Originally Posted by
Fly4hire
Alpha,
I'm not talking changing rules after the fact, I'm talking following the ones we have. I think I addressed the dynamics of turning a deal back - the PK of that is it just isn't going to happen, which was intentionally exploited.
It makes the seeking and following of redirection if the box drawn by the MEC for the negotiators to work within is unattainable that much more important. They were outside the box, and did not seek redirection, and it can be argued deliberately so.
As far as condescension, I don't characterize those who make a choice I disagree with as too stupid, lazy or weak. And I'd say you are far more skilled than me in framing and manipulating the discussion to suit your point of view and perspective.
Actually, I never called anyone too stupid or lazy or weak. My point was that we had a full pilot vote. The only way you can call that non-democratic is if you believe that the pilots are too stupid or lazy or weak to make a rational decision. My assertion is that I have complete confidence in the pilots to decide their own fate. Once they vote, I accept the vote and move on. I don't try to make up conspiracy theories or excuses about why I lost the vote. In fact, my history shows that if I lose a vote I back the winner and provide any assistance possible. That is how you build a strong organization. If you try to rip it apart every time your personal desires are not satisfied then you are making us all weaker. It is not about you, it is about the group. Leadership is pitching in full force even when you don't get your way.
62%-38% or whatever the final number was, I forget now, that is a powerful democratic response that the pilots accepted this contract. If a candidate for President won by that margin it would be called a mandate from the people.