Days Since Negotiations Were Derailed:
50 DAYS
LEC 165 RECALL TRACKER
Know the Process.
01
Collect Signatures
02
signatures Verified by ALPA National
03
Meeting Scheduled
July 14th
04
In-Person Vote to Send to Membership
05
Full Membership Online Vote
06
Representatives Recalled
*Once the agenda for the LEC 165 meeting is published, proxy votes may be submitted. This is not the proxy vote itself. The purpose of this form is to help organize the meeting by identifying members who plan to attend, members willing to carry proxy votes, and members who may need to vote by proxy. Your response will help ensure every member has the opportunity to be represented.*
The Real Failure Was LEC 165 Leadership
A new Negotiating Committee is not a strategy. It is not a plan. It is not leverage. It does not create movement from management. It does not erase the time already lost. It does not explain why the prior committee was removed, and it does not answer the most important question: what exactly is supposed to change?
That premise only makes sense if there is a clear, rational reason to believe a new committee can achieve something materially different. So far, that reason has not been provided.
If the issue was direction, then the MEC owns that.
If the issue was strategy, then the MEC owns that.
If the issue was priorities, then the MEC owns that.
If the issue was lack of progress, then the MEC needs to explain how replacing the committee changes management’s position, the legal process, the economic landscape, or the leverage available to the pilot group.
Without that explanation, “give them a chance” is not a serious argument. It is blind faith being used to justify a decision after the fact.
The pilot group is being asked to accept delay, disruption, and public scapegoating with no articulated benefit. That is not leadership. That is not strategic and it is not rational.
The question is not whether a new committee deserves a chance. The question is why this pilot group should be forced to absorb the consequences of removing an experienced committee when no one has explained what problem that decision actually solved.
A new committee cannot create a better outcome if the same MEC is still setting the direction, controlling the process, and failing to explain the plan. You cannot say the old committee was the problem while also refusing to identify what the new committee will do differently.
That is why the premise is not logical. It asks pilots to ignore process, ignore timing, ignore accountability, ignore the loss of experience, ignore the damage to credibility, and simply hope that something better appears.
Hope is not a negotiating strategy. “Give them a chance” is not a plan. And this pilot group should not be expected to pay the price for another decision made without a clear explanation, a defined strategy, or most importantly meaningful member engagement.
LEC 165 Meeting & Proxy Vote Coordination
Thank you to everyone who signed the petition to force the LEC 165 meeting. This meeting is the next step in allowing those present to vote on whether this issue should be sent to the full council, giving every LEC 165 member the opportunity to cast a vote for or against it. Too many decisions have been made without direct pilot input, and this cannot be one of them.
Your information will not be shared. It will only be used to coordinate proxy votes.
About The Recall
This site exists to document, explain, and track the LEC 165 recall.
1. Removal of the Negotiating Committee Without Membership Support
- Supported the removal of the entire Negotiating Committee despite no evidence of broad membership support.
- Did not conduct meaningful polling or engagement before taking the action.
- Ignored warnings from experienced negotiators, attorneys, and labor professionals about the consequences.
- Created a delay in negotiations and uncertainty regarding representation at the bargaining table.
- The fundamental question is: How do elected representatives remove the entire negotiating committee without first seeking the input of the pilots they represent?
2. Failure to Maintain Transparency and Accountability
- Major decisions were made in executive session with limited explanation afterward.
- Membership was often informed of decisions after the fact rather than before.
- Communications frequently described administrative actions but did not explain the strategic rationale behind them.
- Pilots were expected to trust decisions without being provided the information necessary to evaluate them.
- Representation requires accountability. Accountability requires transparency.
3. Refusal to Meaningfully Engage Their Membership
- LEC 169 repeatedly failed to hold the membership meetings pilots requested.
- Other councils continued to hold meetings and engage their pilots during the same period.
- Members seeking answers were often directed to newsletters, podcasts, or social media rather than direct discussion with elected representatives.
- Representation is not something that happens to members. It should happen with members.
4. Use of Governance Procedures to Override Membership Input
- Relied on procedural mechanisms that allowed decisions to be made without direct membership involvement.
- Used voting structures that amplified council influence while reducing the ability of individual pilots to weigh in.
- Even if technically permissible, many pilots believe these procedures were used in a manner that did not reflect the priorities and wishes of the membership they were elected to represent.
5. Lack of Strategic Leadership During a Critical Period
This is broader than any one decision.
- No clearly articulated plan for negotiations after removing the NC.
- Committees are left operating without clear direction.
- Key positions became vacant through resignations because of the actions of LEC 169.
- Communications focused on administrative milestones rather than a comprehensive strategy to return the pilot group to a position of strength.
- The issue is not whether mistakes were made. Every leadership team makes mistakes. The issue is whether there was a coherent strategy before and after those mistakes occurred. It has become clear there is not.