Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
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.
We are not talking about the vote, but how the measure ended up on the ballot. So the ends justify the means? 62/38 +/- is a few points is just about the basis by which most contracts have passed recently and has zip to do with Presidential elections, and is apx the same percentage contentious BK contracts passed by.
Questioning of the how of what we end up to vote on is not tearing the organization apart. Voting democratically on a weak product doesn't make it strong or change that we could do better. The idea is to have a superior product to vote on that reflects the achievable desires of the pilots and the direction of the status Reps. Many voted for the TA because they did not have the confidence that the MEC had enough fight after all the proclaimed "we'll get less if we go back" to go back and get more. Hardly a mandate.
How about getting a kick-ass TA the pilots can really get behind?