeat this: She wants to tout that she doesn’t like his vote, yet would have voted the same way? Seriously—does that make sense?

The other candidate (MJ) has no experience on our MEC and no understanding of our current contract negotiations, as she hasn’t been a part of any DALPA committee in her short career at DAL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Troll! Nothing to see here…just move along. Another drive by attack. Don’t waste your time reading this garbage thread. Call your SEA reps and let them speak for themselves and answer any questions you might have.

The issue is not this one particularly poor decision to vote no to an obvious yes.

It’s that he won’t be able to make the right call when faced with a similar situation. I’m sure WB is a very nice guy. He has shown himself to be too easily influenced.

It’s always the safe play to say you deserved more. LOA 20-04 was one of the rare, obvious yes votes and he couldn’t even get there.

How long will he hold up your new PWA because he’s scared to explain his yes?

I was UNA and I support Wes.

The current c54 reps have been awesome and some of the easiest I’ve ever worked with. At every turn all 3 of the current reps have been staunch pilot advocates. Not sure why there would need to be a change for captain since the pilot running against him has said she would do everything exactly the same way he did…seems she’s just going against it as a campaign talking point.

That website reminds me of all the political hit job commercials I see on tv….even worse is that it’s hidden behind anonymity….definitely not a hack job that the OPs throwaway account was just created to post it too….maybe you’d get some respect for actually saying who you are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think the OP understands what a DALPA insider is if their complaint is that the rep voted against 20-04.

Seems like they just used a bunch of buzz words they heard in the crew room to cobble together this nonsense

Wes has done a great job, as did all the SEA reps. More then a few Former UNA folks have agreed and say they are voting for him.

if anyone wants to know who is behind the website, it just takes some time and little $. There was a similar thing started during BK, bad mouthing certain reps. Couple weeks later, the website founders were outed. The names were just a bit surprising.

it was registered anonymously

Correct, the website back then was registered anonymously. Couple more steps and the owner of the domain name was presented. If someone cares enough, it not difficult.

IMO, Wes will be elected hands down so some lane website will have zero affect. Probably actually helps him.

I agree, every SEA pilot i've spoken to has said nothing but good things about their current reps. To call him someone voting as his handlers say is clearly from someone who has no idea what they are talking about and just trying to spit out talking points and see what sticks.

Kissinger had a quote about academics and politics that seems appropriate:

“ Academic politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.”

(I’ve no dog in this LEC fight)

First of all, LOA 20-03 was NOT intended to provide "furlough protections" as the website implies. It was intended to be a raft of "voluntary" staffing mitigations that enticed the MEC to negotiate for "involuntary" measures.

LOA 20-03 was and is a joke. Just ask anyone who voted in favor of LOA 20-03 with the expectation that they would be able to sit Ultra Long Call reserve.

Total number of ULC reserve lines awarded, EVER....zero.

Wes saw through the ruse. He communicated it clearly at the time. There were no requirements, no triggers, no obligation for management to offer any of it. Everything was at "company discretion." That never works out for pilots. If Michelle Jacobsen can't see that, she's already in over her head.

ULC in fact was a bribe to commuters to vote for 20-03. It's a bribe that never paid off, and without those ill-gotten votes, 20-03 never would have passed.

A fact missing from that anonymous website: Michelle Jacobsen was on the XJT MEC with none other than toxic former C44 rep Jay Coweison. They're buddies. His fingerprints are all over this campaign and this candidate's negative, caustic mindset.

Here's a giant red flag: There is a supremely important strike vote open right now. Unity and teamwork are paramount to getting Delta pilots a strong TA, and it starts with a strike vote. Her tactics show that she is more interested in her personal agenda than building unity and doing what's best for C54 pilots. She could be running an inclusive campaign based on ideas, unity, and leadership. Instead, she's running a negative campaign based on personal attacks and cherry-picked narratives when we need unity most. To be clear, her actions show that she is motivated by her own political gain, and not by serving the pilots' best interests.

All this aside, you won't find a more conscientious, selfless pilot advocate than Wes.

I wonder when the new guy is gonna figure out he’s doing more harm than good?

I wonder when Flight Ops “leadership” and the c-suite are going to realize they made a giant mistake?

So your first post was 2 days ago? Entrenched DALPA? It’s his first time on the horseshoe. My guess is you’re a friend of the person running and just throwing 💩 at a wall to see if it sticks. Did you see the results of round one? Wes won nearly 3 to 1. He’s definitely not a ‘do what he’s told’ kind of guy, I’ve seen him in action and there’s no one else I’d want to see representing te SEA pilots.

