Originally Posted by
otter1
As I said in another post, you've got to trust someone. I trust the ALPA lawyers, yes, as that is their job and their factual explanations dismissed a lot of my fears at the road show. I trust the MEC and NC, too, who are unanimously in favor of this TA, and who feel we just won't gain more by voting no.
So how was the ALPA lawyer taking us for a spin? Was she lying to us? Is the rest of the MEC and NC being taken for a spin too or do you think they don't have our best interests at heart?
What she said "that of all the legacy carriers that went to PBS, not one has asked to go back to line bidding. Not one" wasn't a lie, I agree. But do you wonder why what she said is true? And why she stopped there without further details? Did she also mention that the aforementioned pilot groups gave up line bidding for PBS while negotiating under bankruptcy? Did the lawyer explain why is it that such legacy pilots didn't ask to go back to line building? No, she did not. Perhaps, she could have been more transparent and said that it was negotiated during bankruptcy and that the reason they won't go back to line building is that it is not worth it anymore, the leverage they had went to ****. See, it's an unfair give and take, what those legacy groups gained in exchange for PBS can never be recovered in case they decide they want line building back. They know this, the ALPA lawyers know this.
So yes, what the lawyer said in regards to legacy carriers and PBS was true but definately not the whole story. They are not being dishonest but not 100% forthright either. And for the record, I agree with most of what you said in a previous post, I'm not against PBS, and I trust (for the most part) the ALPA lawyers. I just don't like when they start campaigning so hard that they seem to forget that the NK membership is not that "dense".
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk