SpecialTracking

That's funny because there isn't a fight to have a dog in. One candidate wants to represent the best interests of all pilots and has said as much. The other chooses fear and divisive tactics to promote his positions. How does that "united we stand" saying go?You reap what you sow.

Shrek

Just lost a little respect for you for that decision.

Just the LCAL vs LUAL rhetoric ALONE should be a no vote.

baseball

I had three separate posts because I had three separate thoughts.

So sorry if I broke your sacred rules on posting. I have seen some absolutely wack-o stuff from you, so if you can't read 3 little Ol posts, just get over it.

I genuinely believe Chuck is:

1. A highly honest man
2. A very devoted and courageous man
3. Loyal to a fault
4. Steadfast and Strident in his beliefs.

If he was presented with numbers on this whole financial fiasco, which I believe to be an ALPA white-wash, and stealing from your members I don't really care one way or the other how he got his numbers. The bottom line, is if he can talk to them and understand them.

I've seen some crazy and goofy ALPA briefings on numbers. I recall some real garbage being thrown about to scare us, bankruptcy threats, liquidity shortfall threats. Turns out ALPA negotators were simply using company numbers from company briefings without doing their own due diligence. I am happy to see someone not simply "copying-cutting-and pasting."

I've seen Chuck in action in the safety and regulatory compliance arena and in others in union work. He always, and I mean always does right by the pilot who he is representing.

Riddle me this: Can you find one pilot that Chuck has represented in the past that was less than pleased with the outcome? The answer is NO you can't.

I don't know Brad, so I can't speak to his talents or tenacities.

But, I am very and I DO MEAN VERY sick and tired of hearing all of these so-called unionists from Legacy UAL telling me that they won't elect any L CAL pilots at all, for anything. I say.... AND YOU BETTER READ THIS SPARKY!...............Let the best qualified candidate, who has a proven track record of superior performance and trust win the job. I don't look at what airline a pilot comes from, but I do want to know what the candidate has done, and what he/she has done to drive results in favor of pilots and the pilot group. If that doesn't fit your definition of unionism, then, you my friend, can pound sand.

And, Furthermore, If Chuck has committed to fighting for something, something Many pilots deem to be a worthy cause, then it needs to be fought for and won. In addition, Brad should be equally committed to doing the same. If he's not, then he shouldn't run for the job. We have a problem, and that problem is how ALPA is treating its members. It was allowed to go on in how the CAL military pilots were treated by its management and this was actually condoned and fostered by it's union, to which ALPA National owns, for it was the ALPA National lawyers that allowed it.

It's time for ALPA to stand up for ALPA members, and the buck really stops with the reps. If the reps are push-overs then I don't want them representing pilots in my domicile.

I ask the question: Has Brad committed to returning the over-payments back to the pilots? Has he set a deadline? Has he set a course of action? Has he gotten the other LEC reps on board to drive results, or is it just more of the same-ol-song and dance? It's time for ALPA to step up to the plate and really do right by those that paid into the system in good faith.

baseball

I don't know this for a fact, but plan performance is not considered. It's just liabilities, nominal performance, and unfunded liabilities (if any). As long as the stress tests are run each quarter and they pass it's in good shape.

My bigger concern is this: An ALPA lawyer told me: "What if age 65 changed to age 70?" Then, we will need that money. My question was: Does ALPA support such a change, if so, that should be communicated to the pilots so we can fight that battle now and set ALPA straight.

I see a red herring here. I think ALPA may be planning for another age change and just doing another sell job on us to tell us "the law's gonna change anyway, so just accept it." The money should be returned, otherwise it just makes it too easy for National to deal from both sides of the deck.

UALinIAH

Couple quick points.

We already elected one stand LEC officer who is LCAL. Pretty sure there was a push from both sides to elect him over a LUAL candidate.

If you had read Brad's email he has already pledged to fight for the LTD money to be returned to the LCAL pilots. As has been stated repeatedly, the company holds the money. The previous 171 LEC chair was LCAL and he tried to get it back as well. So it's not a "legacy thing". It's a company controls the money thing.

I'm so sick people wanting to make stuff a legacy thing. FFS. Get over it. We're UAL! We all should have each other's back. Anyone who still holds on the "legacy whatever" has no business in union office. There is no LEGACY. There is United Freaking Airlines!

baseball

That's very true, but it is also true that if one candidate has already identified an issue that requires resolution in favor of the pilots, then that's a candidate who is on top of some of the issues germane to his/her constituency.

It could be that the other candidate either doesn't believe the issue warrants attention, or has made a decision not to take up the issue. This candidate would give me great pause in consideration.

It is not "un-unionlike" behavior to have a rep fight for an issue that affects only 30% of the pilot group. That doesn't mean that the other 70% of the pilot group's issues aren't important, it only means that the 30% that it does affect are dues paying members in good standing who demand and deserve not only their reps time, but attention.

Sometimes one must focus on the interests of 30% of the pilots with 100% effort. That doesn't mean he throws the other 70% under the bus. If anything it lets the other folks know that if and when their issues come up, he will be willing and able to champion their cause.

What happens if another military issue comes up? Does ALPA turn their backs on 10 percent of the pilots who are members of the guard/reserve, because it's not in the best interest of all pilots? That's where we've been post 9-11 and in the world of PBS. Last I checked that was a legacy United pilot in charge of the law firm and the law suit that was representing the CAL ALPA member pilots. Now that's my definition of unionism. What a concept.....

baseball

All of those are good points, and I agree.

I do have one question......And I only highlighted the portion above because it bears repeating. My question is this: Why do I hear from some people that they will never elect a legacy CAL pilot to anything? What's up with that. Probably heard it from 8 different pilots.

UALinIAH

Every pilot group has their 10%. I have NO DOUBT that I can find 8 LCAL who say they'll never vote LUAL. I have had LCAL bunkies when I was on the 777 gloating how they were going to be senior to me when they won their lawsuit.

AllenAllert

Your insecurity is really starting to show. You shouldn't make things up - that's Chuckie's job.

Do you know who told Chuckie that CLE was closing?

30west

You do realize that the 5% hold back and military lawsuit was from how the LCAL ALPA (JP) decided to distribute the money, CAL ALPAs call, NOT ALPA NATIONAL, NOT LUAL ALPA (they included the MIL guys in their formulation). You keep mentioning it blaming ALPA, the problem lies in one very small place that made that decision and the pilots that elected that small group. Just want to make sure you know WHERE that lawsuit blame falls.

We are ALPA, you keep blaming ALPA, you are blaming yourself, that is what happens when you elect people that shouldn't be a representative.

Additionally if you think 1 LEC rep can get the money refunded, stop bumps off the 787 in IAH that will happen and fix all the ills of the union you better not get a random drug test soon. It takes a sound, well reasoned and bridge builder to accomplish things on the MEC for your local LEC, just how it works.

Its been explained where and how to find the facts but you either don't get it or don't want to get it, either way doesn't really matter. The company legally has the ability to say NO to any changes and until we either have a section 6 or an opportunity presents itself involving the company needing something from us before the section 6 nothing will change no matter how many times 1 LEC rep says Im taking my ball and going home. The other reps sympathize but they also have issues in their LEC, thats why you need a bridge builder and Chuck ain't that.