Originally Posted by
Check Essential
I don't know if padre is real but we ignore the "padre" segment of our pilot group at our own peril.
They are out there.
There are several different variations of padre.
Some dream of moving into management. (or already think of themselves as management because they are "Captains")
Some want to be union honchos and think managing expectations is their mission.
Some derive their satisfaction, pride and self worth from the corporation's success. They regularly wear Delta ball caps and clothing when they are not at work and have a Delta bumper sticker on their car. The bankruptcy nearly killed them.
Others have a blue collar mentality, live modestly and frugally, already make more money than their neighbors and can't understand why anyone needs to make more than $150,000 to live a comfortable life. They may even feel guilty about their compensation.
[b]We need those people. We need their votes. We should calmly and rationally refute their arguments. Explain to them why airline pilots should be highly compensated professionals and why the current level of compensation is grossly inadequate for our training, skill level and responsibilities.[b]
Check,
I don't know who "we" is, or what your own purpose is in getting votes, but I'm going to assume you want pilots to vote for a good contract, and vote down a turd. In which case you're almost making a truly great point.
The conversation on APC would have you believe that anyone on here has to be either a Crip or a Blood, which enables some classic (and ultimately unsuccessful) debating techniques. Using a broad brush to paint another, frees you to show contempt for the person, and by extension, dismiss their arguments.
But I don't think the pilots that vote fit neatly into categories, even if you expand the list as you just did. I think this pilot group, compliant as it often seems, values independent thinking. We may vote for or against a contract together, but we like to arrive at our conclusions on our own terms. What else should we expect from people that can manage their own affairs, as well as their cockpit, with such consistently favorable outcomes?
So I certainly think you have a point: pilots will respond to a calm and rational argument. But where you might be wrong is to assume that every "yes voter" category is some version of either a dimwit or a management suck-up. I know you didn't use those terms, but if I read back through the categories, you're not accounting for people that are independent, intelligent, and not swayed by sentimentality for the company, or by union power-struggles, or attempts to define for them what they need in a contract. Those people will respond to a coherent argument, and will also defy attempts to pin them down to a particular allegiance or color. They don't need an explanation for their demands: they
know they should be compensated much better, considering their skills.
Whenever we vote (invariably "for"), there is always an element of surprise on the internet, where we feel betrayed by "yes voters". It never occurs to anyone to go back to the moment when the boards/forums started valuing perceived allegiances and labels, over logic. I think we're there. Again.
I must admit I'm guilty of falling into the trap. After being called an apologist, and an insider, by people I am intimately convinced are mere mouthpieces, it's hard to resist classifying some into camps. That tells me the conversation needs a reset. I tried to suggest sending those that want to get into the DPA stuff elsewhere, so we could look at issues, but I failed in that argument. So I'll try the ignore function, and take a break.
I'd like to thank those that contribute facts, news, and humor, which is what I come here for. Those bits have become scarce, which only makes them that much more enjoyable.
Later,
Sink r8.