Gary,
I write this letter after much thought and consideration of our personal friendship and professional relationship. When you were EVP and under many political attacks, I defended you when no one else would. I wrote you a letter of recommendation for EVP when you were relatively unknown to many. I withdrew my own presidential run and supported your presidential campaign from the outside the best I could. Your brother-in-law is my best friend. In short, I am the least likely person in the union to be critical of your administration.
Since before your election, you indicated that you wanted me to be your NAC Chairman. In those conversations, I explained what I felt it would take to achieve an industry standard contract. As you recall, we agreed that it would take an entire rebuilding of the union decision making structure into a well-organized, highly efficient, strategically superior organization that would gather input for a global strategy for success against the ever evolving airline management’s tactics. All of that was nice conversation, but virtually none of that has been implemented, and it is causing us to be in a confusingly weak position.
From day one of your administration, you shut out almost every source of input except your attorney’s. You basically informed the NAC and the Board what needed to be done only after you and the attorneys had pretty much set the course. The NAC were scared for their jobs and offered no resistance, at first that is. When Paul did finally try to do something about the lack of continuity in negotiations - he was fired. Make no mistake, it is well known that I have advocated a change in NAC leadership, but you chose to keep the current Chairman, then circumnavigate him and send mixed messages to management. Do I think that you, as President, should be able to negotiate with the company? Yes, but only after consultation with the Board and NAC as to what the goal is so we send a consistent, clear, firm message to management. There was never any real vetting of all the options - no due diligence. It was just the merger is going to move us from this dead zone we are in and that’s all I care about.
Look at the position USAPA is in now. The NAC, which works for the board, says that we should accept the MOU. The board which directs the NAC unanimously says the MOU is not worthy of a yes vote, but then lets the membership decide. And the President, who is supposed to carry out the will of the board, is working behind the scenes to get the MOU passed. What message does this send to the company? This is a carbon copy of Bill Pollack and the dysfunctional “Let my daddy vote” time years ago. The pilots will pay the price for this dysfunction with this MOU and also with our negotiations with APA. The message that the company and the APA is hearing is, “I want a merger at any price, the board doesn’t know what it is doing, and the pilots will cave.” This MOU should never have been presented in open session. It has caused the desired affect that you and the company wanted - line pilot controversy and pressure.
Had the MOU been constructed in the normal way of board input and daily board updates, then they would not have been put into such a precarious position of learning the details, digesting the ups and downs, and deciding whether to approve it or not in the course of a special meeting in open session. Instead, it was a total surprise to the board and they were left to face the preplanned political pressure of line pilots in the room with dollar signs in their eyes. Now, I’m guessing at your request, Scott Kirby is going to address the board and put the “Fear of God” in them. He will threaten us to live under LOA 93 for years to come for no other reason than spite and it appears you will be shoulder to shoulder with him!
Under ALPA and the APA’s structure, the board elects the President or MEC Chairman. Captain Bates was fired for not fulfilling the will of the board and pilots. The will of the board is to disapprove this MOU. There should be a strong message from the President to the company and the pilots, that you too feel it is lacking and you do not support it. Anything less is a breach of your duty to the Office of President and disrespectful to the board that represents the pilot group. In addition, if management feels the President does not stand with his board, they will use that to their advantage at the detriment of the pilots’ livelihood.
Do what you will with this letter, but I hope you will read it with an open heart and mind and realize that it is meant for only the most honorable proposes. Another great letter!!!!!
