No dawg in this fight, but as an MEC member a few years ago, I've learned that tension between the NC and the MEC is just the natural state of things. The NC is given direction, but at the same time cannot be micromanaged. Some information needs to be protected for legal reasons, but failing to share the info with the MEC is a problem too. Then again, when MEC members "leak" info it only exacerbates the cycle of distrust. People come and go but the friction between these bodies appears to be the natural state of things.

Bottom line--working for the union and your fellow pilots is harder than it looks. There is rarely a cookie-cutter solution that makes everyone happy, and my experience was that while I disagreed with some (okay, many at times...) there were no perfect heroes and no black hat bad guys. Respect--and discretion--go a long way towards keeping things working in the right direction.

Now--who's my next ALPA volunteer?

An LEC officer can vote however they want to. When they send out a BS letter to explain why voted against an MEC chair who led Delta pilots to their biggest pay raise/net gain ever it reeks of guilt. The letter is full of excuses. Look, just come out and say you think Bartels will now be a better MEC chair. And for the next phase of what has to be done like get rid of TDY and VB he's the man.

But when you come up with lame excuses pointing fingers at people when in fact you were one of the point men - expect blowback. Poggi did not have to explain his vote. But he did, and because of the way he did it he looks lesser for it.

Maybe he felt the need to write the letter based on behind the scenes politics. You can opine all day as to why he did this. The fact is, you weren't a part of the process, nor was I. Saying he looks lesser for it is quite a judgement.

I understand the pull of full time volunteers in the office vs. status Reps and who works for who, despite the standard "we work for you" has been a long standing source of friction.

Also heard from my Rep that the Malone vote was a toss up until some of his supporters engaged in a public flogging of BB and RS during the nominations that pushed a couple fence sitters towards BB.

I think many are tone deaf. They have yet to figure out it's not the Delta they grew up with. Look at some who ran for office or wrote endorsement letters - two former reps who barely survived recall in 44. Now, they desperately want back in and are surprised nobody listens. One in particular has gone way over the edge on SM. The attack dog stuff just doesn't work like it used to and that's all they know. I also heard they drove one fence sitter to BB because of the BS hostile questions.

Sad

Regardless of the ego clashes, did the SLC rep's letter help us as a pilot group?

I don't think the letter from the negotiators would've been written had the SLC letter not been put out there.

My understanding is there are still a number of important things on our plate to refine and improve the contract. Explaining a vote by impugning our negotiators might not be the best way to make progress on those things, and it most certainly will cause a response by them.

Our reps (and negotiators) get paid to hash this stuff out in private at meetings. A public poo-fling suggests there's at least one who thinks the perception of not supporting a successful chairman should be addressed by hanging skiddy underwear in the front yard.

Sad. Let's move on.

Was the NC letter sent to all pilots? Just SLC pilots? I saw it here, but not elsewhere.

Also - What do they want in the form of "censure"?

Niether serve the pilot group. I guess "praise in public, criticize in private" has gone the same way as "humble in victory, gracious in defeat". I find the SM postings of current and near recent volunteers distasteful and more importantly not in the least productive.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what "SM" is. Can you explain?

Social Media.