top of page

Days Since Negotiations Were Derailed:

102 DAYS

LEC 165 RECALL TRACKER

Know the Process

1

Meeting Scheduled
July 14th

2

In-Person Vote to Send to Membership

3

 Membership Online Vote:
   7/16 - 7/31

4

Representatives Recalled, July 31st, 20206

Council 165 Ballot Results: LEC Representatives Recalled

Results posted- July 31st, 2026

The Failure: LEC 165 Leadership

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 who advised that removing the Negotiating Committee would create significant delays without improving the pilot group's leverage or negotiating position.
  • 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 165 cancelled the scheduled May 5th meeting and did not reschedule it, eliminating what would have been the primary opportunity for pilots to discuss the planned removal of the Negotiating Committee.

  • While LEC 165 avoided membership discussion, other councils continued holding meetings and engaging directly with their pilots during the same period.

  • Recall efforts have been active since the cancelled May meeting, yet meaningful discussion with the membership has consistently been avoided.

  • Effective representation requires member involvement. LEC 165 chose to make some of the most significant decisions in recent history without it.

4. 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 165.
  • 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.
5. Politics Over Qualifications
​
  • During the selection process for the new Negotiating Committee, qualified applicants were told they were "unelectable."
  • That is a clear example of making decisions based on MEC politics and not what is best for the pilot group.
  • The Frontier pilot group has a limited number of pilots with meaningful Section 6, mediation, and labor-relations experience.
  • Rather than selecting the most experienced and capable volunteers available, LEC 165 representatives have prioritized agreement and loyalty.
  • The purpose of rebuilding the Negotiating Committee should have been to put the strongest advocates at the table—not the least challenging voices.
​
LEC 165 representatives removed the Negotiating Committee without a clear cause and without presenting a credible plan forward. The rebuild should have focused on restoring confidence by selecting the most qualified advocates available. Instead, applicants were judged on whether they were "electable" rather than whether they were capable. Once again, qualifications appear secondary to politics, providing further evidence that LEC 165 leadership prioritizes political alignment over what is best for the Frontier pilot group.
bottom of page