|
|
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
(Post 2569742)
So here-in lies the rub with "revisionist' history. Some (a verrry small minority) come on here an make preposterous summations of past events. If you say that at the road shows ALL information was a hard sell, I can't refute that(however I find it hard to believe ALL info was a positive spin). I did interact with "black shirts" and the interactions I participated in and observed could be characterized as educational. I couldn't even get them editorialize/ hypothesize, they only wanted to address explanations of sections.
Here are some loose facts. Less than 10% of the pilots attended road shows. In road shows I have attended they typically start out with the vast majority of info flow being an explanation of all sections. Then they open it up for discussion/spear throwing. The vast majority of pilots get their info(if the even bother at all) by reading council news letters. I did read ALL the councils news letters. In my opinion any editorializing was fairly neutral( as has been posted here). So when I read things like the following highlighted post I do agree that someone is trying to revise history. The question is who? And why? ( the agenda seems to be...ALPA - BAD, DALPA - BAD, MEC - BAD. All of these ALPA scoundrels are mgt shills trying to sell their fellow pilots down the river and are rotten bastards to the core) At least that is what the message seems to be to me and what you are selling I know your rebuttal is going to be...."Trust but verify....or "learn from our "mistakes"...or something similar. I however have much greater confidence in our fellow pilots. They aren't 8 year olds that need counseling and education on such basic principals.Do I really need to insult their intelligence by trying to sell such platitudes? I don't believe so, if find it insulting Almost 25% of Delta pilots were not here at the time of C2015 TA1 and one way for them to get info about our history is through avenues like this. Therefore both sides of an argument need to be made. Things that are verifiable carry more weight than unverifiable opinions If you want verification click watch the youtube video of our MEC Chariman yelling at our Pilots at what would happen if we voted down the TA. There is plenty of irrefutable verifiable evidence out there but most guys myself included did not feel the need to document it as it was happening. My buddy was in the P2P program and when it became known that he was against the TA he was no longer scheduled for any more lounge visits. You say: If you say that at the road shows ALL information was a hard sell, I can't refute that(however I find it hard to believe ALL info was a positive spin). Hell, no one can say that it was 100% hard sell I am sure some DALPA guys were against it but ask yourself a few questions: If the union reps were not "selling it" why were many recalled from office by a Pilot group that rejected the TA? If the reps were neutral why would the Pilot group recall them? Does our MEC Chairman seem neutral in his famous youtube clip? There is tons of other irrefutable proof but my advice to you is just ask the Pilots who were around during the TA because ultimately the perception of a "sales job" is subjective. If you ask me I say total sales job. But the funny thing out of this whole debacle is that we as a group fell into a pile of crap and came out smelling like a rose. Mostly due to good luck (after a decade of bad luck) and a critically thinking Pilot group, TA-1 fortuitously turned out to produce a very positive result - just not in the way DALPA envisioned. Scoop |
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
(Post 2569742)
So here-in lies the rub with "revisionist' history. Some (a verrry small minority) come on here an make preposterous summations of past events. If you say that at the road shows ALL information was a hard sell, I can't refute that(however I find it hard to believe ALL info was a positive spin). I did interact with "black shirts" and the interactions I participated in and observed could be characterized as educational. I couldn't even get them editorialize/ hypothesize, they only wanted to address explanations of sections.
Here are some loose facts. Less than 10% of the pilots attended road shows. In road shows I have attended they typically start out with the vast majority of info flow being an explanation of all sections. Then they open it up for discussion/spear throwing. The vast majority of pilots get their info(if the even bother at all) by reading council news letters. I did read ALL the councils news letters. In my opinion any editorializing was fairly neutral( as has been posted here). So when I read things like the following highlighted post I do agree that someone is trying to revise history. The question is who? And why? ( the agenda seems to be...ALPA - BAD, DALPA - BAD, MEC - BAD. All of these ALPA scoundrels are mgt shills trying to sell their fellow pilots down the river and are rotten bastards to the core) At least that is what the message seems to be to me and what you are selling I know your rebuttal is going to be...."Trust but verify....or "learn from our "mistakes"...or something similar. I however have much greater confidence in our fellow pilots. They aren't 8 year olds that need counseling and education on such basic principals.Do I really need to insult their intelligence by trying to sell such platitudes? I don't believe so, if find it insulting Almost 25% of Delta pilots were not here at the time of C2015 TA1 and one way for them to get info about our history is through avenues like this. Therefore both sides of an argument need to be made. Things that are verifiable carry more weight than unverifiable opinions As I read through the thread's rehashing of the last contract cycle, the first question that came to mind was "why is Bar bringing all of this to light right now?" Followed by, "why didn't the MEC send out an official comms piece outlining what Bar is alleging? Did Bar come on APC and craft a similar post immediately after TA1 was sent out or rejected?" If he did, I don't remember it. There are a few things in Bar's post that are hard to take as factual. I think in one of his posts he says pilots were "clamoring" to see the deal. Really? By "pilots" does he mean a handful that might have called and said show me the deal? I'd bet just as many pilots said don't send out the deal if all the rumors are true (most of the rumored details ended up true). Something else about Bar's post history makes me wonder what his motivation is. In another thread he states that most pilots are morons. Interesting. This coming from a guy that has been deeply entrenched in DALPA work. To be clear, the agenda isn't DALPA- BAD. The current crop of guys seem to get it, particularly wrt Scope and calling out the company on PWA violations. What is and was bad, is the group that led us into TA1. Since you like facts, I think there are some hard facts that support that assertion. |
What I find truly funny is people trying to explain everything like there is a simple answer and only one perspective.
You tout recalls as if that is justification for something. So if I have it correctly, the whole of ATL LEC was recalled and the hard liners put in place. After TA2 there was a rift between the CA reps and the FO reps....I don't understand that since they were put into office for ostensibly the same reason...my how fickle times can be and how quickly views change.....or better yet maybe you can explain to me... How in hell can Malone who was brought in to fix the debacle of TA1 and did so by bringing in arguably the best contract ever(at least by voting standards and would probably be even better today) got ousted? Can you spell FICKLE? It is truly human nature....grass is always greener That is unfrikking believable...I attribute it to no matter how good things are, there are people who want the power and they throw out platitudes and "what if's" and armchair quarterback and use the perfect knowledge of history to point out "shoulda, woulda, coulda's. Some of the gullible eat it up. So now.. The new "tough regime change" brings in virtual bases? If any of the old guard had done this I can only imagine the hew and cry. Plenty of people with opinions about VB but no spear chukking at the "leaders " that let it come to fruition, but plenty of **** and vinegar about the VB in general. Isn't that what you all are clamoring for ? The MEC should "protect "us, isn't that the argument.. So the old guard let us decide on TA1 and the the new "hard liners" do what? Oh, they let us decide on VB. Shouldn't they have just shut it down like you are suggesting about TA1? So what is it, can't have it both ways....unless it is all politics? I don't know any of the players here but it seems pretty apparent that some of the "chit chat" crowd is here and alive and well....there is no middle ground, only "my way or the highway" You all carry on...I'll resume my lurking Cheers |
If you think the chit chatters are here in full force, you are grossly mistaken. That coupled with your other comments are pretty darn telling.
Most of us are staunchly moderate (get it?) and just want people (management and ALPA) to do right and not blow sunshine up our skirts or pee on our leg and blame it on the weather. |
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
(Post 2569966)
What I find truly funny is people trying to explain everything like there is a simple answer and only one perspective.
You tout recalls as if that is justification for something. So if I have it correctly, the whole of ATL LEC was recalled and the hard liners put in place. After TA2 there was a rift between the CA reps and the FO reps....I don't understand that since they were put into office for ostensibly the same reason...my how fickle times can be and how quickly views change.....or better yet maybe you can explain to me... How in hell can Malone who was brought in to fix the debacle of TA1 and did so by bringing in arguably the best contract ever(at least by voting standards and would probably be even better today) got ousted? Can you spell FICKLE? It is truly human nature....grass is always greener to That is unfrikking believable...I attribute it to no matter how good things are, there are people who want the power and they throw out platitudes and "what if's" and armchair quarterback and use the perfect knowledge of history to point out "shoulda, woulda, coulda's. Some of the gullible eat it up. So now.. The new "tough regime change" brings in virtual bases? If any of the old guard had done this I can only imagine the hew and cry. Plenty of people with opinions about VB but no spear chukking at the "leaders " that let it come to fruition, but plenty of **** and vinegar about the VB in general. Isn't that what you all are clamoring for ? The MEC should "protect "us, isn't that the argument.. So the old guard let us decide on TA1 and the the new "hard liners" do what? Oh, they let us decide on VB. Shouldn't they have just shut it down like you are suggesting about TA1? So what is it, can't have it both ways....unless it is all politics? I don't know any of the players here but it seems pretty apparent that some of the "chit chat" crowd is here and alive and well....there is no middle ground, only "my way or the highway" You all carry on...I'll resume my lurking Cheers "Simple answer and only one perspective?" I guess you missed it when I said the whole thing was subjective. Seems like you are looking to disagree with people who do not necessarily disagree with you. Plenty of opinions, here is mine: DALPA was dead wrong on TA-1. The militant vote no on everything group we're just as wrong on TA-2. It is pretty obvious who has an agenda - The DALPA can do no wrong crowd trying to revise the TA-1 history and the vote no on everything and hold our breath crowd that derides TA-2 and openly ridicules 82% of our then Pilot group. Both are easy to spot on the forums. I have a lot of faith in average Line Pilot that didn't buy the sales job on TA-1 and did not buy into the we can can get whatever we want by simply demanding it on TA-2. Fortunately the wisdom of the line pilots was spot on both times.😁 Scoop |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 2569981)
"Simple answer and only one perspective?"
