AerisArmis

Yeah and it looks like you looked it up too. One other thing, you'd have too prove it wasn't just his opinion. If he would've put the magic "IMO" in front he'd be home free. But without it, he could just say it was opinion that you had said the things he attributed to you. Dodgy case at best for you.

Gunter

TonyC may be technically correct that he didn't say what I thought he did. What I remember may have only been inferred from his commentary.

When you debate a situation with only two possible options and you are very much against one, one can reasonably conclude you support the other.

The Walrus

Gunter, Did you think that the 4 hkg pilots should have taken the settlement?

Busboy

I think the problem you're not seeing here is; there is a big difference between supporting an option and supporting someone's decision of those options.

I personally didn't support either option. I didn't know enough about it to make an intelligent decision. But, once our brothers made their decision...I think it is incumbent on us, our association and it's leaders to fully support that decision. Otherwise, what is the purpose of having an option?

Gunter

I don't know the details of any of the cases and each one, from what I hear, is different. One case seems to have turned out well not taking the settlement even though I don't know the details of the final agreement.

I think when we debate what constitutes "complete" or "satisfactory" support from ALPA we should consider more than the intellectual exercise of right vs. wrong. We live under the rule of law and it doesn't always ensure justice or fairness. We need to consider the risk of taking a position vs. the potential reward.

Busboy

So, based on that...We can infer from your commentary and reasonably conclude that you supported the idea that the HK4 take the settlement.

Gunter

You are a funny man.

TonyC

That "third party" is the "Neutral" arbitrator, the person who decides the outcome of the arbitration. (One member from ALPA, one member from The Company -- we can predict how they will vote.) The Neutral is selected by ALPA or The Company, and approved by the other. He makes his money by keeping both parties happy. I would never predict the outcome of an arbitration -- that would be foolish, but that's what Gunter accused me of.


Exactly.

Only the pilots and their counsel have all the information necessary to make a decision to accept or reject a settlement offer. I wouldn't presume to judge their decision as right or wrong -- my position is to support my brother pilot in whatever path they choose.

What angered me to prompt the quoted post is that our MEC Vice Chairman clearly did not support the pilots in their choices, and he let that lack of support be known publicly. If the pilot's union won't support him who will?






.

TonyC

I think we've found the flaw in the logic, the source of Gunter's misunderstanding.

We never debated which path the individual pilots should have taken. We don't have the facts required to support an intelligent debate.

6 pilots were involved. One resigned. Another took the first settlement offer. Did you ever hear from any member of ALPA leadership that we support the pilot's right to accept the settlement, but ...? We support him, but he could have held out for a better settlement offer, just like the other 4 got. We support him, but we wish he would have stood up to the injustices imposed on him by The Company.

The only "We support them but ..." was with regard to the pilots who chose the arbitration path.

Our support for the pilot should not be based on his choice between two legal, valid paths to resolution. Support for the pilot should not be construed as an endorsement of the path chosen. Such a link would require that all the details of the case be made available to all pilots in order for us to make an informed decision as to whether to extend or withhold support for the brother pilot. (I'm assuming we would want the decision to be informed, but that might be a stretch. )

I never said settling was a bad idea. One of our pilots settled, and I never criticized him for it. What I believe is a horribly bad idea is when ALPA, the entity we support with our dues and count on to defend the CBA and our pilots, publicly expresses a lack of support for pilots who have chosen a valid, legal path towards resolution of their terminations.






.

TonyC

I've had a working knowledge of slander, libel, and defamation for quite some time, so I didn't have to look it up before I used it in my post to Gunter. If I had any doubt as to its appropriate usage in that context, I would have chosen a different word. I try to be careful when choosing words.

But apparently I've got you hung up on lawsuits and definitions to the point that you've missed the message. I wasn't getting ready to haul him off to court. Would you have preferred I said this instead? I think that expresses the same basic concept, but it avoids the big words.






.