Originally Posted by Sled

I'm not sure you understand how logic works. Let's break down your statement. You say "... claim victory over the latest news (I assume you mean the exit from 4a2b/c), well it could not occur without ousting JG. So, if we have more ousting, we should have an industry leading contracts in no time". We can simplify this a little to:

"Victory on 4a2b/c occurred because of removing JG, therefore removing AB will lead to more contract improvements."

Let's break this down a bit further.
- If we let P be the statement "Victory on contractural matters" and
- Q be the statement "removing JG",
then we can diagram this argument as "P occurred as a result of Q", or more succinctly:
- Q implies P
So far so good. Here is the trouble with your argument. In the next segment you try to repeat this structure to conclude "More Q implies more P" which in plain language would be something like "More removal of NC chairs will result in more contract wins". The difficulty I see is that Q was "removing JG" not "removing NC chairs". So for your argument to work it would have to be the case that ANY removal of ANY negotiating chair would lead to better outcomes for pilots, and I don't think that premise holds. For example suppose our NC chair is JG (whether you think he is a good negotiator or not). Suppose there was some crazy faction of union members who read this book about toddlers being super great negotiators because they throw really good temper-tantrums until they get their way. Then by your logic we should remove JG and install a 3 year old as NC chair. Maybe even more problematic for this premise is if "more removal of NC chairs" implies "more contract wins for pilots" then we should have continuously changing NC chairs....every minute, or maybe even every second. So clearly this premise is false, because it leads to absurd conclusions like those.