Won’t find any better pilot advocate than Wes. Not my council, but y’all are fools to vote him out.

Actions not Words
 

To the lurkers:

Read the LOA language yourself and then ask yourself why a rep, particularly an FO rep, would vote against any of this. The LOA's provided voluntary options for pilots and permanent improvements to our PWA.

The LOA names say it all:

LOA #20-03 – Voluntary Scheduling Options

LOA #20-04 – Furlough Avoidance


Do not confuse "a great pilot advocate" with someone that tells you what you want to hear. It's always popular to tell someone that they can get "more".

A responsible rep eventually has to decide not to let perfect be the enemy of good; collecting (in this case) permanent gains and protections for his pilots.

The question is, why did he vote no?

Will he be able to add value to the PWA going forward when faced with a similar situation (for example, a TA)?

And that kind of pontificating is exactly how we got TA1. By wasting leverage, being crippled by risk aversion, and giving into the worst of all ALPA-isms: "we'll get 'em next time."

Were you here when we identified and defeated TA1? Michelle wasn't.

A captain rep candidate who wants to jump right in to these Section 6 negotiations, without the valuable lessons and insight gleaned from living through that abomination, is hard to fathom. For an FO rep, it would be understandable. It's great to have junior pilots volunteer for that role and bring their perspective. But for a captain rep? And a captain rep running a negative campaign, no less?
C54 pilots will decide.

really doubling down, huh? Good luck with that.

Yes it's his first time on the horseshoe. Both Captain candidates are relatively new to Delta. The FO reps even more so. I view the new perspective and energy as a good thing for the base and pilot group at large.

By entrenched I mean he has clearly been chosen by the DALPA machine.


Q: Why did Wes (as Vice Chair) send us the Strike Vote robo-call instead of the Chairman, as other LEC's did?

A: Somebody at DALPA decided that it would be good for his campaign and name recognition, so they put their finger on the scale.

I’ve got no dog in this fight, but anyone who judges the merits of a bill/proposal/mou/loa on its name - or encourages anyone else to - is playing an agenda.

You know that's not how any of this works, right?

Now I’m gonna have to say that 16L lacks some serious situational awareness and any candidate who is endorsed, probably isn’t one most would want.

Please continue to grasp at straws, this is getting enteraining. I'm not sure if all the councils did, but I know a lot used the chairman for the picketing call to action and the vice chairman/FO rep for the strike vote call to action so that they all participated in it....has absolutely nothing to do with him running for office.


it appears one side of this chairman campaign is running a smear race, the other isn't.

Or the Captain rep isn’t running again and asked him to make the robo call because he’s on his way out and endorses him. Not hard to see that…

And again, my favorite part about your advocacy of Michelle: she has stated that she would have voted the same way Wes did on those LOA’s given the feedback received from constituents (she would have been an FO rep who voted against the LOA’s). So she, too, would have made a bad decision according to you…. Michelle literally has no platform to stand on.

I guess I don’t understand the play. Wes has done a great job advocating for SEA and all DL pilots. Easy vote for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The pilot group ratified LOA 20-04 Furlough Avoidance by a wide margin (~74%)

Your own council 48 ratified it by 82%. How do you explain that? Since you've shown up here, maybe you can tell us which of the voluntary options or permanent gains was bad for the pilot group. We've already heard "but it should've been more" so try to add something new.

Bottom line, LEC reps that voted no (including the incumbent WB that we're discussing) were out of touch with their pilots

how do i explain it? Easy...council 48 isn't council 54....I know this is a crazy concept, but different councils can view things differently. As a council, 20-04 was the LOA we received the LEAST amount of feedback from constituents on since my time as a rep.

I don't have a dog in this fight and don't have a vote in the C54 election, but I too am curious why someone would vote against LOA 20-04? Seemed like a slam dunk to me for a multitude of reasons.

Also, how can anyone claim this person was representing the will of C54 when 82% voted yes and they voted no?


Edit: not sure what the C54 percentage was? Can someone enlighten me

So Michelle is “out of touch” as well, as she has stated multiple times that she would have voted the same way that Wes did given the feedback received from C54 FO’s.

You’re literally advocating against your choice for rep right now with this logic.

You need to quit, as you’re doing her more harm than good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They aren't going to engage on that. The OP doesn't live in reality.

SEA (and all councils) ratified strongly via MEMRAT. It was a no brainer. The NO reps were out of touch. Why?

My robocall came from my Vice Chair as well. I'm not in SEA, but I too support Wes and hope he is reelected.