Originally Posted by
dera
You could count the number of pilots opposing this deal with your fingers. Majority was either "meh, who cares" or "ok sounds like a plan". The ones opposing this are the loud militant ones such as yourself, who think we had some magic "leverage" with this. We had a substantial number of pilots who were in a position to take this deal, and you want to deny this in hopes of getting your elusive deal that wasn't even on the drawing board.
Which one exposes pilots more to the risks? Denying this from everyone hoping they will come back immediately with a deal that is 2.5 times better because you believe so? Or giving this opportunity to a bunch of pilots, and seeing if it is enough? You need to run for a position if you believe you have the support for your POV.
It was offered to all 3 WO's in parity. PDT already ratified theirs before we did, and PSA didn't even have to discuss it. It's hard to have "leverage" when the others have already agreed to it.
This didn't answer the question, how many accepted the deal? I hardly think I am militant. Do you just choose to attached this description to those who happen to disagree with your stance? I find it telling that someone arguing for the betterment of the entire pilot group is labeled that way by you and yet the company, the ones truly doing underhanded, dishonest things, you choose to defend their offer.
All of this information was known. What method did you use to accurately determine "majority"? Just because PDT and PSA accept it doesn't mean we have too. How would anyone know if there is a better deal out there if everyone agrees to the first one offered? Thats like negotiation 101, dont accept the first offer.
I know of a lot more than 5 people that disliked the deal and felt we should have held out for more.