This is faulty logic. If one side of two negotiating teams is being completely unreasonable, why should both sides be replaced?
It sounds like you weren't paying attention during the whole ASAP fiasco. ALPA, or to put it more correctly, the ASA pilots, simply wanted an ASAP program just like other ASAP programs that are standard throughout the industry. Management wanted the union to waive all greivance protections associated with any incident. (Lets say the company agreed to retrain a pilot for some reason under the program. Without grievance protections, they could refuse to pay the pilot, or punish him in other ways). No other airline in the industry waived those protections, except for Comair. Considering how our management manages to take advantage of our pilots at every turn, it would have been completely irresponsible to agree to that. I believe that while most pilots really want ASAP, they supported our MEC's stance.
The same goes for most other issues that our current representatives are working on. Can anyone actually fault their methods? They have determined what the pilot group as a whole wants, and they are doing everything possible to make those things happen. Just because management hasn't agreed to everything we want (yet!) doesn't mean we need to fire our elected representatives. I think they have succeeded in representing us.