So a non-vote would count as a no vote? Maybe you can strengthen your position by giving us some examples of where, in the history of our great nation, this has occured.[/quote]

************************************************** ***********

No, I didn't mean to imply a "non-vote" counted as a "no" vote in our LOA balloting.

What I did mean to point out from the beginning was that while the LOA vote was roughly 68% "FOR" to 32% "AGAINST" it didn't "pass by 36%".... because the requirement for the LOA to pass was a "majority" of those who voted (i.e. 50% + 1 vote)

The actual LOA results were:

Total Elgible = 4,172

Total Votes = 3,308 (79% of those elgible)

For Votes = 2,253 (68% of those who voted)

Against Votes = 1,055 (32% of those who voted)

Required Votes to Pass = 1,654 + 1 = 1,655

Thus, if 599 pilots (18.1%) had changed their vote from "For" to "Against" then the LOA would not have passed.

That's what's unique about requiring a "majority" of votes --- and not a "plurality", which is used in many elections.

In plurality-based elections, where there are multiple candidates, the winner actually "wins" by the percentage of votes between the canidates.

i.e. Canidate A - 53%, Canidate B - 37%, Canidate C - 10%

(Canidate A wins by 16%...and can afford to lose up to 7% to Candiate B and still be declared the winner)

My main point from the entire discussion (and previous threads) was that I don't feel the results of the LOA vote prove their was "huge mandate" endorsing the LOA...especially given the "big sell" from both mgt and the MEC.

After the first round of LOA practice bidding, I haven't heard 68% of the pilots in the AOC saying "Wow, can you believe those FDAs didn't fill up, cause ya know I voted "FOR" the LOA!"

I guess this makes more sense when you factor-in the 864 "elgible pilots" (20.7%) who didn't participate in the vote.

If you wanted to look at the percentages based on all elgible pilots who could have voted, you'd roughly see...

For Votes - 54%

Against Votes - 25%

Non-Votes - 21%

...plus, another 250 very junior pilots (about 5.6% of the crew force), who were still on probation in mid-Aug, and couldn't vote.

I'll close by restating I think the passing of the LOA was actually more tenuous then a casual analysis of the results would imply --- and certainly not homogeneous across different aircraft, seniority and domicile demographics.

It will be interesting to see how the actual FDA bids shake out.

A'o Aloha