Hmmm being a republican or a democrat seems inconsequential on such matters to me. Im not sure why you brought that into the situation.

The problem I have is the Roll call vote in itself. So we have two LECs that have the potential to have more sway simply because they have more voting members in their bases? Seems somewhat logical at first until you think about it. The company decides the size of those bases and I don’t even know who got to decide what bases were under each LEC? We don’t have an even number of bases and can never have an even number of pilots per LEC. I understand the roll call exists but how is this even a tool worth using? Why isn’t the MEC chair/vice chair the deciding vote in tie break situations?

The whole problem is we on the outside haven’t gotten the full picture so we can’t make an accurate assessment of who’s right and wrong. Maybe they both are? But if the email is true, which is pretty much what you said, that the LECs with a larger member group are using their larger size to effectively run the entire MEC then F. That. Shjt. Thats not what they were elected to do. Negotiate in good faith or be recalled.

Isn't that how the electoral college works? What if the tables were turned? You sound like a Democrat.

DZ is a special kind of stubborn. The phrase, "cut off your nose to spite your face," I think is very applicable to his way of doing things. So if he is involved with trying to wrestle power away, whatever is goal is, it's not going to productive to our long term goals as a group. We need to make this clear to our respective LECs.

After finding out a few more details, a large aspect of this is an attempt to rein in excessive use of FPL and wasting your dues money unnecessarily- and the loudest opposition is coming from people who would be exposed by past and current practices that do just that. Or refusing to show up to vote altogether.

Think Congress trying to preserve their right to insider trading…

This is the big picture problem. To me it looks like 4 reps are trying to remove the nc and possibly the mec. The problem with removing a nc that’s in mediation is it will add several months to an already painfully long process. Additionally, the current nc have the polling data so I’m not sure there could or would be a change in proposal? I would need to hear from these 4 reps the names of any new negotiators and what fundamentally changes by doing this? DZ won’t even be around for any of this as he’s within 6 months of 65.

Yes, I remember JL discussing the new grievance process. I then proceeded to read it and recognized adding 6 weeks to the timeline from violation to filing, removing a step in the process, and forcing monthly meetings were all improvements. Clearly more needs to be done and the proposal has an expedited rapid fire arbitration process.

IMO You need to wrap your head around the fact this is who we work for. They don’t pay out anything until legally forced to. You could cherry pick the best grievance language from any contract and there will still always be a ton a grievances under this management.

Exactly!

✈️ Understanding the Contract Grievance Process (Under the RLA)

As airline pilots, you're working under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)—your contract with the company. When management doesn't follow that contract, it's called a contract violation.

The process for dealing with violations is called the grievance process, and it's governed by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), a law originally created for railroad workers but now also applies to airlines.

Here’s how it generally works:

🛠️ Step-by-Step: How Grievances Work

1. Violation Occurs
   Example: Scheduling assigns you a trip with a layover that violates the contract provisions regarding short/long stay hotels.
   
2. Grievance Filed
   Your union files a grievance, basically saying, "You broke the contract."
   
3. Investigation / Informal Resolution Attempt
   Management and the union might try to work it out informally (at the monthly grievance meetings required per the terms of CBA 2019)
   
4. System Board of Adjustment (arbitration) – a neutral hearing that delivers a final ruling.
   

These types of grievances are classified as "minor disputes" under the RLA. According to federal law:
Minor disputes are disagreements over “the interpretation or application of existing contractual rights.” Courts have ruled that if management’s action is “arguably justified” by the contract, the dispute is classified as minor—even if the union disagrees.

Minor disputes must be resolved through arbitration, and strikes over minor disputes are prohibited. Once a grievance is decided by an arbitration board (like a System Board of Adjustment in airlines), judicial review is extremely limited—only allowed if the board exceeded its jurisdiction or acted fraudulently.

— 45 U.S.C. §153 & §184
So even when management is clearly pushing boundaries, as long as their actions are "arguably justified" by the contract, the dispute is forced into the slow arbitration process. You can’t strike, you can’t sue, and you can’t ignore it.

⏳ Why Management Has the Upper Hand (Especially with Minor Violations)

Here’s the core issue: The process is slow, expensive, and limited in capacity. This creates a perverse incentive for management.

Let’s break that down:

1. Arbitrations Are Time-Consuming
   
   • It can take months or years to get a case in front of an arbitrator.
     
   • There are only so many arbitrators available to the union and company (they can be counted with your fingers and should be listed in the CBA) and even less arbitration dates available per year.
     
     Prior to CBA 2019, once an impasse was reached, the union and company would agree on an arbitrator then contact them to get on their schedule. The arbitration would generally take place MANY months after making that call, causing substantial delays in a resolution. CBA 2019 rectified that by pre-scheduling a number of arbitration dates each year so that the most important grievances could be slotted in quickly without the need to wait months or years for arbitrator availability.
     
