Originally Posted by
Alan Shore
Seriously. As I see it, one of four things would happen:
1) Your point of view would prevail and we'd succeed beyond our wildest dreams
2) Your point of view would prevail and we'd get parked
3) Your point of view would not prevail, we'd be worse off as a result, and you'd be correctly frustrated at how weak the prevailing majority is
4) Your point of view would be altered by the things you learn from being on the committee and we'd be better off as a result
In any case, I believe that you would have a more informed perspective to share on these boards.
That's an interesting post. I'm still trying to digest it.
Let's see... #'s 1 & 2 are pretty straight forward. I get what you're saying there.
#3 - My point of view would not prevail on the negotiating committee or with the pilot group as a whole, and we as a pilot group would be worse off. How? Are you saying you agree with my point of view and we'd be worse off if it didn't prevail? Or are you saying we'd be worse off because it was a waste to have someone with my point of view on the negotiating committee?
#4 - My point of view would be altered by "reality," we'd be better off, and I would have a more informed perspective to share on these boards. That sounds to me like you're saying you think we'd be better off if I changed my point of view. How do you reconcile #'s 3 & 4??
