kronan

AerisArmis,

FedEx also has guys who retired prior to the change who are on the street w/ no way of coming back. Would have been nice if mgt had said no to the migration to the backseat since they were overmanned, but, they didn't.

And, no airline stated anything. Purely conjecture on my part that a vast majority of pilots at other airlines w/out FEs could care less about how retroactivity was worded since it didn't impact on them at all. Could put them to a poll here if you want to find out.

So, purely based on every FedEx pilot (which wasn't reality) being opposed. Could we have swung the numbers the other way?

Nope, would have made it closer though.

LivingInMEM

By including a subset of one choice as another mutually exclusive choice, you statistically invalidate the survey. Now, what if you could have chosed a, b, c, a plus c, or b plus c, then that would be more valid (but, not as valid as just chosing between a or c, which is what the real choices are. In valid surveys, all choices are mutually exclusive. When you have neutral, somewhat dissatisfied, and very dissatisfied; they are all mutually exclusive - you are either one or the other. Then, you can add the last two together and still validly say "somewhat dissatisfied plus very dissatisfied" both total to represent disatisfied people. There is no valid explanation why both b and c needed to be listed, if they were the same then either one could have been listed. As far as I am concerned, this was an oversight by someone not familiar with statistics, or it was an overt action to try to sway the results.

In your mind. In someone else's mind, as I said before, modify policy may include still maintain opposition; but also give inputs into what factors must be considered if these bills will be drafted (because, at the time, that was not our policy). It happens in the House/Senate every day, republicans or democrats are opposed to individual bills and plan to vote against them; but they still try to make amendments to them to make them more palatable in case they pass (or, more likely, they add amendments which they know will prevent its passage). Just because they attached an amendment does not mean they are now obligated to vote "yes". I completely disagreed with the notion that if we maintained opposition to the bill, we would be stiff-armed out of the debate; and I disagree with your assertion that option c was clearly a subset of option b.

Again, what percentage of modify policy was "modify by dropping opposition" and what percentage was "still oppose but try to influence the debate"?

You can stop right there. An overwhelming majority, 76%, said that they felt that ALPA needed to address the issue with the insistence that "no one" be given retroactivity. If ALPA national changed their minds later on, they can no longer claim that they were only doing the bidding of the majority of the membership. And as far as the membership supporting these actions, the exact wording was..."The resolution recommends that ALPA support efforts to modify the rule if such efforts incoporate ALPA's priorities regarding .... no retroactive application of a rule change.....and appropriate rule implementation." The question was "To what extent do you support or oppose this approach?" and among the answers were Strongly Support - 30% / Mostly Support - 34%. Again, the survey specified THIS approach, which included NO retroactivity (not some, not just for FE's, it was NO Retro). For you or anyone else to claim that the majority of the membership was behind ALPA's actions, they would have had to stick to this approach (as the survey so clearly pointed out) or they would have had to conduct another survey with the new modified approach. They did neither, thus losing the ability to point to THIS survey as proof that they were supporting the wishes of the membership.

We're not talking about what you'd bet. We're talking about an accurate and objective assessment of the results of a poll to which ALPA and everyone else points to demonstrate the fact that they were only doing what the membership wanted. You can't have it both ways - You can either do your own thing and admit that, or you can support the views of the majority. The results of this survey show that the clear majority of the membership indicated they supported ALPA doing something other than what they actually did. Your guess of "well, I am sure they would have supported this other thing, too" isn't good enough - the survey does not show that. Supposedly, a lot of thought went into this survey; there was no reason why ALPA national's final approach could not have been solidified and expressed accurately in this survey. This is no different than your wife getting you to agree that it would be OK to repaint the bedroom red, but then when she does paint the room she paints it pink because it is close enough to what you agreed to.

AerisArmis

I guess I should have said "the stated airlines" or "the airlines you stated" since I was talking about the ones you mentioned. Look, only ONE FedEx pilot had to be against retroactivity for it to be a non issue. None other than our spiritual leader, master of our universe and supreme being,...his eminence DW. You act like if we were all against retroactivity, we wouldn't have had the numbers to sway the rest of ALPA. Total Bravo Sierra. No one else at ALPA cared! Northwest, voted against it and they had a few over 60s. The rest just lew DW have his way because they didn't have dog in the fight. Had DW not taken retroactivity as his cause, the overmanning would be at the bottom, not the top and there would be a whole bunch of guys who would not have had their training cancelled in order to accomodate retirement eligible guys with their high 5 knocked.

Falconjet

Doesn't really matter what the poll results were, our illustrious leader and ALPA national (in the form of the Executive Board) made their decision before the poll was concluded anyway.

That chafed my bag almost as much as their cowardly 180, the fact that they had their mind up before the poll was even finished. Don't bother asking if you don't want to know the answer or are going to ignore it anyway.

FJ

Falconjet

Sorry, repeat post. This forum really doesn't like Firefox lately.

FJ

LivingInMEM

Exactly, what is done is done - but they add insult to injury by telling us that it was the will of the majority based on THIS survey

Jaxman187

LivingInMEM,

Great posts. Your arguments are on the money. I respect your accurate and eloquent communication. I get the feeling that Kronan is just trying to bury your post and support a unsupportable MEC position by getting in more words and the last word in.

Gunter

delete delete

kronan

Jax,

not doing a word count or anything. But, sure seems like LivingInMem is winning based an a WAG of amount of space on the board

LivingInMEM

That's what happens when you give supporting evidence behind your opinions instead of just an opinion.