|
If the Recall Succeeds
C44 will hold LEC Meeting to elect interim representatives. Not a council vote. Just those who attend. (Guess who will be out in force?)
If interim election occurs before next MEC meeting and likeminded individuals are elected, expect a total recall of the four new MEC Officers. That will be followed by immediate election of new MEC officers. I struggle to believe JM would be reinstated or that he'd even want the job under these circumstances, so we'd get four new MEC officers with zero input from the pilots. Who's being teed up? That I don't know. If the interim election does not occur, expect the same recall result because there will be two votes missing (C44 FOs will be temporarily unrepresented). Enough to recall the new officers. Again, four new MEC officers with no pilot input. Then C44 will hold elections for "permanent" reps (to fulfill the remainder of the three year terms). Should the members of C44 elect non old guard, you might see another recall of the newly installed officers, but I think that is unlikely because the pilot group will probably target anyone who utters the word "recall" by that point. So, if you're looking for union turmoil for the next four to six months, here's your chance. The south V north force is strong. |
Which ironically, would be the only way to breathe life back into DPA. I had no idea my airline job included a soap opera at no extra charge.
|
Unlike the recalls of 2015, no good will come from this effort. Even if it fails, it succeeds in further dividing the MEC and the pilot group.
|
Originally Posted by MikeF16
(Post 2290817)
Which ironically, would be the only way to breathe life back into DPA. I had no idea my airline job included a soap opera at no extra charge.
|
If the recalls succeed interim reps will be elected by a democratic vote at a council meeting. Everyone should make an effort to attend, and permanent reps will be elected via council wide electronic voting. Despite the FUD being propagated, this is just a democratic process. Too much fear mongering going on.
|
Who in the old guard is astute enough in ALPA policy to use parliamentary procedure to regain power? I can think of only one man. The so-called architect. If he returns we are all effectively silenced because he knows better than any line pilot, and we would never understand.
|
Originally Posted by Bradshaw24
(Post 2291154)
If the recalls succeed interim reps will be elected by a democratic vote at a council meeting. Everyone should make an effort to attend, and permanent reps will be elected via council wide electronic voting. Despite the FUD being propagated, this is just a democratic process. Too much fear mongering going on.
|
Originally Posted by Wuzatforus
(Post 2291253)
Some fear a return of the past. Others long for it.
|
Originally Posted by Bradshaw24
(Post 2291327)
Nothing to fear, unless of course you fear democracy.
|
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2291167)
Who in the old guard is astute enough in ALPA policy to use parliamentary procedure to regain power?
Imagine him winning an election by 1 vote because he voted for himself. Did he ever do that?
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2291167)
I can think of only one man.
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2291167)
The so-called architect.
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2291167)
If he returns we are all effectively silenced because he knows better than any line pilot, and we would never understand.
I understand why you might feel "silenced". If I recently found myself buried underneath an 82% landslide, I'd probably feel that way too. ALPA is run by the pilots who bother to serve and take the heat from the rest of us who don't bother to serve. It becomes "politics" only because we sometimes disagree with the decisions, choices, or priorities of the pilots who are more immersed in it than we are. Recalls are our only accountability tool, since our reps aren't bound by any resolution we pass that tells them exactly how to vote. Recalls for anything other than violating the rules or failing to act as our reps are smelly, but within the rights of the line pilots. I trust you don't disagree with that. If you were one of those expressing outrage at the recalls that took place after TA1, then I apologize for not remembering your posts. If you were one of those who thought those recalls were justified because of the membership ratification results in 2015, then I would appreciate reading your explanation for the double standard. |
If the recall fails, with both Cpt reps voting in favor of, time for a look at both of them? The 65 votes/proxies from the last meeting, which was low due to the two of them not wanting to fight the recall, could be increased significantly with the network in place that almost recalled the four horsemen.
|
Originally Posted by Tanker1497
(Post 2291434)
If the recall fails, with both Cpt reps voting in favor of, time for a look at both of them? The 65 votes/proxies from the last meeting, which was low due to the two of them not wanting to fight the recall, could be increased significantly with the network in place that almost recalled the four horsemen.
