Your purposeful error is the assumption that a ratification vote equals support for the TA or lack thereof. It doesn't. There are some here that have stated they're an automatic NO vote because they know DALPA is out to hurt its members. Such a NO vote does not show lack for support of the TA, it shows a lack of support for the union. Conversely, I talked personally to many YES voters that did so because of the fear campaign waged by the MEC administration. They said they hated the TA, but feared what could happen if the MEC administration was right about the company's Plan B. That YES vote clearly does not show support for the TA, but rather a choice between the lesser of two evils.

I know you understand this, but you purposely use this fallacy to defend the indefensible.

See above

Right out of the O'Malley playbook from back then. These two phrases were used routinely by Harwood, White, Hazzard, Pinot and the rest of you ousted Moak disciples to disqualify the speech of those who smoked out that administration's true motives. It's old school and boring, but i know you'll continue to give us the best of echo chamber "debate."

This is a wasted few sentences because your job at DALPA was to communicate through deceptive non-communication, but here goes anyway. You guys are exceedingly poor debaters. That's what happens when you only spend time in your echo chamber. You are also exceedingly poor at persuasion. That's why you've no choice but to ignore the explicit direction of our reps, then engage in the worst kind of fear tactics as a campaign strategy.

So you see Karnak, I'm not asking to have things "both ways." It's two separate weaknesses within DALPA. You guys are both poor debaters and poor at persuasion.

Carl

 

My agenda is to try and influence posters on this website to be civil to one another without name calling etc. Other than that, I don't have an agenda. I have opinions and IMO, it doesn't matter if one has an agenda or not. This is an anonymous web forum where everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter who they support or don't. As someone else said, debate the facts of the argument not the person making them. This goes for people on both sides of an issue.

I value your opinion on the issues but I'm here to tell you it gets lost in your muckraking etc. and makes me want to discount it.

Take the above for what it's worth, but I'm guessing a lot of posters and lurkers feel the way I do. You can have the last word. I'm through with this conversation.

Denny

 

Says the man who:
Has NEVER flown with a former south pilot or who spends his time with his "Executive Director" management buddies.

Reality and hypocrisy calling Carl, Carl, Carl, Carl, Carl, Carl, Carl........

 

Very well put, Denny.

IMO there's been far too much "well tell me who you are and what your agenda is" coming from both sides recently. Wayyyy too many black helicopters.

 

I'm not asking you to trust them. I'm just reminding you that nobody gets everything right. Not even ALPA.

I actually felt bad writing that, but I wanted you to see how dumb it was for you to pose the same false choice question of: "So is DPA deceitful or inept?" I feel bad about it even when I'm only using those tactics to make a point with someone like you who does it routinely.

Myself and others have already answered this...no.

Carl

 

I'd forgotten that, but you're absolutely right. Those local reps were subjected to absolutely brutal character assassination by the usual suspects of that MEC administration under O'Malley. Now Karnak is trying to own it as an ALPA action all along. Like someone said here earlier: "Irony...it's not just a river in Egypt".

Me too, but that will never happen. Never.

Carl

 

I think you're right regarding someone who is just a supporter. But it's very relevant when the poster is a member of the MEC administration or "volunteer" being allowed flight pay loss for the specific purpose of getting the DALPA message out on web boards. Those folks also have every right to be heard, but their particular backgrounds should also be revealed. I happily reveal mine. I'm a 744A based in DTW with over 30 years in. I've served on a number of ALPA committees and ran for an elected position twice. Lost both times. I'm not currently doing any union work. Why is that so hard for some people?

DALPA is also not paying me any flight pay loss for my posts here.

Carl

 

IMO the whole point of an anonymous web forum is just that, anonymity. Each person gets their say on any given issue and its worth no more or no less than anyone else's. On a normal web forum where real names are used, I can see your point but on an anonymous one where no one knows who's who and no ones opinion is worth any more or less than anyone else's, I think whether anyone is on flight pay loss or not is irrelevant. YMMV

It might be a little bit harder to believe, but they ain't payin' me either!

By the way, I'm guessing most regulars to this forum know who I am from my posting history and that I am a "nobody" as far as the union goes. And for that matter, the company too.

Denny

 

I don't get it. Are you saying that they might have actually voted NO against a TA that they actually liked, simply because of the bargaining agent? Why?

Well, duh!! I didn't like either of the concessionary contracts at Delta in the early 2000's, but I voted YES anyway because I preferred it to the most likely alternative.

Isn't that the way any decision works? You compare what you have in front of you to what you can likely expect instead if you turn it down.

 

Of which I have 12,000, including you my friend.