So here-in lies the rub with "revisionist' history. Some (a verrry small minority) come on here an make preposterous summations of past events. If you say that at the road shows
ALL information was a hard sell, I can't refute that(however I find it hard to believe ALL info was a positive spin). I did interact with "black shirts" and the interactions I participated in and observed could be characterized as educational. I couldn't even get them editorialize/ hypothesize, they only wanted to address explanations of sections.
Here are some loose facts. Less than 10% of the pilots attended road shows. In road shows I have attended they typically start out with the vast majority of info flow being an explanation of all sections. Then they open it up for discussion/spear throwing. The vast majority of pilots get their info(if the even bother at all) by reading council news letters. I did read ALL the councils news letters. In my opinion any editorializing was fairly neutral( as has been posted here).
So when I read things like the following highlighted post I do agree that someone is trying to revise history. The question is who? And why? ( the agenda seems to be...ALPA - BAD, DALPA - BAD, MEC - BAD. All of these ALPA scoundrels are mgt shills trying to sell their fellow pilots down the river and are rotten bastards to the core) At least that is what the message seems to be to me and what you are selling
I know your rebuttal is going to be...."Trust but verify....or "learn from our "mistakes"...or something similar. I however have much greater confidence in our fellow pilots. They aren't 8 year olds that need counseling and education on such basic principals.Do I really need to insult their intelligence by trying to sell such platitudes? I don't believe so, if find it insulting
Originally Posted by
buckleyboy
Un-freaking-believable.
Observations by Scoop, Raging White, and everyone else who was on property at the time might not be verifiable by digging through the annals of ALPA communiques, but they are not merely interpretations.
While TA1 was sent to us as a pilot group without recommendation, it was sold hard. Thankfully the pilot group did not do what we were told.
Almost 25% of Delta pilots were not here at the time of C2015 TA1 and one way for them to get info about our history is through avenues like this. Therefore both sides of an argument need to be made. Things that are verifiable carry more weight than unverifiable opinions