Originally Posted by
Buck Rogers
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
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
I attended a road show only due to the pure luck of having a rotation that had a long sit at a show site on the day of the show. I consumed all information, officially from DALPA, unofficially from DALPA, and social media. I know what I saw and the picture you, Bar and a couple others paint here differs vastly from my experience.
As I read through the thread's rehashing of the last contract cycle, the first question that came to mind was "why is Bar bringing all of this to light right now?" Followed by, "why didn't the MEC send out an official comms piece outlining what Bar is alleging? Did Bar come on APC and craft a similar post immediately after TA1 was sent out or rejected?" If he did, I don't remember it.
There are a few things in Bar's post that are hard to take as factual. I think in one of his posts he says pilots were "clamoring" to see the deal. Really? By "pilots" does he mean a handful that might have called and said show me the deal? I'd bet just as many pilots said don't send out the deal if all the rumors are true (most of the rumored details ended up true).
Something else about Bar's post history makes me wonder what his motivation is. In another thread he states that most pilots are morons. Interesting. This coming from a guy that has been deeply entrenched in DALPA work.
To be clear, the agenda isn't DALPA- BAD. The current crop of guys seem to get it, particularly wrt Scope and calling out the company on PWA violations. What is and was bad, is the group that led us into TA1. Since you like facts, I think there are some hard facts that support that assertion.