Originally Posted by
Pineapple Guy
Geez, do you guys not know the difference? FACTS are FACTS. You can interpret WHY they happened, if you want, but they are still FACTS.
Reread my post. I never stated that as fact. But let me repeat - APA has received ZERO in the past 5 years. THAT is a FACT. You can make excuses why they've received nothing; but you can't argue that the FACTS are as I stated them.
Now, that right there, my friend, is what is known as an OPINION. Please present a FACT to back it up.
FACT: DPA has received cards from approximately 18% of the Delta pilot group in the past year. Meaning....
FACT: 82% of the DAL pilot group has NOT sent in a card.
And as you say....
Very nicely played, pineapple.
You are distorting my whole post by deletion. Here is the most important sentence I wrote, which you somehow forgot to copy.
Originally Posted by
newKnow
You are presenting what appear to be facts. But, that does not mean that your premise is factual...
Granted. Your figures by themselves are probably factual ( I don't care to double check your work.)
But, those figures are not what is being debated. You are, by inference, asserting that APA's negotiating method is inferior and ALPA's negotiating method is superior. This is not factual. Your facts = circumstantial evidence to advocate your position.
Now if you think ALPA is gaining a whole lot of fans nowadays, that's another discussion.
I had a long conversation with one of the captain reps in ATL and a guy on the negotiating committee earlier this month and they admitted it, so I don't understand why you can't see it.
But, if you think so, that is an opinion you are entitled to have.