I guess you missed it when I said the whole thing was subjective. Seems like you are looking to disagree with people who do not necessarily disagree with you. Plenty of opinions, here is mine: DALPA was dead wrong on TA-1. The militant vote no on everything group we're just as wrong on TA-2. It is pretty obvious who has an agenda - The DALPA can do no wrong crowd trying to revise the TA-1 history and the vote no on everything and hold our breath crowd that derides TA-2 and openly ridicules 82% of our then Pilot group. Both are easy to spot on the forums. I have a lot of faith in average Line Pilot that didn't buy the sales job on TA-1 and did not buy into the we can can get whatever we want by simply demanding it on TA-2. Fortunately the wisdom of the line pilots was spot on both times.😁 Scoop |
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
(Post 2569966)
What I find truly funny is people trying to explain everything like there is a simple answer and only one perspective.
You tout recalls as if that is justification for something. So if I have it correctly, the whole of ATL LEC was recalled and the hard liners put in place. After TA2 there was a rift between the CA reps and the FO reps....I don't understand that since they were put into office for ostensibly the same reason...my how fickle times can be and how quickly views change.....or better yet maybe you can explain to me... How in hell can Malone who was brought in to fix the debacle of TA1 and did so by bringing in arguably the best contract ever(at least by voting standards and would probably be even better today) got ousted? Can you spell FICKLE? It is truly human nature....grass is always greener That is unfrikking believable...I attribute it to no matter how good things are, there are people who want the power and they throw out platitudes and "what if's" and armchair quarterback and use the perfect knowledge of history to point out "shoulda, woulda, coulda's. Some of the gullible eat it up. So now.. The new "tough regime change" brings in virtual bases? If any of the old guard had done this I can only imagine the hew and cry. Plenty of people with opinions about VB but no spear chukking at the "leaders " that let it come to fruition, but plenty of **** and vinegar about the VB in general. Isn't that what you all are clamoring for ? The MEC should "protect "us, isn't that the argument.. So the old guard let us decide on TA1 and the the new "hard liners" do what? Oh, they let us decide on VB. Shouldn't they have just shut it down like you are suggesting about TA1? So what is it, can't have it both ways....unless it is all politics? I don't know any of the players here but it seems pretty apparent that some of the "chit chat" crowd is here and alive and well....there is no middle ground, only "my way or the highway" You all carry on...I'll resume my lurking Cheers Your straw man argument is telling. It seems you’re offended a bit too much. I don’t see any evidence of guys *****ing that the grass is greener somewhere else. They disagreed with the MEC that we should accept the company’s offer and brought in new reps that were more aligned with their thinking. Completely reasonable. Folks don’t agree with Bar’s version of what happened because it’s not what happened. Reasonable. |
Raging,
You say reasonable, but as I point try to point out, maybe yes , maybe no. Bar(who ever he is) quoted a factual council communique that was less than underwhelming as far as support of TA1. I have no straw man argument and am not offended(I voted NO). Guys do think the grass is greener somewhere else as evidenced by the recalls(until the recalls split in ATL post TA1 (Capt and FO), and until they voted out Malone post TA2). The new regime is no diff than the old....they are not protecting us from shinola.....we don't need protecting....WE ARE smart and get to vote......OH wait....except for the the VB scenario....that was where we needed protection because we don't get to vote up/down....and in the end the "hard liners" totally caved(that is tongue in cheek, I actually believe they let the scenario play out no diff than previous admin) what I am trying to get across is...."same ole, same ole" Like I said, Bar quotes a fact that was an underwhelming endorsement by a council, MSP,( a quote that is indisputable) and you want to paint it as a total , unequivocal sales job. You and others state opinions that may be totally right , may be partially right , or may be totally propaganda. (as a point of ref, I am not at an ALPA votunteer, LEC/MEC member and have only attended 3 ALPA meetings in my 32 year DALPA career) In other words , the new is NO different than the old. Same ole same ole. Now , no shiznit ,......Carry on....back to flying the line for me after too many days off and being bored and sucked into all this ridiculousness. If you can give me a rational explanation of the Malone ouster and the split in ATL post TA2 I might think all this postmortem useful....otherwise, it is what it is....just more pilot b@tching and thumping of chests. Please, I implore someone with rational logic, to answer those two connundrums |
What is the price for our surface? Could not find it on delta net .
|
Not sure I can count the red herrings you have thrown out.
That being said I agree it is pretty much same ole, same ole. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:42 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands