Originally Posted by
Sink r8
Using the definition of "scourge" provided by you, I agree that the organization does great harm to the group in terms of leverage for the Delta pilots, because we are lingering way beyond the time when this needed to be settled. A DPA that tries is fair, a DPA that fails to meet it's objectives but drags this thing three years further, is certainly a scourge, in terms of strategy and leadership.
The people that get to decide what is "lingering" and when this should be "settled" are Delta pilots, not ALPA only supporters who wish to never see a vote by DPA voluntarily quitting before a vote. There will be a vote, and Delta pilots will decide. There will never be a convenient time for a vote in the eyes of some ALPA only supporters because of the claim that "Section 6 is right around the corner"...even back when it was 3 years away.
Originally Posted by
Sink r8
On the other hand, I also believe KR's message is incomplete. I think the best, and most lasting impact of the DPA effort should be meaningful soul-searching, yielding a more basic advocacy for pilot issues, and better communication.
Most DPA supporters believe the most lasting impact will be bringing an independent union to Delta pilots.
Originally Posted by
Sink r8
In terms of individuals supporting their preferred agent, I agree that we need to be civil. There is plenty of evidence on APC that we haven't been, but I'm trying to make this discussion more meaningful. We are talking about convincing lurkers on the basis of our respective arguments. So, yes, KR called the DPA a scourge. We all got the letter. What else do we have, that's actually compelling?
What else is compelling? To me it's compelling that this thread's starter states they are trying to discuss representation for Delta pilots in a civil manner, while agreeing with the MEC chairman that DPA is a "scourge." Context is always compelling.
Carl