Originally Posted by
DAL 88 Driver
I think that is an extremely reasonable (and generous) position. To argue against that position means accepting bankruptcy as a reset, establishing a new baseline from which we only expect "reasonable" improvements. I see no way to characterize that other than "working against the best interests of the pilot group."
You have your opinion as to what is a reasonable position. Others have different points of view. To believe that someone who disagrees with yours must have an ulterior motive is tantamount to believing that your opinion must be correct and everyone else is wrong.
Carl complains about some being accused of disunity inside the "DALPA echo chamber" when they disagree with another's position. The labelling that you suggest in your post is no different.