we did the hats off/ lanyard thing in 2009, at the end of POS UPA2003 (bankruptcy contract). I’m glad Delta was able to follow our example. It worked well for us… as we penned a new contract three years later in 2012 😏. That was a full 2 years + after the 2010 merger announcement.

 

So, as an "ex officio member" of the NC per the Policy Manual, the current MEC Chair has no power or responsibility for this LOA BUT by the reverse logic a prior (out of office) MEC Chair was fully responsible for the failed TA? I really cannot keep what version of reality we are on at any given moment. Not trying to be snarky but comments on this thread are arguing sometimes the MEC Chair is responsible and other times the MEC Chair is not responsible during negotiations. My personal contention has always been the buck stops with the MEC members themselves no matter who the officers are. Just my opinion.

 

The MEC Chair you speak of was personally selling the failed TA, and even went so far as to hit social media to tell everyone 'You're welcome." That MC pushed that POS TA to the pilot group and use it as a way to get elected to President of the Air Line Pilots Association, International. That MC pushed to change the MEC Policy manual to require two thirds of the MEC to recall any committee members (protection for the NC comes to mind). Also pushed to get a 3rd term and used that 3rd term to sell us TUMI.

 

100% spot on.

So, there’s the difference between what an MEC Chair is supposed to be vice the MEC Chair that tried to throw his own pilot group under the bus for his own benefit.

 

The decision to reach an Agreement in Principle or TA is first made by the MEC Chair. So if an agreement goes to the MEC for consideration there most certainly is responsibility placed upon the Chair. Obviously, the MEC members are then responsible for anything that goes out for membership ratification.

What seems to happen when things go wrong is people abdicating their responsibility as a filter layer. The Negotiating Committee should not progress issues into objectionable territory in the first place. To that end, they should be under the watchful eye of the MEC Chair, who is a de facto member of the committee. The MC should never let the MEC see and consider an agreement that didn't first meet that chair's approval. And the MEC should never approve an agreement for membership ratification "just to let the members have the final say." It is their responsibility to serve as a stringent filter and reject unworthy agreements.

So when garbage like the failed TA gets to the membership there are plenty of responsible individuals. The former MEC Chair that let much of the contract sections take shape before his third term expired is no exception. Likewise, the current Chair has plenty of responsibility for the current LOA TA. The membership will decide whether that responsibility merits mostly credit or blame.

 

Just to comment on this bit, regardless of applicability to this thread, those decisions don’t always happen in a vacuum, especially when external factors are thrown into the mix (mediation/arbitration pressures, divided pilot groups, etc.). Sometimes an MEC is given no choice but to send lesser agreements out for ratification.

In a perfect world you’d be correct but things get muddy sometimes. FWIW.

 

I would counter that "most" of the times that happens it's because the MEC did not solicite membership input via polling or asking for comments before voting on things. This LOA and the TUMI TA are glaring examples of them being out of touch with the membership because they never got our input.

 

You would be wrong. The times I’ve seen that happen the MEC knew damn well what the membership was thinking and exactly how split that membership was, hence my earlier allusion to a divided pilot group.

Couple that with pressure from mediators and pilots who think they should ALWAYS get to vote on ANY agreement the NC comes up with and the decision gets a little more complicated.

 

That rep in question is a puppet of SW in 171 and has potentially done damage to the association. I am all for an outside investigation into her actions and their determination if an Article VIII is warranted.