Originally Posted by
index
The topic was "support your reps and NC." I was referring to the notion that we should blindly support both groups. I vehemently disagree.
I thought that was the topic, too. Then you wrote this: "
The rest of your list is already afforded through a line pilots decision to trade off with their overall seniority."
So I used an issue that causes a natural rift in the pilot group to illustrate that there are differing opinions regarding seniority. We address the issue collectively, even though we know many of us will -
naturally - disagree on the solution.
Originally Posted by
index
The "majority of our pilot group" has no direct role in the process.
"
Direct role"? You mean like directly voting on whether or not the deal is acceptable? It's the final and most direct role. That's like saying the Supreme Court doesn't have a direct role in laws because it doesn't pass them or execute them.
Originally Posted by
index
Once it goes to the membership it's already a done deal. History says every agreement that goes to the pilot group will pass. Good or bad. You probably consider this validation. It's always the result of a full court sales job and fear campaign that emphasizes the positives and minimizes the negatives, those that are even mentioned.
I expect the next agreement will be no different. History tells us I am right.
With the exception of your characterization of the "campaign", I'd say your view of history is right on. I think an MEC that sends out a deal that fails to be ratified has done a poor job of determining what most of us want. If we do a good job giving our reps input, the deal will pass.