2. Expensive Process
   
   • Each arbitration costs money (neutral arbitrator fees, attorney time, prep work).
     
   • The union has to prioritize which grievances to pursue—can't afford to do them all.
     
3. Too Many Violations to Arbitrate
   
   • If management commits 1,000 “small” violations (e.g., contract interpretation errors), it's physically impossible to arbitrate all of them.
     
   • They know this. So unless there’s a major financial penalty or a pattern grievance is filed, they often get away with minor breaches.
     
4. Low Risk of Immediate Consequences
   
   • There's no real "penalty" for violating the contract unless and until an arbitrator rules against them—which may never happen for small stuff.
     

⚖️ The Balance of Power (and Why It Feels Unfair)

• The system was designed for stability, not speed or efficiency.
  
• Management can "slow-roll" accountability, knowing the union can't possibly pursue every grievance.
  
• This is a form of contract fatigue—they wear the union down by making enforcement too costly and complex.
  

🚨 So What Can Be Done?

To counteract this imbalance, unions often:

• File “pattern grievances”—grouping similar violations together (a good example would be the CUN hotels arbitration in 2022 where well over 1000 separate violations were grouped and successfully arbitrated in favor of the affected pilots).
  
• Use public pressure, pilot solidarity, or media campaigns to apply heat (Frontier management doesn't really give a **** so not so effective with them).
  
• Escalate unresolved issues into contract negotiations or status quo disputes.
  

But make no mistake: the system leans in management’s favor when they’re willing to accept risk and push boundaries—especially on minor stuff.

🧭 Final Thought

As frustrating as it is, knowing how the system works gives you power. It reminds us why solidarity, documentation, and strategic pressure matter. Every pilot filing a grievance—even if it doesn't get arbitrated—helps build a case and show a pattern. That’s critical leverage for enforcement and future bargaining.

Again with the FPL? The company pays a minimum of 2100 hrs of FPL annually. Plus pbs committee credits. So are we wasting their money as well? FPL is available on the alpa website monthly. A quick glance for Feb and March shows most reps are relatively close on the credits.
I want them addressing issues instead of doing it on days off after one of these schedules.
.

I’m not and this isn’t relatable. Windsors example would be like the senate having an equal number of seats between parties but because one of them is fatter or has longer hair they get to have a larger vote. How stupid.

I don’t vote on LEC reps based on them being D vs R. I don’t remember that being a qualification for a particular LEC. I vote based on their resume of past experience and their ideas moving forward.

Nah, he's really just someone you dislike and seek to blame for an agreement that you don't like, but 77% of those on property at the time actually felt was worthy of ratification.

So who is truly to blame when a new contract or tentative agreement (TA) is put up for a vote, and you feel like it doesn’t meet your expectations?

Your MEC (8 voting members) are the decision makers.
The MEC is made up of elected pilot leaders who represent all pilots in the union. These leaders are your voice. They are in charge of deciding the big-picture direction of negotiations, including setting goals and priorities for the negotiating process.

The MEC decides what the union will accept or not accept in a new agreement. They are the ones who vote on whether the final deal meets the needs of the pilots they represent.

And most importantly, they are the decision makers who determine the make-up of the Negotiating Committee whom they will utilize as a tool to negotiate with the Company.

The Negotiating Committee are the "Bargainers", not the "Deciders"

They are a group of pilots chosen to by the MEC to bargain directly with the company. They are not the ones who make the final decisions on what’s in the contract.

Instead, the committee works for and at the direction of the MEC. Their job is to negotiate terms with the company that stay within the boundaries set by the MEC. They cannot agree to anything outside of what the MEC has approved as a "must-have" or acceptable term.

So, when you see a tentative agreement (TA), that agreement is the result of negotiation by the committee based on the rules set by the MEC. The committee does not have the authority to make the final call. They are just the messengers and negotiators.

Once the Negotiating Committee and the company have come to an agreement, it’s still not the end. Before the agreement goes to a vote by all pilots, the entire MEC must vote on it.

The MEC will review the deal and determine if it meets the goals they set out for negotiations. If a majority of the MEC members vote that it’s acceptable, then and only then will the agreement be sent to the pilots for ratification.

So, Who’s Really Responsible?

If you don’t like the deal that’s been negotiated, you might choose to blame the Negotiating Committee—but they were simply following the directions given to them by the MEC. The MEC is the group that set the terms and decided if the deal was good enough to send to the pilots for a vote.

IMO, a crappy TA is the result of a weak MEC who is out of touch with their pilot group. You can throw out the Negotiating Committee but you might as well throw out the MEC as well since they are the ones who direct and control the negotiating process and priorities.