Block1, 8 (and 4)
 

What are we going to gain from the recalls? We will go right back to the same NC that brought us absolutely nothing for 18 months, while spending a ton of your dues money to do so. If we stay the course for a bit, give AB an honest chance, what do we have to lose? They have already accomplished more than the previous crew. If you're in Blocks 1, 4, or 8 and you don't like having your dues money wasted....please make sure to vote against the recalls. You need to call your friends in those blocks and explain this position to them.



You CAN change your votes on recalls up until it closes (21st I believe?)


Block 1 https://managed.alpa.org/fdxblockrep...blocknumber=01

Block 4 https://managed.alpa.org/fdxblockrep...blocknumber=04

Block 8 https://managed.alpa.org/fdxblockrep...blocknumber=08


Vote here
http://www.alpa.org/votenet

Think about this: IF the recalls are successful, there will be an effort to put us right back into 4.A.2.c.....

nope. That’s gone forever. Unless it gets written back into a contract in the future.

Recalls will happen. We were fine with the NC majority vote ousting JG. We should be equally okay with the recalls.

We claim victory over the latest news, well it could not occur without ousting JG. So, if we have more ousting, we should have an industry leading contracts in no time (maybe before peak).

You do like democracy? You nor I have any factual claim on what the recalls will do to the state of negotiations, do you?

Tic toc 5 days to go

I'm not sure you understand how logic works. Let's break down your statement. You say "... claim victory over the latest news (I assume you mean the exit from 4a2b/c), well it could not occur without ousting JG. So, if we have more ousting, we should have an industry leading contracts in no time". We can simplify this a little to:

"Victory on 4a2b/c occurred because of removing JG, therefore removing AB will lead to more contract improvements."

Let's break this down a bit further.
- If we let P be the statement "Victory on contractural matters" and
- Q be the statement "removing JG",
then we can diagram this argument as "P occurred as a result of Q", or more succinctly:
- Q implies P
So far so good. Here is the trouble with your argument. In the next segment you try to repeat this structure to conclude "More Q implies more P" which in plain language would be something like "More removal of NC chairs will result in more contract wins". The difficulty I see is that Q was "removing JG" not "removing NC chairs". So for your argument to work it would have to be the case that ANY removal of ANY negotiating chair would lead to better outcomes for pilots, and I don't think that premise holds. For example suppose our NC chair is JG (whether you think he is a good negotiator or not). Suppose there was some crazy faction of union members who read this book about toddlers being super great negotiators because they throw really good temper-tantrums until they get their way. Then by your logic we should remove JG and install a 3 year old as NC chair. Maybe even more problematic for this premise is if "more removal of NC chairs" implies "more contract wins for pilots" then we should have continuously changing NC chairs....every minute, or maybe even every second. So clearly this premise is false, because it leads to absurd conclusions like those.

Tic toc 5 days…we good so far 😁

My take on Yuko is that he or she is upset about TA1 failing because they are retiring in the near future, so they don’t feel bad about making everyone else suffer by trying to oust the presently functional MEC and NC so no one can have nice things.

I don't know how the abandonment of furlough protection equates to functionality in any form.

So far I count one huge concession with absolutely no restitution.

I thought you wanted what the Big 3 have?

Lots of runway ahead fella or lass.

Recalls are coming, keeping getting those wins: 4a2 gone, next TA by end of Oct.

Maybe they are, maybe they're not. If they do happen, and the 5 with their angry mob get their way, we won't have a TA by next October.