I'm not "afraid" of a membership vote. It's just a dumb proposition with how we currently do union business. Our LECs run the show. They set policy. They vote to approve certain chair positions. They vote for contractual LOAs or TAs. They set the negotiating priorities. The MEC Chairman works directly for the majority of them.

In the current way we do business, we would have to choose between 2 or more random pilots no one has heard of and decide based solely on high school class president quality campaign letters. I promise free food in the crew lounge and hotel points! If that person wins, the LEC has no power to speak for the will of their constituents. 0-9? Too bad..the pilots elected Captain free stuff for everyone.

​​​​​​

There are no pilots (true line pilots) in any management positions. We are a ledger item... full stop.

In other words, the same way we currently choose LEC leaders. And as your first paragraph states, the LECs are supposed to be running the show regardless.

I’m more interested in the voices of the pilot group as a whole being heard than I am the voices of the few select pilots who are on the MEC — many of whom are only concerned about their ALPA careers. There are too many potential conflicts of interest and ways to manipulate a group that small. The potential risks to having a much larger electorate are significantly less IMHO.

The current situation demonstrates the need for greater checks and balances on the MEC.

I've already said I don't like our current system but at least you're more likely to encounter and talk to one of the reps in your base. I haven't seen or talked to anyone from Seattle in months.

I won't support a change in MEC elections until we make more meaningful changes to how our union does business. Otherwise, it's too easy for fringe demographics to spin the narrative in their favor.

Improvements are needed. DALPA has expanded the use of MEMRAT over the years, which is a step in the right direction. Both the MEC Chairman and ALPA President are the last sticking points, due to the sheer level of politics and cronyism involved.

I wouldn’t worry about that too much. The way officers are elected is set by National bylaws. The only way to change that would be amend the bylaws, which would take a 2/3s vote of the BOD. The BOD is made up of your local reps.

Most of them do pay attention, and after watching the trainwreck at APA, are probably not interested in that kind of governance.

And somehow, an unknown candidate with only a single 2 year term as MEC chairman defeated the assumed heir apparent from UAL in the most lopsided election in ALPA history.

You clearly weren’t here pre-2015, because then you’d know what top down MEC governance really looks like.

Take away the negotiating environment we were in, along with the progress we were making relative to our peers, and we’d all be reading monthly editorials from the heir apparent right now.

I was around pre-2015. Suffice it to say, Moak is the worst product of ALPA’s flawed election bylaws.

Can you point to an effective leadership model in modern democracies that is insulated from cronyism? What might you propose we try to emulate?

UAL had already turned on TI, if that’s who you are referring to. The UAL TA was a disaster, and he lost the support of his own pilot group.