Your use of JM as an example is an interesting one, as it does highlight and contrast both viewpoints being discussed here.

For purposes of this discussion, let's stipulate that JM was doing the best job that he knew how to do.

JM was not reelected during a normal election cycle. He was not recalled or fired, but his challenger won the MEC vote. JM was also extremely popular with line pilots. His communications were filled with the bellicose rhetoric of traditional labor, especially regarding the pilot DB plan.

With the benefit of history we know that the pilot DB plan was grossly underfunded and its condition was getting worse. In late July, 2005 the MEC was briefed on the possibility of a liquidity shortfall that would cut off payment of lump sums. The funding projections were all based on confidential data, something Delta management at the time hadn't and wouldn't provide to the line pilot as its disclosure would eliminate any chance to avoid BK. Malone's R&I group put out a generic bulletin on what a liquidity shortfall is, then followed up 2 weeks later with an R&I bulletin that said lump sums in the hundreds wouldn't effect the plan.

The plan paid fewer than 300 lumps, went into liquidity shortfall, and was terminated. 6878 active pilots lost their pension. Another 6000+ retirees were damaged.

JM hadn't prepared the MEC or the pilot group for that outcome. Outside actuaries weren't hired until July, 2005. Bankruptcy defense and preparation were non-existant. No Strike Committee preparations for contract rejection contingencies completed.

Yet JM was popular with the pilots. You even called to ask "why".

In a normal election cycle the MEC (with significant pilot protest) made a change. Those LEC reps were the guys we, the line pilots, elected to represent us. They're the ones privy to the confidential info. A majority of them came to the conclusion that JM was not effectively carrying out their mandate, so they changed their executive officer.

Had there been popular elections there likely would have been no change. But with the change DALPA prepared a Strike Committee. We hired outside corporate counsel, 2 outside investment banking firms, and outside ERISA (R&I) attorney, and put the Actuarial firm on full time status. That was done just 30 days before the 1113C to reject the Delta PWA. History shows that while bankruptcy SUCKED, the Delta MEC and Delta pilot group protected more of their contract and got a greater return than any other pilot group.

You said the MEC was slow to act. It acted at a regular election. While speculative, a poplular election would likely have left the Delta pilot group completely unprepared for bankruptcy.

The recalls that I've mentioned were all done outside the normal election process. The checks and balances work, imo.

No, no changes like that. I'm sure they'll be posted next week if they're not already, but they were financial oversight stuff for MEC's using contingency funds and equitable treatment of dues across the association (no change for DAL pilots). The changes go to the Board of Directors (all the LEC reps in ALPA) for consideration at the October BOD meeting.

That's what she said :D

Thanks for the informative reply.

Actually, I didn't say it was slow to act. I said there was some period of time when it went along.

That's what makes this an interesting discussion. The checks and balances do work, but it seems to me there is a lag. It feels like the administration is essentially tenured (not a bad thing, up to a point), and the MEC in some cases has only a nuclear option to effect changes, i.e. a recall.

When you remove youself one level, to the LEC, where the recourse is also a recall (resolutions can be easily killed, or simply tabled), the ability of line pilots to influence policy on a real-time basis feels very limited. It's almost as if we're told our system of governance works fine, because we can always have a revolution if we're not happy.

On the other hand, having an elected MEC Chairman raises as many questions as it answers: who would be the more legitimate representative of the pilot group, if there was a conflict between the MEC and Chairman?

Again, I think the answer is pilot involvement, more polling, and especially much more MEMRAT to validate policies on an ongoing basis.

I was about to file a grievance on your intrusion into my Scope... :D

Thanks for the civil discussion!

Hey TSquare, I'm sure SD will allow a one time wearing of the orange pants if Tenn wins today! Fear the Pants!!

Ok thanks. I wouldn't think they'd do something like that. Thanks again.

That's where this whole rogue chairman stuff falls flat on its face. The Chairman serves at the pleasure of the MEC. If a majority of reps don't approve of the job he's doing, then why would they elect him?

I think the real issue is we have a minority of reps who didn't get their way, but that's how democracy works. If the minority can make a strong case to the majority, then they'll become the majority and round and round we go.

Perhaps it would be helpful for the line pilots to hear the different point of view, and let the pilots make up their mind.

Two examples that spring to mind which illustrate a large gap in our representative structure. Master Chairman Moak's 76 seat grievance settlement serves as one example. While Chairman Moak's action was controversial, it was probably reasonable. That example taken to the extreme is what is happening at American Eagle . There, a grievance resolution by a Committee Chair effectively voided their scope.* Now Eagle runs the risk of becoming the next group of ALPA members who's jobs are outsourced.

Certainly we do not want every grievance subject to membership ratification, but something like what happened at Eagle should frighten everyone. There is a balance that has to be found. Perhaps a policy by which grievance settlements which effect more than XXX number pilots have to be voted on by MEC members before being agreed to by the association.

* Prior to bankruptcy. Possibly the result would have been the same either way having seen what happened to the American pilots.s