NuGuy

Heyas,

I'd be interested in what you consider to be acceptable "qualifications".

Really, LEC reps are there to execute the will of the pilots that they represent. The only qualification required is the ability to listen to the pilots and represent their issues.

You don't need to know how to schmooze in the hospitality suite. You don't need to know how to "manage their expectations". No need to feed them party line, because the only party line should be the one that pilots themselves insist on.

This isn't rocket science, but like most empire builders, you want to make it more complicated than it really is.

Nu

Pineapple Guy

NuGuy, you have a very narrow and naive view, imho. A rep needs to be much more than simply an automaton who polls his pilots and votes what 51% of them want. The average rep is considerably more informed, devotes considerably more thought, and devotes considerably more time to the issues than the average line guy. While it is critical that he listen to the line pilot input; sometimes he needs to make the tough call and vote contrary to that input --- then go out and educate the pilot group on what he did --- and be held accountable for that decision.

Otherwise, we don't need reps. Just put polling stations in all the crew lounges, and have it done automatically. Each line guy gets to think about the issue for, oh say 15 seconds, and then vote. That's no way to run a successful organization.

Bucking Bar

Nu,

Love you like a Bro' but respectfully disagree. There is a way ALPA, or any large organization, does business. Understanding how the machine runs helps a Rep be more effective in representing his, or her, pilots.

Also a Rep needs to understand the machine well enough to be able to think independently. While our MEC and Chair have done an overall excellent job, there are still some areas that really need reconsideration.

For instance, scope. ... I enthusiastically support those who understand that unity is the key to strength and relevance in our association. That makes the "establishment" a little nervous, but, we sure need to stop using scope to define the flying we DON'T perform.

newKnow

Aaaahh, how did I get more senior in my position after this North AE? The DC-9 must REALLY suck.

slowplay

Nice shot....

If you get elected you'll find out that some of those things you dismiss are necessary to be effective(the others are your misrepresentations, indicating you don't know squat about the process). But the pilots that you'll pretend to represent will suffer until you learn how to be effective.

Good luck with that.

80ktsClamp

A rep's personal view is crucial to know and understand. Their personal viewpoints will always bias their actions and what they pursue- regardless of how they respond to external group input, there will be a reflection of what they desire.

These are elected reps, not elected robots.

Was good to see you guys at the LEC 44 meeting today. Sans 1, I was pleased with who was nominated.

hockeypilot44

I strongly disagree with this post. Personally, I think we would be better off with your polling system. ALPA is not a successful organization. It is a failure. For every minor victory has given us, it has given us major losses. The officers should NEVER vote contrary to the line pilot input. When they start doing that, they start serving self-interest. I agree with Nu. The reps are there to listen to the line pilots and do what the line pilots tell them to. I'm sick and tired of politics ruining our profession.

NuGuy

Heyas Hockey,

Agreed. It is a dangerous slippery slope...more and more of the line pilot input is cut out because "you guys don't have the facts".

And what do we get in it's stead? Polling...polling where the origins of the vague questions are unknown to the line pilot, and have gone through a vetting process equally shrouded.

All of a sudden, you have a top heavy organization where the top "knows whats best", and what communications there are seen as a chore and a burden, and not as a responsibility.

Pilots are pretty smart people. They get up every day, tie their shoes, find their gates, add up the fuel tab, and everything. Given them the information, and they'll make the right call.

Heck, we can't even get a one page summary of what happened at a MEC meeting. Sheesh, take a note or two, jot it down, type it up and send it out. Takes about 5 minutes. Oh, wait, we need to pass it up and down and have it stamped in quadruplicate, lost, found, buried in the yard for 3 months, and when it's unearthed with the lutefisk, maybe we'll send it out.

Considering we pay people flight pay loss to do this, it's a mystery. Also considering the money spent on your typical MEC meeting, including FPL, food, rooms, and yes, the open bar in the hospitality suite, you think they'd throw a bone.

Nu

NuGuy

Heyas Bar,

Right back at ya bro! But we can respectfully disagree on this point. Treating ALPA as a business has led to too close an association to the methods of management that we all revile (well, most of us).

I'm not saying it can't be a well run, efficient operation, but I think we've lost sight of the customers...the line pilot. They're more than customers, they're stockholders and the people that write the friggin' checks. These are the guys the reps work for, and despite claims to the contrary, the MEC officers work for the reps, not the other way around.

Some of the discussions on scope from some have sounded like a used car salesman selling me the TruCoat on a new car. "See, the more flying we give away is better for the bottom line because you get a rebate on each flight they do and blah blah blah blah...."

I'm with you %100 on the scope issue. I think the JV and all the associated hoopla has done service to the argument because it's opened the eyes of the senior guys and has made them realize that NO flying is safe if it is a bargaining chip.

I suspect that if we manage to retain the 100 seat flying through some kind of replacement aircraft, this is how it will be couched, with further scope givebacks. The argument will be framed as a win because "we saved the 100 seat flying" despite the fact that it was ours to begin with.

Nu

NuGuy

Heyas,

Interesting that you put it that way. You assume that the airline is some kind of pie and to be divided up by the MEC, and that if you don't grovel sufficiently, you get cut out.

Also implied in your statement that what's good for one base isn't good for another. I thought what was good for one was good for all?

Assuming that NuGuy ever decides to do anything other than sit on the couch and eat Ring Dings (oops, sorry, new management, Moonpies and RC Cola), his version of "effective" will be getting information to the pilots he represents, and doing THEIR will...since that's what "represent" means.

BTW, you never did answer my question (gosh, what a shocker!)...what do you consider to be "qualified"?

Nu