Step 2. FOs don't succumb to threats and vote their conscience Step 3. Motion for their recall is placed on the agenda and the agenda is closed (precluding recall motion of CAs to surface) within minutes of their votes Step 4. FOs offer to avoid the proxy circus and ask supporters to not oppose the recall effort at the meeting Step 5. C44 Chair mocks them for trying to save the council from an ugly paper proxy war Step 6. The ALPA machine kicks in gear and shows up with more proxies Step 7. Social media declares that support for recall is running 2-1 based on the proxy count Step 8. C44 CA reps send out scathing letter blaming the FOs exclusively for C44 dysfunction and formally support recall Step 9. Up to the pilots of C44 The excuses for recall seem to be ever-shifting. First it's performance. Then it's because they voted for BB for MEC Chair (that's always been the real reason). Then it's performance again. It seems the C44 CA reps have put themselves into a position of having to resign if the recall fails. They honor the majority wishes, right? |
That's a great synopsis. If they were put up for recall, bet you *^* that the Captain reps would never forgo the proxy circus, and let the people speak to the matter!
|
Originally Posted by MikeF16
(Post 2290817)
Which ironically, would be the only way to breathe life back into DPA. I had no idea my airline job included a soap opera at no extra charge.
|
Originally Posted by Wuzatforus
(Post 2291443)
Step 8. C44 CA reps send out scathing letter blaming the FOs exclusively for C44 dysfunction and formally support recall
|
Originally Posted by Karnak
(Post 2291374)
As opposed to what? Torches and pitchforks?
Imagine him winning an election by 1 vote because he voted for himself. Did he ever do that? <insert bat signal> <insert image of Batman> Can you cite an example when the pilot group did not support his actions? I understand why you might feel "silenced". If I recently found myself buried underneath an 82% landslide, I'd probably feel that way too. ALPA is run by the pilots who bother to serve and take the heat from the rest of us who don't bother to serve. It becomes "politics" only because we sometimes disagree with the decisions, choices, or priorities of the pilots who are more immersed in it than we are. Recalls are our only accountability tool, since our reps aren't bound by any resolution we pass that tells them exactly how to vote. Recalls for anything other than violating the rules or failing to act as our reps are smelly, but within the rights of the line pilots. I trust you don't disagree with that. If you were one of those expressing outrage at the recalls that took place after TA1, then I apologize for not remembering your posts. If you were one of those who thought those recalls were justified because of the membership ratification results in 2015, then I would appreciate reading your explanation for the double standard. If the make up of the MEC changes and the chairman is recalled either with 17 members or 19 and 2 from C44 not democratically elected by the full council, then you will have your answer. |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2291485)
2015 had a motivated engaged pilot group for very good reason. Now is a different time.
Reps were recalled in 2015 based upon their endorsement of TA1. Were those recalls justified?
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2291485)
The level of participation will be far less I fear.
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2291485)
Call that a double standard if you like.
Having a contrary view on an issue - or issues - is not that big of a deal to me. Having integrity and commitment to being a good rep is my criteria.
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2291485)
If the make up of the MEC changes and the chairman is recalled either with 17 members or 19 and 2 from C44 not democratically elected by the full council, then you will have your answer.
The issue is whether or not the way our reps vote on a TA is justification for recall. It doesn't matter if "times have changed". Is it appropriate or not? |
Originally Posted by Karnak
(Post 2291549)
That reads like you're blaming the pilot group.
Reps were recalled in 2015 based upon their endorsement of TA1. Were those recalls justified? I agree. We have a contract. I think that inhibits participation somewhat. So what? The question is one of justification. Period. The number who think a TA vote different than their's is sufficient or not is just math. I want to know if you think it's a valid reason. It looks like you're dodging the question. The double standard is justifying recalls for one set of reps because you didn't agree with the way they voted on a TA, then taking the opposite view on recalls even though the results were more pronounced. THAT'S a double standard. Having a contrary view on an issue - or issues - is not that big of a deal to me. Having integrity and commitment to being a good rep is my criteria. So your premise is that once a rep is elected they are not longer accountable to the members? Recall is the only accountability tool we have. Regardless of how the MEC is comprised, and what risk that represents to the chairman, it's the way the process is laid out...just like a rep being able to cast the deciding vote for his own election as chairman. The issue is whether or not the way our reps vote on a TA is justification for recall. It doesn't matter if "times have changed". Is it appropriate or not? The 2015 reps in jeopardy were hard selling TA1 and knee deep in spending $1.7Min dues doing it. This recall will send a chill through the ranks of pilots considering running for office. Even if it fails. |
Originally Posted by Karnak
(Post 2291549)
That reads like you're blaming the pilot group.
