Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1719521)

Wow, really? I don't have access to SLC emails, but the survey is terribly flawed. Clearly constructed in a way to achieved pre-desired results. Same nonsense as in C2012. If SLC is criticizing it, that's certainly a pleasant surprise.

Carl

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1719606)

I see the opposite problem with Yes or No questions. Were I one of those (which I'm not) who liked CDOs in a former life and would like them back under certain conditions, I'd like to be able to say that, as the survey currently allows me to do. Otherwise, I could only select Yes and then be quite disappointed when I get back a TA that has CDOs with unacceptable terms.

As it is, I had the opportunity to say No, and that's what I did.

Originally Posted by index (Post 1719644)

The ATL reps had input into the survey construction just as the SLC reps did. Just because the ATL and SLC reps are crowing about how some of the things they think we "want" are concessionary is no reason to have hope in them. Weren't these bases in favor of CDOs before they were against them?

They "heard us loud and clear" and jettisoned the CDOs from being part of the 117 agreement, yet here they are again. And why is that?

No doubt there are some amongst are midst that "want CDOs back," but do you think there is any way in hell that that number is above 50%???? Do they really even need to ask?

It really doesn't matter a hill of beans what we put in the survey. Ultimately MD, the NC, and to a lesser degree, the MEC, will have the final (unaccountable) say. I filled mine out just for grins. But I have about as much expectation that the will of the group will be followed as I do in winning the next Powerball.

Perhaps they're just floating all of these concessionary ideas our way so if they "stand firm" against the majority of them, they can then declare "victory" for our "historic C2015" contract. Sign here boys, it could've been a lot worse...

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1719601)

......... There is still a vocal group who wants CDO's back.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1719650)

Looks like SLC and ATL are behaving predictably bad.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1719638)

Yes, in the same manner that many DALPA-oids around here say is the best survey of all...a vote. CDO's were voted OUT by reps to secure a 117 agreement. Why are we even still talking about this? The pilots spoke through their reps, yet here's the same question back again in the survey. That's why I made the TIC remark of keep surveying pilots until the pilots answer the survey correctly.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1719647)

Alan, you're missing the very important concept of vote dilution. If the survey's author is afraid of a possible answer, a common tactic is to dilute its importance by adding multiple choices to purposely muddy the issue. If just a few percentage points can be siphoned off through these other choices, it can make the feared choice unable to reach a majority percentage. It's a purposely misleading tactic and one you would never use if your real intent was to gather the true opinions of a group.

Originally Posted by casual observer (Post 1719491)

I'm not quite middle of the pack.

I just checked how many senior to me are bidding NYC 717 A

Answer: 1. Total

Bold prediction: I think NYC 717 A will go to new hires.

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1719667)

But at least they're speaking out against some of the questions on concessionary issues that folks on this forum are upset about.

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1719667)

That can't help but support the "cause" to have guys answer No, right? :cool: