You have two status reps. Talk to both of them if you have input.

Yes, but if the Capt rep is running, which I think is the case mostly, the FO rep generally moves up to the Captain position in the next election if they can. So the FO rep has a vested interested in the Capt rep moving on up.. I'm in the same positions as CX500T - I did write the FO rep and say who I preferred he vote for. Do I think it will change anything? Eh, we'll see.

Why would the FO rep have a “vested interest” in moving up to the Capt rep position? Is there something more lucrative about being a Capt rep than an FO rep? Is the current FO rep even planning on upgrading any time soon?

#tinfoil

:rolleyes:

That really doesn't match reality.

I think there is a little something to this, but even more influencing is "council solidarity". They don't always vote in lock step, but unless there is a preexisting animus (a la C44 several years ago), there is a lot of relational inertia/pressure for council members to 'support' their own guy/gal.

It’s a fair question. I think there are two or three reasons that ALPA does it this way:

1. A membership-wide ballot would give an advantage to candidates from Atlanta, where two councils are based.
2. Voter participation is typically very low in LEC elections. The current system ensures 100 percent participation in every officer election.
3. The Master Chairman acts as the MEC at-large when the MEC is not in session; the current governance ensures a definitive decision on who gets to act in their names when they’re off the clock, and gives a measure of legitimacy to the office when it interacts with management, government, the media, and third party stakeholders.

APA does it the other way. I am not sure they are any happier with their setup than anyone else. It would be nice to figure out a way to stop the “hey, you vote for me for MC and I will vote for your for SEC” situation.. but there will always be politics I guess.

Dunno but it's how's been in Council 20 for quite a while.

Argenta in his video message to pilots says he'll advocate for full retro pay, going back to the ammendable date. For me, that's easily going to be 120k. I mean, come on. How likely is it that Delta will really cut a check for 1.2 Billion (100k x 12,000) to the pilot group just for retro? It seems like Argenta is glossing over the reality of the situation and just saying what we want to hear.

Not at all, that's $400M per year, well under even sailings annual guestimate on PWA costs.