Well Grampa RedEyE--

When you say it is generally a good thing the guys on probation couldn't vote-- That is OPINION-- not fact.

When you talk about the glad to be here euphoria-- That is OPINION-- not fact.

It appeared you were taking the attitude that you were all knowing and informed whereas the Probies couldn't possibly know anything. If that was the case, ya need a little more fiber in the diet. If not, this media makes it hard to pick out the tone at times, apologies.

As far as your other little condescending quips,
Metamucil is top shelf on the right.

Whatever,
Conner

 

68% for
32% against

Getting STV'd because a large portion of the crew force did not take the time to read the LOA......PRICELESS!

 

We don't know how the membership voted other than that 68% who bothered to vote voted yes and 38% voted no. Was it the senior guys who passed the LOA?? Maybe, but even if the top 25% of the crew force voted yes, the bottom 25% could have negated thier vote with a no. I think if the junior pilots were less apathetic than the crew force in general , the results would have gone the other way. Make a case otherwise, that's my opinion.

 

FoxHunter has retired as the condescending all knowing oracle on this forum (I guess because he carries the coffe now?). I don't mind if RedEye assumes that job.

 

So a non-vote would count as a no vote? Maybe you can strengthen your position by giving us some examples of where, in the history of our great nation, this has occured.[/quote]

************************************************** ***********

No, I didn't mean to imply a "non-vote" counted as a "no" vote in our LOA balloting.

What I did mean to point out from the beginning was that while the LOA vote was roughly 68% "FOR" to 32% "AGAINST" it didn't "pass by 36%".... because the requirement for the LOA to pass was a "majority" of those who voted (i.e. 50% + 1 vote)

The actual LOA results were:

Total Elgible = 4,172

Total Votes = 3,308 (79% of those elgible)

For Votes = 2,253 (68% of those who voted)

Against Votes = 1,055 (32% of those who voted)

Required Votes to Pass = 1,654 + 1 = 1,655

Thus, if 599 pilots (18.1%) had changed their vote from "For" to "Against" then the LOA would not have passed.

That's what's unique about requiring a "majority" of votes --- and not a "plurality", which is used in many elections.

In plurality-based elections, where there are multiple candidates, the winner actually "wins" by the percentage of votes between the canidates.

i.e. Canidate A - 53%, Canidate B - 37%, Canidate C - 10%

(Canidate A wins by 16%...and can afford to lose up to 7% to Candiate B and still be declared the winner)

My main point from the entire discussion (and previous threads) was that I don't feel the results of the LOA vote prove their was "huge mandate" endorsing the LOA...especially given the "big sell" from both mgt and the MEC.

After the first round of LOA practice bidding, I haven't heard 68% of the pilots in the AOC saying "Wow, can you believe those FDAs didn't fill up, cause ya know I voted "FOR" the LOA!"

I guess this makes more sense when you factor-in the 864 "elgible pilots" (20.7%) who didn't participate in the vote.

If you wanted to look at the percentages based on all elgible pilots who could have voted, you'd roughly see...

For Votes - 54%

Against Votes - 25%

Non-Votes - 21%

...plus, another 250 very junior pilots (about 5.6% of the crew force), who were still on probation in mid-Aug, and couldn't vote.

I'll close by restating I think the passing of the LOA was actually more tenuous then a casual analysis of the results would imply --- and certainly not homogeneous across different aircraft, seniority and domicile demographics.

It will be interesting to see how the actual FDA bids shake out.

A'o Aloha