I offered an example which was asked for not a pattern.

I think it’s pretty clear from the latest survey there are some doubts within the union leadership as to the direction.

If you want the retraction just look at the union messages. At first you didn’t like the example. Now you want the retractions to prove that the example was correct, but you don’t doubt it’s false.

Like I said nobody was going to like the example but I offered one.

You claim FUD. I just give a view.

Surveying the membership does not equal a pattern of dishonesty. Why bother surveying the membership if they are just going to do what they want anyway? If the membership's mood has changed, I expect them to adjust course just as they did as the membership asked for the union to put more pressure on the company.

jtf60, Pervis, and myself all asked you to elaborate on your claim of many lies. Nobody asked you for a singular "example". In more recent posts I have gone above and beyond to clarify my position that I would like to know of all (or at least enough to demonstrate the pattern of dishonesty you claim) lies you have accused the union board of making. If you believe this to be such a big issue that was worthy of making a claim that the union is having to "walk back many talking points when they were proven blatant lies", why not provide evidence of such lies? Can you at least answer why you will not give more than one example? And just to be clear so we don't have to hear that we only asked for one example again - please tell us about as many blatant lies as you can.

I have looked through the union's messages for a retraction. That was the first thing I did after you made your claim. I can't find one, so can you point me to it? Help us out here.

This is textbook FUD. You're making claims meant to discredit union leadership and sow discontent without backing it up with evidence. And no, one example is not enough evidence to prove a pattern of blatant lies from union leadership. Also, now you claim that you are just give a "view" (which I read as your opinion) that the union lied about this, thus meaning there isn't any evidence that it was in fact a blatant lie? Which is it?

A example was wanted I gave one. You didn’t like it so you turn to the typical tactic of more, more more, and if you don’t like that it’s FUD.

The company never had a policy that the union said they did. Probably a simple phone call could have checked with the company before sending out the email.

FUD FUD FUD when someone has a different view. It’s cool, I’ve been there done that. All we need here is the shrub re writing history and it would be a perfect thread.

We can keep at this all day. But the reality is that you came on here and made the pretty grievous claim that there is a pattern of dishonesty from the union board. I don't think I'm the only one who wants to know if this is in fact true. You've been asked to provide the evidence of this pattern. You have only offered up a single instance as evidence. I don't think it is absurd to ask for multiple examples when you stated that the union was propagating many blatant lies. Even if I were to agree that the example you stated was a "blatant lie", that single example would still not be indicative of a larger pattern in and of itself.

FUD has nothing to do with having a differing views. I've got plenty of my own opinions on the performance of the direction of the union, the direction of the company, and a hundred other topics. Happy to discuss those things, and we may even agree on things more than you think. However, you made a statement of fact that the union was having to "walk back many talking points when they were proven blatant lies". If this is true, it should be able to backed up with facts (a series of lies and the retractions, or the proof of lies that haven't been walked back). You presented a single example of a statement, that I have already conceded may have been factually incorrect even though I am not convinced it was intentional attempt to mislead the membership, and you claimed they walked it back. However, you still will not direct us to the retraction, a major part of the claim you made.

It's not that I didn't "like" your example. Sure, that example did not sell me on a pattern of blatant lying from the union board. Maybe when included with all the other examples you claim to have it would be a data point that does in fact point to a campaign of intentional deception. But without those other data points, throwing out a single example and claiming that we should all take your word that it proves your statements true makes your claim FUD. Maybe it wasn't intentional FUD at the beginning, but you've had plenty of opportunity to provide further evidence by this point.

Like I said. An example was asked for and provided. Now you want a pattern and a retraction? Read the union messages and the MB.

I don’t think a pattern is needed when the union is insulting new hires now. Now that’s an interesting tactic.

I’m sure you won’t see it that way but I’m sure a new hire who read todays message is insulted. But the union is trying to help the company……. Huh?

Lots of interesting directions by the union as of late. While the company hasn’t changed any direction. This job is exactly the same as it was two years ago.

I have read the union messages and message board. I don't see a pattern of deceit. I am asking you once again, please educate us as to what the many blatant lies are? Yes, I would like a pattern and the retraction (since I can't find one). You are the one who claimed that there is a history of lies and retractions. If you have the evidence, present it! Many of us want to know if the board is intentionally misleading us, but we aren't going to just take your word for it. You may have interpreted the initial ask as only seeking one example, however I can assure you that was not the intent. You have since been asked multiple times to expand on your statement, yet you refuse. If this is such a big and pervasive issue, why continue to refuse to expose it?

Nice try at a distraction from your original statement, but you have no idea how I viewed yesterday's Wall Street Journal ad.

Well I think the company just clearly responded how a lot of people especially our new hires viewed the Wall Street add.

So we are going after our own now? That’s the new tactic? Hmmmmm.

another great divisive ad by the union. pure marketing narrative, tailor-made for the loud ones on the union message board and insulting to post-2018 new hires.
So apparently we're worried about unsafe pilots now? Is it because we need experienced new-hires to babysit the weak pilots who've been stuck here over 17 years, who have no idea nor interest to fly SOP, who still can't maintain climb or approach speeds without A/T, etc, etc, and have managed to make it through recurrent all these years, the good Old boys Club.
It would be interesting if the union could publish the flight times of all pilots involved in FOQA events since 2018.
How many of those who refused to go around are post-2018 hires, especially on that infamous 350 crew at TEB?
Over the past 5 years how many of those who needed extra check rides, extra training, multiple TRs to get checked out of OE, were new hires with less than 2,000 TT and no jet experience?

The funny thing is that this ad also attacks our own training captains and check airmen.
Some of the stuff you hear on the road, that doesn't get caught, makes that WSJ ad laughable. But, yes, it's just a narrative, it doesn't matter if it's insulting to some of the pilot group, it's only designed to scare the owners. Next we will all be advertised as unsafe pilots; when you lose sight of the purpose of the fight and start being obsessed with the fight.

Oh no we weren’t bashing new hires, we were just pointing out how weak they are and that they need extra training.

I’m so confused. So our company is unsafe because of the new hires, but the new hires actually have less of a failure rate than longer tenured pilots here.

Maybe it’s because they understand the mountain ahead of them, have to study and are preparing themselves. Or they actually want to be here and are making their best effort.

Who knows but if this was really an issue the Union would be publishing numbers and facts like crazy. Instead they just make vague claims about talking points.

Maybe now is not the time?