That's how much separates the weak, sissified yes in C2012 (62-38), from the glorious, "super majority" no of TA1 (65-35).

A lot of us talk about "the majority" on APC and elsewhere. How do we know? We only know about the LAST vote. 3% isn't a license to speak for the group, now and forever. It's not a reflection of the present, but the past.

I think this group is fully qualified to speak for itself.

If it were only that simple. You must have read the TA we're not currently negotiating? Take a deep breath, you'll survive, we all will, until we get a TA

I'll also add most APC dudes argued agains C'12. I was surprised it passed by the margin it did and wasn't sure what the last vote was going to be.

Is APC Arab Spring or just Occupy Wall Street

Hi Ferd,

It's not just you. No one knows until we vote. I don't even think most of the people that voted for C2012 thought they would like it as much as they eventually did. I heard 85% said it was a good deal ahead of TA1. There were concessions in C2012. What were they?

C2K, that Contract which is Most Holy among Restorationists, was not a strong pass. It had tons of concessions, incidentally.

I wasn't sure about TA1. I was judging mostly by social media. I guessed it would pass by similar margins to C2012. Other black-shirted thugs thought it would not pass. They were right, I was wrong. Way wrong.

The guys that are today's equivalent to us black-shirted thugs, and who currently are on social media trying to figure it out now have no idea either.

That's the brutal beauty of voting: the outcome is self-evident, with absolutely no regard given to predictions.

In my mind it should be something strongly ratifyable in this environment but maybe we have so many diverse views of what we want that 60 something percent will carry the vote either way no matter what they negotiate.

IMO Social Media is a huge factor. Why do you think so many of the black polo shirts are on here posting everyday, every thread, and trying so hard to control the message. C2012 vote might have been a lot closer if the members were fluent in social media. As the demographics of the seniority list change, the younger crowd will certainly do most of their information exchanges thru social media and very little thru MEC propaganda.

If there's this level of distrust of the MEC and ALPA, then maybe ALPA needs a real overhaul. I'd start with retaining 2/3rd of the dues at the carrier level and even then only 1/3 used for operations. A bloated senior administration at ALPA with all their benefits and retirement angers me more than Deltas C-suite and their compensation. We are paying for that.

If as political leaders, you can't maintain the same pay and retirement for the members as you are receiving, then that needs to change. That job pays way to much for the level of support the ALPA president has shown for our negotiations.

Trust needs to be earned, again.

Or we could just try another union.

You're giving so little credit to the guys who won the internet, and yet giving so much attention to the guys who lost it. Is there really any confusion as to who dominates the web? fb, CC, APC are mostly islands of Noformity.

You propose that MEC propaganda and social media are different concepts, but I would say this MEC comes from social media. It was the first to embrace it, and it's planted its' flag all over it.

The only problem, and it is a big problem, is that no matter how many operatives you have, how many paid and unpaid posts you put up, you can't squelch dissent. Not fully.

The last MEC delivered results the pilots didn't want, the new MEC isn't delivering results the pilots want. Blaming dissenters on social media, especially outnumbered dissenters, isn't going to work any better now than it did then.

ALPA made a huge mistake when they shut down the DALPA forum.
They lost control of the information flow and now they will never get it back.

You could say the father of this whole revolution in our union is Buzz Hazzard.
If that's not irony I don't know what is.

LOLWUT?

62% yes to 65% no is a LOT more than 3%, not sure what you're alluding to.

The Surrender Seven are clearly advocating for a vote of POSTA2.0 which is a repackaging of POSTA1.0 with a few "deck chairs rearranged". The big variable to them is they think the membership is so desperate for any TA they will cave and MEMRAT whatever's brought to them.

I'm fine with having a vote again on a poison pill laced agreement. One last time, and then we get serious. Will the 7 agree to that though, or will they demand another vote on a substandard TA until voter fatigue/apathy nets them something, anything?