Originally Posted by
Splash
You're going to cavil that the Con arguments, distributed by ALPA, and available to all pilots, wasn't enough dissent?
"Cavil!" Good word usage. But to your point, it has nothing to do with the
amount of dissent. What matters is the dissemination of that dissent to ALL pilots. Pro arguments get splashy pdf's sent out to every pilot immediately from the MEC. But Con arguments are limited to an LEC email that goes out to only that council? You have to see the inequity there.
Originally Posted by
Splash
Methinks it wouldn't matter to you.
Both sides of an argument ALWAYS matter to me. In my business, I don't tolerate yes men around me. I need to see the opposite viewpoint of my own.
Originally Posted by
Splash
You voted against the largest pay raise NWA pilots had received (in exchange for a one year extension), and now demand restoration to something you opposed?
I voted against it because the pay raise wasn't enough, but mostly because we were still caving in on scope. Since then, we've caved even more on scope. So yes, I'd like restoration.
Originally Posted by
Splash
The vote on that was 87% to 13%, so I can understand someone who supported that deal wanting restoration.
But someone who voted against it? That's a paradox.
Hopefully my above post clears up the paradox.
Carl