Reps were recalled in 2015 based upon their endorsement of TA1. Were those recalls justified? I agree. We have a contract. I think that inhibits participation somewhat. So what? The question is one of justification. Period. The number who think a TA vote different than their's is sufficient or not is just math. I want to know if you think it's a valid reason. It looks like you're dodging the question. The double standard is justifying recalls for one set of reps because you didn't agree with the way they voted on a TA, then taking the opposite view on recalls even though the results were more pronounced. THAT'S a double standard. Having a contrary view on an issue - or issues - is not that big of a deal to me. Having integrity and commitment to being a good rep is my criteria. So your premise is that once a rep is elected they are not longer accountable to the members? Recall is the only accountability tool we have. Regardless of how the MEC is comprised, and what risk that represents to the chairman, it's the way the process is laid out...just like a rep being able to cast the deciding vote for his own election as chairman. The issue is whether or not the way our reps vote on a TA is justification for recall. It doesn't matter if "times have changed". Is it appropriate or not? The point is the unique opportunity this situation presents to a once ousted insider to regain power and influence the MEC makeup. I don't deny these are all permitted under our rules of governance but they are unprecedented. The procedural opportunity that presents itself with the recall of one or both FO reps is real and it was most likely identified by a motivated individual who has a history of political maneuvering that places his cronies in power to control the MEC. |
The real double standard is this - the same folks who howled about reserving recall for only the most egregious acts now think it's perfectly acceptable to recall these two.
I'm confused about what they're being recalled for (well, actually I'm not). First it was promoted as performance (the Flower Fund of all things) even though the recall started within minutes of the MEC elections, then it was for voting against JM (actually it's for BB) and voting against 82% of the pilots (purposely twisting vote logic and conclusions to distort). Now, it's performance again (we don't get along so it's their fault). So, the average line pilot, many of whom have no clue to ALPA's insider club and the damage they've caused, now are beginning to wonder if there's smoke there must be fire. In round 1 of recalls, there were clear derelictions of duty coupled with a demeaning and condescending attitude towards the constituents. I've not heard one instance of these two mocking anyone's Yes or No vote or saying "the smart vote is Yes (or No), which means you're stupid if you're not voting the same as the rep. The irony in all this is that the first round of reps almost cost us $1B (?) and the second round of reps (including the two FOs up for recall) salvaged it. If not getting along in C44 puts an extra $1B in our pockets, I'm all for them not getting along going forward. MECs that got along have cost me millions and I'm not exaggerating. |
Originally Posted by Wuzatforus
(Post 2291623)
The real double standard is this - the same folks who howled about reserving recall for only the most egregious acts now think it's perfectly acceptable to recall these two.
I'm confused about what they're being recalled for (well, actually I'm not). First it was promoted as performance (the Flower Fund for Chrissakes) even though the recall started within minutes of the MEC elections, then it was for voting against JM (actually it's for BB) and voting against 82% of the pilots (purposely twisting vote logic and conclusions to distort). Now, it's performance again (we don't get along so it's their fault). So, the average line pilot, many of whom have no clue to ALPA's insider club and the damage they've caused, now are beginning to wonder if there's smoke there must be fire. In round 1 of recalls, there were clear derelictions of duty coupled with a demeaning and condescending attitude towards the constituents. I've not heard one instance of these two mocking anyone's Yes or No vote or saying "the smart vote is Yes (or No), which means you're stupid if you're not voting the same as the rep. The irony in all this is that the first round of reps almost cost us $1B (?) and the second round of reps (including the two FOs up for recall) salvaged it. If not getting along in C44 puts an extra $1B in our pockets, I'm all for them not getting along going forward. MECs that got along have cost me millions and I'm not exaggerating. Thank John Malone and your 44 Captain reps for this contract. It was achieved in spite of your 44 FO reps efforts to derail it. They could have cost you dearly had it not been for the leadership of Captain Malone. Then to double down on their "fantastic" representation, they vote for a MEC Chair who the overwhelming majority of 44 did not want. Time to make 44 relevant again. The FO reps must go (IMO) |
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 2291628)
You are grossly exaggerating. (Right up there with your C2K belongs to Dubinsky comment.)
Thank John Malone and your 44 Captain reps for this contract. It was achieved in spite of your 44 FO reps efforts to derail it. They could have cost you dearly had it not been for the leadership of Captain Malone. Then to double down on their "fantastic" representation, they vote for a MEC Chair who the overwhelming majority of 44 did not want. Time to make 44 relevant again. The FO reps must go (IMO) Jimmy and Chris ensured this never happened. They stood by thier campaign promises to protect scope. Delta is making BILLIONS in record profits. Wasting BILLIONS on stock buy backs each year. Why would John, Scott and Sam feel the need to gut our scope? They cannot break free of management's spell of concessions during record profits. The Aeromexico JV will be front and center in March. IMO Scott and Sam will be carrying the ball for managment. Opposing MEMRAT of any potential letter of agreement. Jimmy and Chris will favor MEMRAT, protect our share of the flying and ensure we make significant gains in minimum day, increased defined contribution percentage and increase in the value of a vacation day. |
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 2291659)
Captain's Malone, DeRosa and Martin all were in favor of allowing 50 more 76 seat jets to Delta connection carriers. Done deal.
