Should the MEC Chairman sit on the BOD?
01-07-2016 | 09:08 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
Should the MEC Chairman sit on the BOD?
Shoild we continue the tradition of having the MEC Chairman serve as the pilot member on the BOD. It's possible that serving both positions is causing the Chairman to perform at less than optimal levels at both position.
Question would be - should the pilot BOD member be an MEC elected position? This would free the MEC Chairman to do pilot business and allow a MEC elected pilot to represent the pilots on the BOD.
Just a thought -------
Question would be - should the pilot BOD member be an MEC elected position? This would free the MEC Chairman to do pilot business and allow a MEC elected pilot to represent the pilots on the BOD.
Just a thought -------
01-07-2016 | 09:51 AM
#2
Stuck Mic
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 0
We elected him correct?
So why shouldn't he be on the BOD. Contrary to some folks thinking around here, we should want the company to be successful and make money so we all continue to have good jobs and make money ourselves. For that reason we should have one of our own elected representatives sitting on the BOD to help guide the direction of the company.
So why shouldn't he be on the BOD. Contrary to some folks thinking around here, we should want the company to be successful and make money so we all continue to have good jobs and make money ourselves. For that reason we should have one of our own elected representatives sitting on the BOD to help guide the direction of the company.
01-07-2016 | 10:32 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,209
Likes: 6
From: 777
Just a thought, this again. It's been hashed out several times since the ESOP. The reasoning really hasn't changed.
The MEC chairman has power, power the board and chairman may not heed, but they will listen. This eliminates a middle man and avoids UAL starting down a road of something stupid the employees would never support or consider.
A thought? My opinion is a non starter.
The MEC chairman has power, power the board and chairman may not heed, but they will listen. This eliminates a middle man and avoids UAL starting down a road of something stupid the employees would never support or consider.
A thought? My opinion is a non starter.
01-07-2016 | 10:58 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,248
Likes: 0
From: 767A (Ret)
Things may have changed since I retired, but here are some problems I saw with having a pilot BOD member at Delta:
-- the nondisclosure rules kept him from reporting anything of real significance to the MEC.
-- he wasn't on the BOD's Executive Committee, where the important decisions are made.
-- the BOD now had two spokesmen for the pilots, who did not always say exactly the same thing.
Bottom line: I don't know if it made a lot of difference either way.
-- the nondisclosure rules kept him from reporting anything of real significance to the MEC.
-- he wasn't on the BOD's Executive Committee, where the important decisions are made.
-- the BOD now had two spokesmen for the pilots, who did not always say exactly the same thing.
Bottom line: I don't know if it made a lot of difference either way.
01-07-2016 | 12:37 PM
#5
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 709
Likes: 6
From: 320 Captain
Things may have changed since I retired, but here are some problems I saw with having a pilot BOD member at Delta:
-- the nondisclosure rules kept him from reporting anything of real significance to the MEC.
-- he wasn't on the BOD's Executive Committee, where the important decisions are made.
-- the BOD now had two spokesmen for the pilots, who did not always say exactly the same thing.
Bottom line: I don't know if it made a lot of difference either way.
-- the nondisclosure rules kept him from reporting anything of real significance to the MEC.
-- he wasn't on the BOD's Executive Committee, where the important decisions are made.
-- the BOD now had two spokesmen for the pilots, who did not always say exactly the same thing.
Bottom line: I don't know if it made a lot of difference either way.
Even if the role was split, the BOD would never put labor on the executive committee.
I believe it should be one and the same. The MC being both roles as it has has been. No chance of miscommunication, in advocating the pilots position. At UAL having that seat on the board has helped to derail one merger ballon for sure that I know of.
DC
01-07-2016 | 01:07 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 3
From: The GF of FUPM
It depends, can he go Hamster Style or will he be Casper Milquetoast? Pitbull or Lapdog? Apollo Creed or Marvin Mainliner? Brock Lesner or Nancy Kerrigan? Dick Butkus or Dick Button?
Whiteford, was a disaster. One piece of paper proves it.
Whiteford, was a disaster. One piece of paper proves it.
01-07-2016 | 01:27 PM
#7
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
We've had several MEC chairman on the board since we first negotiated the seat. I don't think it has enhanced the position of the pilots in any dealing with the company. As a matter of fact we've had a couple think their intelligence got them the seat and got lost in the pomp and ceremony. Case in point would be PW and his RJ deal that hurt pilots. Others were just out classed.
I don't know but having a member elected by the MEC that reports to the MEC chairman would offer some checks to the balance. Does anybody have a solid case where having the MEC chairman on the board made a difference good or bad?
With the elections coming, it would be a good question to offer the future representatives.
I don't know but having a member elected by the MEC that reports to the MEC chairman would offer some checks to the balance. Does anybody have a solid case where having the MEC chairman on the board made a difference good or bad?
With the elections coming, it would be a good question to offer the future representatives.
01-07-2016 | 02:54 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,213
Likes: 14
From: guppy CA
As much as I was unhappy with Whiteford's performance and objectives, the RJ deal was almost certainly tied to his unsuccessful efforts to save the pilot pensions. I don't see it being tied to any 'pomp and circumstance'.
01-07-2016 | 05:58 PM
#9
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
From: 747 Captain, retired
I agree. Im not a fan of PW but I don't think he is where the blame should go. I remember the debates about the RJ's and who was going to fly them. It went back and forth every time someone put forward another argument Pro or Con
01-08-2016 | 02:25 AM
#10
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 709
Likes: 6
From: 320 Captain
And the Emb170 side letter had nothing to do with the BOD seat. He did that as the Master Chairman.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
