Quote:
Originally Posted by UnusualAttitude
Here is the problem, when you were a rep you didn’t practice what you’re preaching now. I personally reached out to you about contractual desires and expectations when ALPA was planning to negotiate the retirement plan outside of section 6. I pointed out various parts of the contract that needed improving to make the variable retirement plan make sense to me. You were dismissive and all but said tough luck and suck it up. In fact, you questioned why I even worker here.
Why are you now saying that ALPA needs to be receptive of exactly what you were not as a rep? feedback and input from those you represent, you only welcomed it if it aligned exactly with your needs and desires. It’s not that some of your points aren’t salient, it’s just that you didn’t represent me the way you are demanding ALPA represent you and I question your motives on this whole post because your stated goals aren’t congruent with my experience when you were a rep.
Okay, I'll bite and derail this thread for a post.
First off I have always talked to ANYONE who wanted to talk about any issue that improves our collective position (my record on that is indisputable). My record is three hours and eighteen minutes with one pilot on one call while on vacation.
So to your points:
I listened to your points. Remember, we were not in section six and NO section was open. That was an effort to try to find Mutually beneficial improvements. It needed to be focused. Now that section six negotiations are about to happen, feel free to talk to your rep about any section you would be willing to support being improved. Also wanting improvements that don't float ALL boats is a non-starter. It has to be, just ask the American pilots. About being dismissive, I doubt it, but I have never been accused of being a great councilor. So if I did, I apologize here publicly.
Again, I encourage conversation, it is how we develop ideas, even the ones we don't agree with.
About my positions, I doubt many study the ramifications as much as I do. I voted no on contract '15 because it did not meet its own pillars. Pillars that were not discussed during the roadshows. Running out of money is no reason to have a "TA" in concept, yet that is what happened. A good friend called it, there where going to be 4000 disenfranchised pilots making 350K plus.
About ALPA's job. It is to represent all pilots. When they do not, there is a process. It is called recall. Right now we can not recall because ALPA will not hold virtual Local Council Meetings. So, good luck.
As a member in good standing, I expect to be heard, just like you do. I encourage you to remain engaged, it's how this works. The issue is, your MEC is going in a direction I disagree with, as it is detrimental to the younger pilots.
Do you know where they are going? Put your guess/expectation in writing and I will too.
Now back to the thread's main focus: Does ALPA speak for you?
Does ALPA know what you mean when you say you want the A-plan improved. ( it is the number one issue facing pilots according to the fast read and +rate).
Please let your reps know if you want an FAE improvement, and if so, how much. Or do you want the pancake plan or perhaps the multiplier improved, but remember ALPA has several tenants to Negotiations. One of the tenants is to not incentivize working longer / harder to achieve an improvement.
I look forward to the responses!!