StarClipper

You need to read your own statement. The “If” at the beginning of your statement suggest that you’re still in doubt. Hence the response I gave you. Now you know that English is my first language.

Fdxlag2

Your Logic is faulty. This is an anonymous forum. You choose to hide your identity more than most, and have frequently pretended to be what you are not. I would use the term if to describe many here. Doesn’t change that you were not employed until 2015 or later and did not vote on the contract. Your threat to be the reason many will again vote on any deal has no credibility. If you are to believed, by your own words, you are a scumbag who will sabotage his fellow pilots. No one on here sold CBA 2015. Many explained why they were voting yes. Along with a significant majority of the other pilots. Did the union sell it, of course. But your bitterness is because your trolling in 2015 was ineffective.

Adlerdriver

I don't think a 7% swing (i.e. less than 400 pilots) can be considered a "significant majority" by any stretch of the imagination.

Fdxlag2

Than you don’t understand the terms significant or majority.

NewOldGuy

Actually I think you don’t understand the word significant. Perhaps you meant slim majority?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anthrax

Dude. In October of 2014 you were asking if the application window was open so that you could get an interview and how you would only need “one shot” because you’re so awesome. Yet here you are saying how you turned down drafts trips during the 2015 contract negotiations. That my friend is am impossibility. There is no way that you could have been interviewed, hired, and trained in time to deny draft before the TA was submitted to the pilots in the fall of 2015.

#poser

Fdxlag2

No you are confusing significant with with overwhelming. Significant is an English word. Look it up. It also has a statistical definition, look it up.

Adlerdriver

I think I do. I would characterize the results of our voting in this way. It was sufficient to accomplish the unfortunate end result ratifying CBA 2015.

sig·nif·i·cant
/siɡˈnifikənt/
adjective: significant

1.
sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy.

I would not characterize it as "significant" because by itself it is not. The result was significant to all of us, but that doesn't mean the vehicle of that result is as well. The outcome would have been the same if the majority had been a single pilot. It's a binary event. Yes or No.

If one desires to claim a majority is significant by virtue of the magnitude of one side of the result (the only way it can be "significant"), I suggest majority of 1 pilot or thousands might be viewed as significant. 7%? Not so much.

Fdxlag2

Really we are going to continue arguing over an insignificant part of my post you chose to isolate. Ok here is Webster’s:

1. : having meaning
especially : SUGGESTIVE
a significant glance
2a : having or likely to have influence or effect : IMPORTANT
a significant piece of legislation
also : of a noticeably or measurably large amount
a significant number of layoffs
producing significant profits
b : probably caused by something other than mere chance
statistically significant correlation between vitamin deficiency and disease

The majority certainly had meaning. It certainly had influence or effect. Would you consider a 5% furlough a significant furlough? The vote was not chance.

XXXXXX announce the are going to undermine pilot unity and you XXXXX want to play dictionary.

And the margin of victory was 14%. If a Democrat won by that much the Washington Post would call it a landslide.

Fdxlag2

That’s not important what is important is what does significant mean.