ALPA's Next President

[Bringupthebird]

Unless you were an Air Line pilot in the 1930's.. no one today "got the cards"

Tell that to the pilots of :
America West
American Eagle
Continental Express
Midwest
Skyway
Fedex
Polar
Gemini
Trans States
ASA
Comair
...
Do I really need to go on?

Are you advocating that pilots shouldn't particpate, they should just verbally express change (on a message board.... ) and it shall be done?

No, but perhaps those pilots who wish adequate representation should bolt from ALPA and establish a union that serves it's entire membership rather than financing a bloated one that doesn't.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Tell that to the pilots of :
America West
American Eagle
Continental Express
Midwest
Skyway
Fedex
Polar
Gemini
Trans States
ASA
Comair
...
Do I really need to go on?





No, but perhaps those pilots who wish adequate representation should bolt from ALPA and establish a union that serves it's entire membership rather than financing a bloated one that doesn't.

Good point on the airline list....

Not sure if ALPA is broken or the users manual hasn't been read.

How would you alter the organizational structure of the new union?

 

[goodto50meters]

So it's all the stupid line pilot's fault, eh? They are "smart" enough to get the cards needed to bring ALPA in, but they're too dumb to know what to do with them once they're there? C'mon!

ALPA's structure disenfranchises 70% of the membership because it segregates pilots into the "haves" (or used-to have) and the "have-nots" (and never will).

Eliminate the Group EVP system and allow each airline a roll-call vote. Therefore, airlines can build coalitions among themselves and effect real change.

Allow membership vote for the BOD and ALPA president. What's good on the local level should work equally well at the National level, especially in the computer age.

That would be a good start.

Well on the current EVP structure i have to agree to a point. But this is under review and likely revision at the next BOD to be way better than it is. Its a start, and a good one. The Executive council's job is to oversee the more day to day operations of ALPA. A BOD of 400 reps doing this would be prohibitively expensive and inefficient. Although it has the authority to intervene at its pleasure. The Executive Board is one MEC one Vote and has more frequent oversight of the EC.

The membership already votes for the BOD as the BOD is comprised of all the reps from all ALPA airlines. These are directly chosen by YOU if you vote.

Airlines already have the roll call vote. They can make as many coalitions as they want. Its up to them and YOU.

The BOD made up of your reps elects the President. Going to a membership wide vote for this is not a bad idea. If you would like to see this happen, get a resolution passed at your next LEC meeting and lobby your reps. If you can get your MEC to support it, they can bring it up at an Executive Board. Your reps can directly bring it up at the upcoming BOD. You should have friends do the same at other carriers too though.

No one said democracy was easy.

Happy politicking!

 

[81Horse]

The BOD made up of your reps elects the President. Going to a membership wide vote for this is not a bad idea.

Bad idea. Then you'll have individual pilot groups voting for native sons (or daughters). Might as well just earmark the presidency for the airline with the greatest number of voting members.

At least the current system allows for the formation of alliances, based on (perceived) mutual interests. And status reps have some real knowledge of the candidates.

Considering the number of members who a) don't know their own contracts; b) don't go to meetings; and c) rarely vote at the LEC level -- I'd say governing ALPA by plebiscite would be a piss-poor idea. If you don't like how things are going at the national level, get involved locally.

Here's an idea: run for office! You, too, can spend your life on voicemail and email -- and get precious few thank-you's for your effort.

 

[surplus1]

Part 1 of 3

PCL_128,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you; busy with other things.

You quoted me, but still failed to offer the alternative I was seeking. Democracy, oligarchy, dictatorship, or republic, no matter what you think ALPA is, you still aren't offering any solution or better system even though you constantly complain about our current system. What is your solution? What system do you think should be implemented in place of the current BOD/Exec Board/Exec Council/MEC/LEC system? Do you support a pure democratic process? I'm curious if you have any actual solutions, or if you can only complain and file lawsuits.

That’s fair, i.e., if I have a complaint I should be prepared to offer a remedy. I am. So here it is.

To make ALPA more representative of all its members I would reorganize its political structure to more closely resemble that of the Federal government. This of course would require amendment of the Constitution before the fact.

Constitution

• Requires ¾ majority ratification vote of both the Executive Board and the BOD to amend. Standard voting procedures of each body will govern. Amendments will take effect only after both branches of the legislature have ratified the amendment.
• Amendments may be proposed by:
  • The Executive Branch – President
  • The Executive Board – proposal passed by majority vote
  • The Board of Directors (in session)
  • Any MEC (Requires majority vote of proposing MEC)

EXECUTIVE BRANCH

President

• Still the CEO of the union.
  • Minimum Quals:
  • Age – 35
  • Active or Retired Member
  • 10 years min. prior service as ALPA volunteer, at least 5 of which in elective office – any combination of positions, including VP or member of Executive Council.
• Elected by simple majority vote of the BOD (same as today). Roll-call vote by secret ballot. 50% + 1 required to win. If majority not achieved on the first ballot, top 2 vote getters in run-off election.
• Term limit: No more than 2 consecutive terms. 4 years each.
• Powers
  • Able to veto legislation (line item).
    • Veto can be overridden by 2/3 majority of EB
  • Must sign all legislation for it to take effect.
  • Must sign all CBA’s before they take effect (same as present)
  • Prepares and submits proposed annual budget
  • Special powers in time of crisis, e.g. Strikes – TBD
  • Other powers – as set forth in the C&BL
  • May be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors
    • Charges brought by any MEC
    • Approved by majority of ALL MEC’s
    • Trial by Executive Board – Decision by majority of 2/3.

Vice President (new)

• Second in Command
• Selected as running-mate by the presidential candidate.
• Term of office concurrent with that of President – 4 years.
• Elected with the President – same vote of BOD (no separate ballot)
  • Quals:
  • Age – 30
  • Active Member
  • 5 years min prior service as volunteer in elective office or as member of EC
  • Responsibilities – as determined by the President.
• Becomes President automatically if President dies, resigns or is otherwise replaced while in office.
• Serves as President should President become incapacitated (temporary)

Other National Officers (3) – Positions eliminated

Chief of Staff (Replaces Executive Administrator)

• Appointed by the President
  • Advice & Consent of Executive Board
• Duties – As assigned by the President

Executive Council (Equivalent of President’s Cabinet eliminates the EVP setup)

The Executive Council shall be the equivalent of the President’s Cabinet. Responsible together with President & Vice President for the overall Administration of the Union and its sub-divisions. The only members of the Executive Branch that are elected at the President & Vice President. The Executive Council members are nominated by the President and appointed with the advice and consent of the Executive Board.

• Total of Eleven Members (11)
• Nominated by the President
• Appointed with advice & consent of the Executive Board
• Serves at the discretion of the President

• Qualifications:
  • Active Member
  • May come from any airline. No more than 2 from the same airline.
• Title of “Secretary of xxxxx”
  • Administration
  • Treasury
  • Membership
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Large Passenger Carriers (> 4,000 members)
  • Medium Passenger Carriers (> 1000 members)
  • Small Passenger Carriers (< 1000 members)
  • Freight only Carriers
  • Safety
  • Aeromedical
  • Legislative Affairs
• No power to interpret the Constitution
• No Executive powers affecting the Union as a whole.
• Executive power limited to respective Department(s).
• Administers affairs of union related to respective Department
• Makes Administrative decisions within respective Department.
• Makes recommendations to the President.
• Meets as directed by the President, not less than once monthly.

Continued

 

[surplus1]

Part 2 of 3

JUDICIAL BRANCH (New)

Judicial Council (new)

• Total of nine (9) members total.
• Term Limit – 6 years (single term)
• Chairman nominated by President
  • Advice & consent of Executive Board required
  • Should be an attorney, but not mandatory
• Other Members
  • Nominated by the President
  • Advice & consent of Executive Board required
• Independent of all other branches of the Union.
  • Removal from office only by Impeachment
• Minimum Qualifications
  • Age 35
  • Active Member for not less than 10 years
  • At least 10 yrs service as elected representative, Executive Council member, MEC Committee Chairman or combination thereof..
• Final decisions binding on Association
• Exclusive power to interpret the Constitution & BL
• Power to decide disputes between member airlines.
• Power to declare any decision of the Union unconstitutional.
• Hears and resolves grievances against the National Association
• Chairman presides over Executive Board in cases of Impeachment.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Legislative Branch will be changed from a unicameral operation to a bicameral operation. The Bicameral Legislature shall consist of the Executive Board (Equivalent of a Senate) and the Board of Directors (Equivalent of the House of Representatives).

The “upper house” shall be known as the Executive Board and the “lower house” shall be known as the Board of Directors.

All legislation shall require the approval of both the Executive Board and the Board of Directors. When each of the two “houses” should pass differing “bills”, the differences shall be resolved in conference between the two. Each “house” shall establish a Conference Committee for this purpose. Neither of the two houses shall have the power to overrule the other.

Executive Board (Revised)

• The Executive Board shall consist of the MEC Chairmen from each of the member airlines (as it does today)
• Any member of the Executive Board may propose legislation to be considered by the Board. Any member of the EB may propose amendments to all proposed legislation. The EB shall vote separately on each amendment and on the final legislation.
• The President or in his absence the Vice President shall preside as Chairman over all meetings of the Executive Board.
• The voting procedure within the Executive Board will be changed.
  • Each member of the EB shall have one (1) vote on all matters before the Board..
    • This procedure will provide equal representation on the Executive Board for each and all member airlines regardless of their respective size (number of members)
  • Votes may be cast viva voce, by division of the house, or by roll call of the members. Any member may request a call of the roll in lieu of a division of the house. In the event of a roll call, each member will cast only one vote, his own. There shall be no weighted votes. There will be no secret ballots.
• In the event of a tie, the President (in his absence the VP) shall cast the deciding vote. Otherwise the President or Vice President shall have no vote.
• The Executive Board shall meet in formal session once each quarter for not more than five (5) consecutive days.
• The President may call a “special session” of the Executive Board at such times and for such reasons as he shall deem appropriate.
• The executive Board shall prepare an Association Budget once each year, separate from that prepared by the Executive Branch. The final budget of the Association will be approved by the Executive Board at the last quarterly meeting of the EB preceding the start of the fiscal year. A draft of the budget shall be presented to the EB and the BOD in the quarter preceding the quarter when the vote is to be taken. The Board of Directors shall vote on the budget following its approval by the EB. Should the BOD fail to approve the budget, differences will be reconciled by the Conference Committee.
• Legislation originated in an approved by the Executive Board, may be endorsed by the Board of Directors by electronic voted of members of the BOD. Formal session of the BOD is not required, except in cases of amendment to the Constitution.
• Note: It is envisioned that a majority of legislation will originate in the Executive Board. Although ratification by the BOD is required for all legislation, this procedure will preclude frequent meetings of the BOD, which will convene formally on a bi-annual basis (as it does now).

Continued

 

[surplus1]

Part 3 of 3

Continuation of Legislative Branch


Board of Directors.
.

• The Board of Directors shall consist of the elected Status Representatives from each of the Councils within the Association. (Same as now)
• The BOD will meet in formal session on bi-annual basis. The date and venue of the meeting will be scheduled by the Executive Branch. (same as now)
• The Vice President will preside as Chairman at all formal meetings of the BOD.
• Members of the Executive Board shall attend all formal meetings of the BOD. The President shall convene the EB in formal session concurrent with the BOD at the same location. This makes possible a simultaneous session of both houses. Each however, shall meet independent of the other.
• When in formal session only, at its bi-annual meeting, any member of the Board of Directors may propose new legislation, provided such legislation has been drafted and provided to the Board with sufficient time in advance as to be included in the agenda of the meeting. Late-agenda items will not be accepted.
• Voting Procedures

• • Each member of the BOD may vote as an individual casting one vote, his own.
  • Each member of the BOD may cast a weighted vote equal to the number of pilots that he/she represents.
  • The Chairman of each council provided all status reps of that council are agreed, may cast a weighted vote, equal to the number of pilots represented by that council.
  • Each member airline may cast its votes by “unit rule”. In this case, the representatives of that airline shall select from their ranks a single member who will cast the vote on their behalf. A unit rule vote is a weighted vote equal to the number of all members, in all councils of the particular airline.
  • Excepting votes cast for the election of President and Vice President of the Association, all votes of the Board of Directors will be cast by one of the methods described above. There will be no secret ballots.

• Special Voting for the Election of President & Vice President.
  • The President & Vice President shall be elected only by secret ballot.
  • The Association shall contract with an independent outside agent who will the conducted and tabulate the vote.
  • Each Status Representative shall cast in plenary session, by electronic means, a weighted vote equal to the number of members that he/she represents at his airline for the candidate of his choice. The votes will be tabulated automatically by the electronic balloting device.
  • The Vice President shall announce the total number of votes cast for each candidate.
  • The candidate receiving a simple majority of the votes cast shall be elected to the Office. The candidate receiving a simple majority of the votes cast shall be elected to the office.
  • When there are more than two candidates, a minimum of 50% + 1 of all votes cast shall be required to elect a candidate. In the event no single candidate obtains the required plurality of 50% + 1, the two candidates with the highest number of votes shall be the sole candidates on a second ballot. The candidate receiving the highest number of votes in the run-off ballot shall be elected to the office.

SUMMARY

Whew! OK that’s the basic concept. Refinements of the details will of course be required. Essentially what this does is establish three separate branches of governance, each independent of the other and with separate and equal powers.

The elimination of three (3) of the four “national officers” de-politicizes the management structure. Elimination of the elected EVP’s alters the political structure of the Executive Council and restores its function to that of management of the Association on a non-partisan basis, rather than political and completely partisan basis. Decisions can then be made for the benefit of the Association as a whole, in lieu of the present system which is purely partisan. The day to day administration of the union should not be dependent on partisan divisions. This system insures that it will not.

A new Judicial Branch is established. This serves many purposes. Among them is the ability to interpret the Constitution on an impartial and non-partisan basis. Disputes between MEC’s can be determined on a non-partisan basis. Legislation can be challenged with respect only to its validity under the Constitution; again, on a non-partisan basis. Legal oversight of the Executive and Legislative branches can be conducted on a non-partisan basis.

The present unicameral legislature is abandoned in favor of a bicameral legislative system. The change in voting procedure of the Executive Board prevents three of four large airlines from dictating everything to the remaining 40 airlines. Each member of the EB would have only one vote, and therefore an equal voice.

The requirement for approval of all legislation by the BOD, is designed to maintain the balance of power between large and small airlines. All BOD votes are weighted and based on the membership population of the respective airline.

Since the BOD will have the power to reject any legislation, large airlines do NOT lose their power to block changes of which they do not approve. By the same token, the one-man-one-vote procedure of the EB prevents large airlines from being unable to always overrule any desire of the smaller airlines. The Bicameral system provides an equitable balance of power.

Additionally, the much more frequent and active participation that this procedure demands of the BOD members (Status Reps) has the effect of forcing a much more direct link between the rank and file membership and their union. Reps can more readily be held accountable for their actions and the overall positions of their Union. There is far more direct power to the membership, which directly elects the BOD, via this method.

With thia structure, I believe that ALPA’s ability to fairly represent all members would be greatly improved.

End

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Surplus1, good post....




What I like about the current structure is the ability of any member to attend and LEC/MEC meeting and bring his own resolution to effect immediate change. Does your new structure allow that?

Also, you mention the President would have Special emergency power?

Special powers in time of crisis, e.g. Strikes – TBD
​

​

​

​

Why is that? I see strikes as local events. Would the president have the ability to stop a pilot group from striking under your organzational structure?

A judical branch? I realize it reflects our Fed organzational structure, however I am not sure....then again... would the judical branch hear and rule on the RJDC issue? If so, it would be quicker....

It seems your organizational structure, being that it is more like our Fed set up, is more in tune with what the common member wants and is in tune with our current culture: fire and forget or maintnenece free. Constituents simply want to cast thier vote (for thier elected Reps) and forget about it. (and get the results they want)....

Perhaps they should be appeased....

Why not...let's go for it....

Now, I propose to you...... how do we do this.... because basically your proposal takes power away from those who have it....

 

[John Pennekamp]

1. If ALPA was a democracy, then the majority would rule. That isn't the case in this situation. The membership doesn't get to vote on most issues, including the ALPA President.

2. Even if ALPA was a democracy, which it really isn't, would that make it right? Is majority rule a good thing? What if the majority wants to harm the minority?

3. I agree with you that the typical line pilot is completely clueless on how ALPA works. The typical American is completely clueless on how the government works. The typical American is clueless on how business works.

And you're typically clueless whenever you open your mouth, John. Go ask your US Senator if they respond to the majority or the minority. Minority rule is what led to Nazi Germany. This is by far the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say. You're losing your edge.

 

[surplus1]

Part 1 of 2

Surplus1, good post....

Thanks, glad you don't think it's totally nuts.

Before I answer your questions let me say this. It took me about 35 minutes to write that post. Obviously, it is a subject that I have given much thought over a long time but I never put it on paper before in that way. Please don’t take it as being flawless. I have a reasonable knowledge of the Association and its present structure. I also have strong ideas about what it will take to revamp it. However, I am very much aware that restructuring cannot and should not be the work of any one person. The proposal I advance is just that – a proposal. This would be a major undertaking and it has to be a collective effort involving the very best minds we have available. It can’t be a one man show. Please keep that in mind as you review the proposed changes and any comments that I might make about them.

What I like about the current structure is the ability of any member to attend and LEC/MEC meeting and bring his own resolution to effect immediate change. Does your new structure allow that?

In my proposed structure there would be no changes at all to the current Local Council or MEC procedures. The recommendations apply only to the organization of the National political structure. Also, they are not set in stone.

Those things not mentioned would be left pretty much as they are. That's based on the idea that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" I addressed only those areas that I think are critical to avoiding the divisive system that now exists.

I would hope that others would add more if necessary, or tweak whatever isn't just right. I don't pretend to have all the answers. If there's a better way, I'm all for it. I just know that the status quo doesn't work and if we do nothing to fix it, it will ultimately destroy our union from within. I don't want that to happen.

Also, you mention the President would have Special emergency power?

[/indent]Why is that? I see strikes as local events. Would the president have the ability to stop a pilot group from striking under your organizational structure?

I don't want to try to determine what specifically might constitute a "crisis", or an emergency. I also don't want to be specific about just what power the President would have in such cases. I think that should be determined by the body selected to work out the details of restructuring -- if such an attempt is ever made. Perhaps the President might not need any special powers at all. Then again he might need something that I haven't thought of. The President himself should have input as to what he might require. That's why I put "TBD" (To Be Determined) at the end of that line.

I don't quite agree with you that strikes are "local in nature". I think they affect the entire Association. To what extent depends, among other things, on which airline is on strike. The MCF is involved. There's an assessment for strike benefits. The size of the airline on strike changes the impact, etc., etc.

Think back to the EAL strike of '89. I don't know if you were around for that but do you have any idea just how much impact that strike had on the finances of the Association as a whole? Since then many changes have been made to reduce those adverse effects. But, don't think that the MCF is an unlimited slush fund. I assure you it isn't. What if two large carriers are on strike at the same time?

As I see it, one of the President's prime responsibilities is to protect the security of the Union. If that is true, he has to be empowered to take certain actions without waiting for votes from the EB and the BOD. What those powers might be have to be carefully worked out by many heads, not just one (me).

Judicial branch? I realize it reflects our Fed organzational structure, however I am not sure....then again... would the judical branch hear and rule on the RJDC issue? If so, it would be quicker....

Let me answer your last question first. NO, the judicial branch would not hear or rule on the RJDC issue. Why … Because that dispute is a lawsuit against the Association in a federal court. It is already in progress. It’s too late. Now, if we had, had a Judicial Branch when the dispute first arose, then yes, it would have heard and decided. That almost certainly would mean there would never have been an RJDC or a lawsuit. Creation of a Judicial Branch would not eliminate litigation against the Association. It is not a court of law but an “internal” body for the resolution of disputes. In the case of the RJDC litigation, it came about mostly because the issues involved were not addressed by the union. The big guys simply decided what they wanted to do and did it. The little guys were not listened to, not heard, and had no means to address their grievances – real or imagined. They were simply ignored. Since there was no way to equitably address the issues internally, it resulted in a major lawsuit.

Keep in mind that I don’t speak for the RJDC and I am not a party to the litigation. I do support the cause but that is all. Nevertheless, it is my considered opinion that if ALPA were to restructure along the lines I have proposed, it would go a long way towards ending that litigation. Problems of that nature need to be resolved internally. When all paths to a solution are either non-existent or intentionally obstructed by a handful of demagogues, the only remedy becomes the Courts. Naturally, the powers that be will not agree with those opinions and they have the power to impose their will, regardless of whether it is just or not. They call it “democracy” but it isn’t; it’s oligarchy – a small group of people who together govern or control an organization, often (if not always) for their own purposes. Any organization in which the minority has no meaningful voice is not “democratic” it is totalitarian and dictatorial. That lays the ground work for eventual revolution and civil war. If the system is not modified, eventually it will implode.

Restructuring is of course not the only solution, there are other alternatives. We could continue to pretend that “all is well on the Western Front” and maintain the status quo, while the cancer continues to grow. The “big five” could leave the Union and form a “club” of their own wherein they will have only themselves to quarrel with. The “big five” could each leave and form independent unions, as American did. One in particular has repeatedly threatened to do just that if it doesn’t get its way. Another option would be for the smaller carriers to leave and form a new union that is able to represent their interests more to their satisfaction. I just happen to believe that restructuring is the better option.

If we wish the ALPA to continue and survive as “the union of all airline pilots”, then we must find some way to make it that. Some argue it is already that. I disagree. I see ALPA as a loose federation of entities each serving its own parochial interest; -- More than 40 airlines in a system that permits only three (3) to impose their will on the remainder, whether individually or collectively. That works, but only if the parochial interests never conflict with each other. Unfortunately, they invariably do. At present, as I see it, there is no equitable means of converting the “ME” into a collective “WE”. In that environment, the term “Union” is an oxymoron.

Continued >>>

 

[surplus1]

Part 2 of 2

Why do you suppose American won’t come back and airlines like SWA, AirTran, UPS and JB won’t join? Even though American would be a political powerhouse if it returned to ALPA, it would still be subjected to rule by a coalition of 3 of the other heavyweights, with no equitable means to resolve any serious differences that might develop. That is precisely why American left the ALPA in the first instance. Folks like SWA, AT and JB would be turned into instant vassals of the more powerful. Such is the position of every small airline currently in ALPA. Some don’t care, others do.

In my opinion, an independent "judicial branch" is essential to the equitable resolution of internal conflict. By “independent” I mean free of political pressure to the extent that such is possible. At present there is NO “body” within the Association that can impartially decide a serious dispute between two carriers, several carriers, one carrier and the union itself, or an individual member or group of members and the union. Additionally, the Executive Council "interprets" the Constitution. That may sound OK, but it isn't. Whenever politics is involved, those “interpretations” never fail to reflect the will of those with the political clout, i.e., “the big 5”.

In theory, current Executive Vice Presidents do not represent their individual airlines they represent all of us collectively. That’s a nice idea, but it just isn’t so. In reality, the Executive Council is a highly politicized body. Just think about how a member becomes an EVP. Do you think, for example that the EVP from one of the legacy carriers will actually vote against the interests of his own airline? Suppose there is a conflict between two of the airlines in Group B1 and one of them happens to be the airline from which the EVP of B1 came – how would you expect him to vote? Each of the 5 Group A airlines has its own EVP. In addition, all 4 of the “national officers” each comes from a Group A airline, and each can vote on the Executive Council. What that literally means is that the 5 largest airlines have 9 votes on the EC, and 4 of those 5 each has 2 votes, whereas the 5th only has one vote. I don’t question the integrity of any of these fine gentlemen but I ask you, from a pragmatic perspective, how can a conflict of interest between any two of them be impartially resolved? How can a conflict of interest between a large airline and a small airline be impartially resolved? The answer is obvious.

What if the issue is an interpretation of the Constitution? But, the outcome of that interpretation benefits all of the small airlines but none of the large airlines. Which way would you expect the constitution to be “interpreted”?

Since all of the national officers sit on the Executive Council with all of the EVP’s their relationship is naturally quite close. Do you suppose that could lend itself to partiality?

While I say again that I do not question the integrity of these gentlemen, we as a union must not only insure that our governance is impartial we must also avoid any appearance of partiality or favoritism.

By its very nature, the current system conveys nothing but the appearance of an intentionally jerrymandered system designed to favor 5 airlines at all times, regardless of the adverse impact on the remainder. We must however remember that the Association represents 38 – 42 +- separate airlines. Just as all pilots should be afforded one level of safety, all members of the Association must have the same level of representation from the national union, i.e., fair and equitable at all times; not only in theory but in practice.

And independent judiciary would eliminate all appearances of undue political influence and partisanship in its decisions. I think it would also eliminate (or certainly reduce substantially) the possibility of actual partisanship. No member of an independent Judiciary would be dependent on political patronage and influence of any one (1) MEC for the security of his position. Neither would he be dependent on the approval of the Executive Branch. Once confirmed, he would be free to decide issues exclusively on their merits. At present, no less than 5 EVP’s are totally dependent (politically) on their “home” MEC’s.

In addition to the benefit of the independent Judiciary noted above, keep in mind the linkage to converting the Executive Council to an administrative body (its true purpose) with members nominated by the President and appointed with the advice and consent of the Executive Board, voting one-man-one-vote. None of them would be subordinate to any one airline, or to any small grouping of airlines. This would remove the political influence and partisanship from the Executive Branch (administration) as well.

Any representative democratic system that intentionally places all of the power into the hands of the very few, cannot operate fairly for the many or the whole. While it was not so intended originally, that is precisely what the current structure of the ALPA does.

Perhaps they should be appeased....

My purpose and intent is not to appease anyone. I think our current structure was designed for a different time. Although it has been plastered with band-aids over time it has become dysfunctional and broken in the real world of today. That did not happen overnight, it has been developing and increasing for well over a decade No serious effort has been made to correct it. That speaks poorly of the original design but that point is moot. I think we need a major restructuring if we expect to survive well into the future. It’s long overdue.

Now, I propose to you...... how do we do this.... because basically your proposal takes power away from those who have it....

Well, now we’re back to the real world. The direct answer is – we don’t! It’s all wishful thinking.

Several years back in a conversation related to these issues, the current President of the ALPA told me it was his opinion that the large airlines (the Elephants) would NEVER alter the political structure or adopt a more equitable method of managing our Union or allocating the funding of individual MEC’s. They will not reduce or give up any of their current power. I believe he was right then and I think that is true today. The powers that be are firmly entrenched and they aren’t going to give up anything voluntarily. Since there is no way to change anything without their consent, the discussion is academic.

Even if the collective membership of the small airlines should grow to exceed that of the large airlines, the fact there are so many will prevent consensus among them for a variety of reasons. The formation of a strong coalition is only a remote possibility; it is not probable. Thus, the status quo will remain in place – until the Union implodes. JMO.

 

[goodto50meters]

Bad idea. Then you'll have individual pilot groups voting for native sons (or daughters). Might as well just earmark the presidency for the airline with the greatest number of voting members.

At least the current system allows for the formation of alliances, based on (perceived) mutual interests. And status reps have some real knowledge of the candidates.

Considering the number of members who a) don't know their own contracts; b) don't go to meetings; and c) rarely vote at the LEC level -- I'd say governing ALPA by plebiscite would be a piss-poor idea. If you don't like how things are going at the national level, get involved locally.

Here's an idea: run for office! You, too, can spend your life on voicemail and email -- and get precious few thank-you's for your effort.

Excellent points. The practicaliity of it may prove you right. But not all 50 states run someone nationaly for president. Perhaps Surplus has a reasonable alternative that at least should be looked at. His plan has merits but would add expense to running the association. It might be worth it though.

Surplus,

Is this going to come up at a Council 37 meeting to start the politicking?

 

[goodto50meters]

Nevermind Surplus, I just read your last post.

Are you going to try anyway?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Surplus1

A great response. Thought provoking and refreshing.....

Perhaps the Juducial branch should be elected, by the BOD and not nominated to further reduce political influence....

In additon current EVP's can remain the MEC Chairman of thier Airlines... This to me is conflict....

Your post might just be a print-to-read-again.....

 

[surplus1]

His plan has merits but would add expense to running the association. It might be worth it though.

Could you help me by pointing out what you think might be more expensive and why?

My own opinion is that it would be cost neutral if not cheaper.

Surplus,
Is this going to come up at a Council 37 meeting to start the politicking?

I'm not directly involved in politics myself any more, so I will not be bringing it up myself. There are some others who know about it and have an do have an interest in the national union. Perhaps they may choose to pursue it at some point.

I do hope that a serious effort is made to fix our problems, even if I'm not directly involved. I do care about the future of ALPA.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus1

A great response. Thought provoking and refreshing.....

Don't be too generous --- it might go to my head.

Perhaps the Juducial branch should be elected, by the BOD and not nominated to further reduce political influence...

I've always felt that folks who act as judges of anything should not be elected. I know that you can't avoid politics completely when they are nominated by a politician, but if the Executive Board did the "advice and consent" [one-man-one-vote] of the nominees, I think that's about as far removed from politics as we could get. Once approved, no one can influence them. They would only serve one (1) six-year term (thus overlapping the politicians terms for the most part) and could only be removed by impeachment. Once they get there, it would not matter who "likes" them or doesn't.

I chose the EB in preference to the BOD for this because I think the BOD is too disbursed for its members to know enough if anything about persons that the President might nominate. The EB has, in my opinion, a better handle on the players. The Pres would be nominating prominent people well versed in the workings of the union. Both their qualifications and their backgrounds would be well known to most of the Executive Board (all of whom would still be MEC Chairmen). There would be no campaigning and not speeches from the candidates. (Very similar to how we put people on federal courts today; except that these folks would be limited to one six-year term; not serve for life).

They would get no pay. Just expenses and flight-pay-loss if applicable [from national accounts, not MEC accounts]. Retired pilots would be eligible and, in my opinion, the best candidates since their decisions could not benefit them personally.

In additon current EVP's can remain the MEC Chairman of thier Airlines... This to me is conflict....

In the new structure I proposed that would go away. A member of the EC (cabinet) would not be able to be a member of the EB (senate) at the same time. Two separate branches of governance.

I agree there is conflict in the present system.

Your post might just be a print-to-read-again.....

Feel free to do with it as you wish. There's no copyright. My objective is a better Union and better representation for all members. I don't care who gets credit for making it happen.

The ideas will most likely be seen as revolutionary by those in power and will probably get little attention. Just the same, I think they would work better than what we have now.

I'm naive enough to believe that government "by the people, of the people and for the people" is superior to government by the few, of the many, for themselves.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Don't be too generous --- it might go to my head. .

I am hoping it would go to everyone elses head.....

 

[PCL_128]

Surplus, thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed plan. It may surprise you, but I actually like your reorganization ideas. I certainly don't feel that the Association is as broken and corrupt as you do, but I do feel that there are many problems that aren't being addressed under the current system. The problem is, of course, that changing the balance of power that is currently in place will be virtually impossible if all of the smaller carriers don't join together and fight for the same thing. Since you were an elected rep for some time and know how the Association operates now, I'm sure you realize that that is very unlikely to happen. There is certainly some communication between regional MECs, but it is minimal at best. To go from that to complete unity and lockstep for change would take a miracle.

I certainly don't mean to discourage you from attempting some sort of "revolution" for change, however. If you have some allies on the BOD that you think might be able to help, then I say more power to you. I would love to see the reforms that you propose. If you want to rock the boat then you could always submit your plan in the form of a resolution at your next Local Council meeting. That could get interesting.