Jimmy and Chris ensured this never happened. They stood by thier campaign promises to protect scope. Delta is making BILLIONS in record profits. Wasting BILLIONS on stock buy backs each year. Why would John, Scott and Sam feel the need to gut our scope? They cannot break free of management's spell of concessions during record profits. The Aeromexico JV will be front and center in March. IMO Scott and Sam will be carrying the ball for managment. Opposing MEMRAT of any potential letter of agreement. Jimmy and Chris will favor MEMRAT, protect our share of the flying and ensure we make significant gains in minimum day, increased defined contribution percentage and increase in the value of a vacation day. Denny |
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 2291628)
You are grossly exaggerating. (Right up there with your C2K belongs to Dubinsky comment.)
Thank John Malone and your 44 Captain reps for this contract. It was achieved in spite of your 44 FO reps efforts to derail it. They could have cost you dearly had it not been for the leadership of Captain Malone. Then to double down on their "fantastic" representation, they vote for a MEC Chair who the overwhelming majority of 44 did not want. Time to make 44 relevant again. The FO reps must go (IMO) After you speak with them individually, ask yourself how our low end scope looked in the final contract. The dirty dozen had the integrity to do their deed in plain sight, while the old Moak regime would have made their voting choice the night before at the bar. This is transparency and I hope ATL does the right thing and finally makes Moakism irrelevant. |
Originally Posted by Karnak
(Post 2291549)
...The issue is whether or not the way our reps vote on a TA is justification for recall. It doesn't matter if "times have changed". Is it appropriate or not?
The reason they should be recalled is because they refuse to engage and debate within the expectations of our democratic organization. Every rep should be willing to engage and debate up to the minute before a decision (vote) is taken. Maybe something said would change their minds, improve an LOA, make a better product for the pilot group. When you have a closed mind, make secret deals, and come back to the MEC with a "take it or leave it" ultimatum without being willing to discuss issues, it will eventually give us a worse future. That's why Jimmy and Chris need to be recalled. |
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 2291628)
Time to make 44 relevant again. The FO reps must go (IMO)
You're the one that's delusional, Trip. Your backyard politics mean so little to those of us who don't live in PTC. Maybe you can get back at those FO reps by keying their golf carts when they're not looking. |
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 2291628)
You are grossly exaggerating. (Right up there with your C2K belongs to Dubinsky comment.)
Thank John Malone and your 44 Captain reps for this contract. It was achieved in spite of your 44 FO reps efforts to derail it. They could have cost you dearly had it not been for the leadership of Captain Malone. Then to double down on their "fantastic" representation, they vote for a MEC Chair who the overwhelming majority of 44 did not want. Time to make 44 relevant again. The FO reps must go (IMO) The contract is thanks to all the reps. The minority position often moves the majority. The "12" did save us from more RJs. The administration was comfortable with more RJs. Ask someone who you can trust to give a straight, non-political answer. Harder to quantity the prevention of something than the gain of something. |
Originally Posted by cornbeef007
(Post 2291737)
Have you ever sat down with ALL of your reps individually and asked exactly what was being discussed just prior to the walk of infamy? Do that and see which reps sidestep the conversation, the members of the "dirty dozen" or the "appeasement 7". The only reason this is continuously perpetuated is because the appeasement guys don't ever need to give you or their other constituents a straight answer. Everything was in closed session, so they can spin it anyway they want but they will never give you a simple, factual answer.
After you speak with them individually, ask yourself how our low end scope looked in the final contract. The dirty dozen had the integrity to do their deed in plain sight, while the old Moak regime would have made their voting choice the night before at the bar. This is transparency and I hope ATL does the right thing and finally makes Moakism irrelevant. If the Captain reps state a contract was achieved in spite of the FO reps, maybe they should state what they accomplished in the new TA instead of publishing letters of support from random C44 line pilots. |
The 44 Captain reps have made it crystal clear that they can't work with the FO reps by way of their written words. If the recall doesn't happen, certainly the honorable thing to do for SD and SM would be to resign, no?
|
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2291600)
Is recall justified for a TA rejection? Yes, but so is any other vote...
