FangsF15

Sure he is.

Okay, then you know several ninja's. The point is, that's not the norm.

There are only something like 21 "full time ALPA people". I'm not sure that's a valuable comparison.

I don't think their PRMC vote was a 'recallable offense', but a lot of peple rightly raised an eyebrow at voting themselves a raise.

CRJphlyer

I agree that the optics are goofy.

First Break

You'll have to show your math on how to translate 5:40/day into “140 hours a month”.

If it’s all ALPA, that means that individual worked 25 days and damn well should get that pay.

Or, are you saying your are upset that part time ALPA volunteers actually fly on their non-alpa days? Aren’t you the same guy obsessed with the block hour look back of your reps?

Im just trying to keep up with all your arguments of convenience. My suspicion is you have an axe to grind completely unrelated to the (extremely thin) stated narrative for these recalls. Maybe an axe that rhymes with BASE. Am I close?

Buck Rogers

The conundrum is, line pilots that are happy with more time off and 70 hours of pay/month are not necessarily the guys I would want to represent me.

The guys that are "go get-ers" being paid 125hrs/month don't want to take the pay cut but seem to have an affinity to maximize the system(sometimes at a cost to QOL)

Who would represent the pilots best intrests? The "Hard Charger", or the "It's enough I'm all about QOL"?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Each pilots answer is different.

BTW...more insignificant data points. I commuted, flew relatively few GS, worked 15 days a month and averaged 125-130ish hours of pay/month for my last 10 years and 3 different bases and 2 different planes. My 2 very closet friends...relatively new, average 110hrs a month pay.

Some pilots have enough $$$ and want more time off, some have enough time off and want more $$$, and some pilots want to "optimize" both. I would preder the optimizer....but they would prolly not be interested.

ODB2

[QUOTE=FangsF15;

I will agree though that Social Media (APC included) does sometimes fail to reflect the actual will of the people (or, at least, those who are motivated to proxy/show up). Personally, I think it's a healthy thing every once in a while to keep the reps honest. If they know they will be held to account if they run afoul of thier electorate, isn't that a good thing? As with anything, too much of a good thing can be worse though.[/QUOTE]

Fangs, Agree completely. My complaint is there was no good discussion. The pro recall side was unbelievably weak. I was hoping CBreezy would be there and there would be a solid discussion of the issues, an airing of grievances, debate the topics. There was not. It was immediately apparent that the young guy got left out to dry by his supporters (he did say it was all his own idea, but I still have my suspicions) and did not have the ability to defend his points. His little point paper was the same weak arguments passed on here. No serious contrarian approach/views presented. I just think the bar needs to be raised for a recall initiation so it is something more serious and can actually have a positive impact on the organization, to hear all voices and have honest debate. That is not what happened yesterday.

ODB2

[QUOTE=CBreezy;
As for no one in favor, I completely understand. Other than those of us that were vocal, why set a target on your back? One rep was overheard in the lounge yesterday calling anyone who supported a recall a coward. A coward for DARING to stand up against your elected reps. They didn't want to hear discussion. They wanted to brow beat and punish anyone who supported the recall. That's embarrassing

The fact that people were being attacked for wanting to recall their reps, a completely legitimate action allowed within our C&BL and you're wondering why no one wanted to volunteer to collect votes? Someone did, by the way.[/QUOTE]

Since you weren't there, I will let you know the tone of the room was completely professional. There was no bullying, shouting down or anything of the sort. The reps were very respectful to the 2-3 people who spoke for the pro recall side, let them make their points and responded factually not emotionally. I did not see any intimidation of any form. Are you claiming there was? Who was attacked? The original maker felt comfortable enough later in the meeting to make a self deprecating joke about being "the most hated member of C44" when speaking on a subsequent resolution and everyone in the room chuckled. Maybe you could learn a thing or two from him.

Are you saying the Pilot lounge or the lounge at the GICC? I would say you are spreading rumors that you cannot corroborate and that detracts from the level of discourse on this forum. I don't appreciate you admitting you weren't there and then going on about brow beating and punishing that just didn't happen. That is in fact what is embarrassing. I appreciate that you bring a different view point, I don't have any respect for the underhanded comments.

Again for the masses, go to a meeting if you want to know how it works and participate in the process. Be very skeptical of what you hear on here (including from me), see it with your own eyes.

ODB2

It is my understanding that there was someone who bypassed from C81 to participate in the C44 recall effort yesterday. Apparently they were pretty upset on hearing the announcement about that recall getting overturned. Anyone on here want to own up to that? I know it's not who I quoted, but since you raised the issue.

Just making the point, I am sure it was all done in accordance with the written procedures or else it wouldn't have happened. If you don't like the rules, there is a way to change them. I get that it's not easy to do but that is a good thing, otherwise they just change all the time.

Gone Flying

the first I saw anything about the 81 recall getting overturned was yesterday from the 44 meeting, so I don’t think that angle has much merit unless someone knew this was coming.

and in order to bypass, don’t you have to live closer to your new council than your old? I really doubt too many SLC pilots live closer to ATL than SLC. I mean I guess it’s possible 1 did, but I bet there were more bypasses from 48 than 81.

FangsF15

FWIW, as someone who has been on disability (went 'out' from a different base from where I live) and used the council bypass, I fully support council bypass. I also have no problem with someone using council bypass to change to the council where they actually live, even if only to vote for/against a recall.

However, I might be able to support limiting the ability to switch back and forth consecutive months, or similar. Maybe have a 6-month "council lock" to prevent folks switching in and right back out again, unless you actually AE/convert to a different base. Might be good to have a little flexibility for extenuating circumstances though - I always like to have an 'out' for unintended consequences. Just my 2 cents.

//break, break//

Your post above this quoted one reminded me of something (not directed at you at all). I thought there were a few negative comments about the 'maker' which crossed the line. Specifically, one 'seasoned' captain seemed to degrade him for not being at DL long enough to bring such a motion - "maybe if you were here a little longer and learned something first...". That was total BS. If you are off probation, you are a full voting member of the union, and are free to exercise your rights just like anyone else. Period. I really can't stand the old guard condescending to 'newer' - not necessarily younger or inexperienced - pilots just because they've been around forever. Deferring, or tipping the hat, to the 'experienced' is one thing, but being condescending and dismissive is another. I didn't appreciate it in the AF, and I don't appreciate it here. We should respect compelling arguments, not brow-beating ones. That said, I thought a couple people did defend the guy a little too, saying that although they disagreed with him, they were glad to see him exercise his rights to participate. Again, that's not directed at you, just a general observation.

CBreezy

It's not underhanded. As Fangs said, that comment alone was brow beating. It may have been limited to very few, but it was still present. Most people who showed up there already had their minds made up. From the multiple people I talked to that were there, it was very clear how it was going to turn out from the very beginning. And no one hung him out to dry. He honestly did start this process himself.

And the comment on the lounge was from later that evening in the pilot lounge. I trust the person who told me without question.