LEC 77 Election Thread
10-31-2017, 05:36 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: A320 Left
Posts: 149
[QUOTE=AllOva736;2458341]
It's pathetic and sadly true how ignorant many of our pilots are. Hundreds of thousands of dollars and your family's financial future are at stake and these guys don't participate in the process or pay attention. We need to hold our MEC (and LECs) accountable for their successes and their shortcomings. Otherwise, we're the fools.
At a minimum: vote in the election and fill out your surveys. And in March 2018, let your reps know if you want this MEC Chairman and others re-elected (should he decide to run again).
You've already made it clear how you feel about DFW pilots. We're the biggest bunch of conspiracy theorist goobers in the system. The DFW LEC movement was borne of a situation where our voices were not allowed as simply as LAS based pilots' were a few years ago then were not given the alternating LEC meeting in DFW as promised. It's disappointing to hear the low turnout but curious if anyone has analytics as to what percentage of DFW pilots were actually off on the date selected. I know no DFW reps were. 
[/QUOTE
Well yes you may know how I feel but the real question is how many new people even know what LEC means. Please explain to the new guys what a LEC actually is and why they should care.
[/QUOTEWell yes you may know how I feel but the real question is how many new people even know what LEC means. Please explain to the new guys what a LEC actually is and why they should care.
At a minimum: vote in the election and fill out your surveys. And in March 2018, let your reps know if you want this MEC Chairman and others re-elected (should he decide to run again).
10-31-2017, 05:44 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: A320 Left
Posts: 149
Figure close to 240 total DFW based pilots. Lets say average is half the month off for pilots with drops, so 120 pilots working maybe.
In attendance were 2 LAS based reps (Conspiracy!!!!!) DFW based scheduling chairman, 2 guys running for CA 77 REP, FO running for FO rep, and I think 2 line pilots who are not in the union or running for a union position.
This is a standard turnout for most LEC meetings. So its not surprising, but doesn't scream of a motivated group.
But like others have said, LEC construction is so far down my list of priorities right now for this MEC and pilot group.
In attendance were 2 LAS based reps (Conspiracy!!!!!) DFW based scheduling chairman, 2 guys running for CA 77 REP, FO running for FO rep, and I think 2 line pilots who are not in the union or running for a union position.
This is a standard turnout for most LEC meetings. So its not surprising, but doesn't scream of a motivated group.
But like others have said, LEC construction is so far down my list of priorities right now for this MEC and pilot group.
10-31-2017, 06:42 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2016
Posts: 612
[QUOTE=DFWLECNOW;2458377]
It's pathetic and sadly true how ignorant many of our pilots are. Hundreds of thousands of dollars and your family's financial future are at stake and these guys don't participate in the process or pay attention. We need to hold our MEC (and LECs) accountable for their successes and their shortcomings. Otherwise, we're the fools.
At a minimum: vote in the election and fill out your surveys. And in March 2018, let your reps know if you want this MEC Chairman and others re-elected (should he decide to run again).
Like I asked before, how is a DFW LEC going to benefit us? Please explain to the masses how a LEC is going to change the world for pilots at Spirit.
It's pathetic and sadly true how ignorant many of our pilots are. Hundreds of thousands of dollars and your family's financial future are at stake and these guys don't participate in the process or pay attention. We need to hold our MEC (and LECs) accountable for their successes and their shortcomings. Otherwise, we're the fools.
At a minimum: vote in the election and fill out your surveys. And in March 2018, let your reps know if you want this MEC Chairman and others re-elected (should he decide to run again).
11-01-2017, 06:18 AM
#15
On Reserve
Joined APC: Oct 2017
Posts: 11
[QUOTE=AllOva736;2458435]
I’ll bite.
You’ll recall all 6 reps gave the company complete relief from our CBA for 5 days in exchange for a now infamous “no quid.” I’m sure those reps mean well, but there’s a lot of pressure on each of them to be the lone wolf and say “no” when the other reps want to go a certain direction, true?
When is the last time we’ve seen one rep disagree with the direction of the other reps and write their constituents explaining why? You don’t see that happen here. For some reason, the reps always feel like they have to be in lock step with one another on all union matters. It’s doesn’t work that way elsewhere.
For the record, none of the DFW pilots are opposed to any other base(s) going thru the process we did to gain representation. In fact, it could help the way our union operates if every base had its own CA and FO representatives. Here’s how:
Suppose we had 12 reps back then when the decision to grant total and complete CBA relief was granted (6 bases would yield 12 reps). Does anyone really think all 12 reps would’ve all harmonically agreed to giving the company relief? I’m quite certain some would’ve paused and said, “Hold on a minute...what’s in it for our pilots? NO!”
Some of us feel having only 6 reps involved in our career decisions places a lot of pressure on the lone one or two reps that might disagree and otherwise object to the direction our MEC takes. Sometimes, disagreement is necessary to ensure the best decisions are made for all our pilots.
The reality is this..we heard nothing but talk about “balance of power” at the meeting where the resolution was introduced. It was ultimately defeated because the MEC didn’t want a couple rebel-rouser DFW pilots getting elected and disrupting their precious power structure. Keep in mind those pilots would still have to get elected by their peers. There’s no guarantee and that’s not easy to do.
You’ll recall all 6 reps gave the company complete relief from our CBA for 5 days in exchange for a now infamous “no quid.” I’m sure those reps mean well, but there’s a lot of pressure on each of them to be the lone wolf and say “no” when the other reps want to go a certain direction, true?
When is the last time we’ve seen one rep disagree with the direction of the other reps and write their constituents explaining why? You don’t see that happen here. For some reason, the reps always feel like they have to be in lock step with one another on all union matters. It’s doesn’t work that way elsewhere.
For the record, none of the DFW pilots are opposed to any other base(s) going thru the process we did to gain representation. In fact, it could help the way our union operates if every base had its own CA and FO representatives. Here’s how:
Suppose we had 12 reps back then when the decision to grant total and complete CBA relief was granted (6 bases would yield 12 reps). Does anyone really think all 12 reps would’ve all harmonically agreed to giving the company relief? I’m quite certain some would’ve paused and said, “Hold on a minute...what’s in it for our pilots? NO!”
Some of us feel having only 6 reps involved in our career decisions places a lot of pressure on the lone one or two reps that might disagree and otherwise object to the direction our MEC takes. Sometimes, disagreement is necessary to ensure the best decisions are made for all our pilots.
The reality is this..we heard nothing but talk about “balance of power” at the meeting where the resolution was introduced. It was ultimately defeated because the MEC didn’t want a couple rebel-rouser DFW pilots getting elected and disrupting their precious power structure. Keep in mind those pilots would still have to get elected by their peers. There’s no guarantee and that’s not easy to do.
11-01-2017, 07:34 AM
#16
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 24
That is not exactly how that went down, they were all going to give relief but they were suppose to have an all call to continue discussing said quid. Five minutes before that call JA informed all he had granted relief with no guaranteed quid.
11-01-2017, 10:11 AM
#17
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 482
Unfortunately the few people I know at Spirit are considering it another stepping stone.
11-01-2017, 11:00 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: A320 Left
Posts: 149
And JA never got recalled by the MEC (as Chair) or by his own constituents in LEC 77. Amazing.
11-01-2017, 01:24 PM
#19
On Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 11
You'd think after the TRO people would learn to stay off of these boards and not take the bait from management trolls.
11-01-2017, 01:27 PM
#20
On Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 11
That is not accurate at all. Please contact ALPA Attorney AL for the facts who was present on all of the calls and tells a much different story.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