If it was ok to recall reps in 2015 for their vote, then it's ok to recall reps this year for their vote. There are indications the votes themselves were not the sole reasons for seeking recall in C44. |
Originally Posted by Karnak
(Post 2291797)
Thanks. That clears it up. I was concerned that personal perspectives about the process of ratification, or the merits of the two TA's was clouding the issue. Some seem to be letting it do just that.
If it was ok to recall reps in 2015 for their vote, then it's ok to recall reps this year for their vote. There are indications the votes themselves were not the sole reasons for seeking recall in C44. Pick one. I'm pretty sure those are the only options. |
Originally Posted by Tanker1497
(Post 2291783)
The 44 Captain reps have made it crystal clear that they can't work with the FO reps by way of their written words. If the recall doesn't happen, certainly the honorable thing to do for SD and SM would be to resign, no?
SD and SM might be 44 Chair and Vice-chair but it sounds like Johnson and Kern are the ones with all the power in that relationship. |
Originally Posted by Dharma
(Post 2291754)
While it might be antithesis to most of the political positions I've expressed here, I don't think the C44 FOs should be recalled for how they voted on any issue.
The reason they should be recalled is because they refuse to engage and debate within the expectations of our democratic organization. Every rep should be willing to engage and debate up to the minute before a decision (vote) is taken. Maybe something said would change their minds, improve an LOA, make a better product for the pilot group. When you have a closed mind, make secret deals, and come back to the MEC with a "take it or leave it" ultimatum without being willing to discuss issues, it will eventually give us a worse future. That's why Jimmy and Chris need to be recalled. They were at least transparent about it, historically Moakists were not. The two best things to happen for DALPA this year: 1) Buzz no longer in office 2) This recall going nowhere |
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 2291779)
If the Captain reps state a contract was achieved in spite of the FO reps, maybe they should state what they accomplished in the new TA instead of publishing letters of support from random C44 line pilots. There are times in this world when one must draw a line and fight keep it in place. The appeasement 7 wanted to move that line in order to get a deal. "Blood alone moves the wheels of history" |
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 2291628)
they vote for a MEC Chair who the overwhelming majority of 44 did not want.
*No, I do not count vague statements of so-and-so has such-and-such emails as a "source." AT BEST, that would indicate the trending position of the vocal minority--which one need look no further than that faction at the meeting to assess their position.... That hardly equates to the "overwhelming majority" position.... |
Originally Posted by cornbeef007
(Post 2291837)
Whats the difference between what they did and establishing a consensus the night prior at the bar?
Superficial understanding of issues combined with a know-it-all attitude usually does not end well. |
Originally Posted by Dharma
(Post 2291998)
For me the difference is the unwillingness to talk to fellow representatives. They've made up their mind (or someone has made their mind up for them), and they won't talk about the issue. It's the same old complaint you read over and over about anyone in office: arrogant, know-it-alls, but in this case, they don't have much experience with the issues, the position, or from what I can tell much of anything associated with leadership positions.
Superficial understanding of issues combined with a know-it-all attitude usually does not end well. |
Originally Posted by Wuzatforus
(Post 2291809)
So, those who screamed that it was wrong to recall in 2015, now say it's ok because?? Their morals changed since then? Two wrongs make a right? Or, they were just pretending to have morals?
Pick one. I'm pretty sure those are the only options. Do you know anyone who tries to justify the recalls in 2015, but not these? My personal opinion is both are wrong if they are based solely upon votes for/against a TA or a chairman. There needs to be some failure of representation to trigger a recall. |
Originally Posted by Karnak
(Post 2292546)
If they justify one, but not the other, then they're being weasels.
Do you know anyone who tries to justify the recalls in 2015, but not these? My personal opinion is both are wrong if they are based solely upon votes for/against a TA or a chairman. There needs to be some failure of representation to trigger a recall. |
Originally Posted by Wuzatforus
(Post 2292566)
TA1 almost cost us $1B or more. This Chairman election doesn't appear to be costing anyone (except the pro-recalls some FPL).
Here's what someone wrote on this thread: "So, those who screamed that it was wrong to recall in 2015, now say it's ok because?? Their morals changed since then?" Maybe we should acknowledge that both situations are subject to individual interpretations, and aren't a good target for blanket generalizations. So whoever wrote about "morals changing" should consider that they too practice "Yeah, but" logic depending upon their personal opinion. The alternative is the changing morals thingy. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:48 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands