AerisArmis

Sour grapes

Meaning

Acting meanly after a disappointment.

Origin

In the fable The Fox and the Grapes, which is attributed to the ancient Greek writer Aesop, the fox isn't able to reach the grapes and declares them to be sour:

MX727

Well, of course he wouldn't mention those minor points, would he? Those points tend to make FedEx look like the bully in this situation. I did appreciate that letter though. It gave me something else to keep in my "Red Letter" file.

FLMD11CAPT

+1.........couldn't agree more.

HDawg

"Remember the fired Hong Kong pilots? Oh, yeah, that's what this thread started about. Remember how the MEC chose to embark on a campaign of enhanced communications about the issue rather than approve a $4 per person per month assessment to show our support for those fired pilots?"

How many pilots get fired a year and how many assessments have there been to support those pilots? What's the criteria for asking for money for fired pilots or is it just brought up to bit** about the current MEC that the angry men don't like? Support the pilots and let the contractual process work like it has for how many years now...

FDXLAG

So we are back to:

Perhaps the difference is a substandard LOA that we all knew was substandard and voted for anyways because it didnt effect me. Or the fact that the company has undefined and flexible standards on what constitutes a firing offense for FDA pilots.

Busboy

How do you propose to support them? By stating things like in your post? I'm sure it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside, knowing guys like you, have their back. Sheesh!!

HDawg

I do support them by not bidding HKG and staying informed. My point is why no one ever spoke of assessments for any other fired pilots, has the union ever assessed the pilots for someone who has been fired or is it just a nice way to fire up the angry men who disagree with the MEC?

TonyC

Having actually read Aesop's fable, I must disagree with the meaning attributed above, "acting meanly after a disappointment." True, you can find that phrase in various places on the internet, including a reference to this thread if you google "acting meanly after a disappointment." (If it's on the internet, it must be true, right?) However, whoever came up with that meaning missed the point of the fable. Perhaps they didn't read it. Perhaps they didn't read the moral which is stated at the end.


In Aesop's fable, the fox spotted the grapes and surmised they would be just the thing to quench his thirst. After trying to reach the grapes, and failing, he changed his tune about the grapes. No longer were they "just the thing to quench his thirst," they were now "probably sour."

The moral? It's easy to despise what you cannot have.

More importantly, the fox changed his tune about his own goals and successes or failures. In the beginning, he wanted the grapes. In the end, after repeated failure, he claimed to have never wanted the grapes. He didn't fail after all. Today we'd call that revisionist history.


I'm not quite sure how you see "sour grapes" applying to this thread, but if you are using it to discount my viewpoint, consider this. The fox changed his tune after he failed to achieve his goal. My tune has not changed. I call 'em like I see 'em.






.

Busboy

There was a lot of talk of an assessment for the pilots fired for standing up to the company on Captain's authority. And, I would have proudly voted for such an assessment.

TonyC

Those are fair questions, and I would hope that "enhanced communications from the MEC" would address them.

First, have we ever supported fired pilots financially? Yes. Under FPA, when The Company decided to start firing pilots for bumping Jumpseaters, we gave financial support to the fired pilots until we got their jobs back. The support was via voluntary contributions vice an assessment of the membership, but the principle of supporting them is the same.

So, what sets the Hong Kong pilots, or the pilots fired for exercising their PIC authority (regarding jumpseaters), apart from a pilot who is fired for, say, falsifying an expense report or carrying a firearm in his bag through security?

We have clear rules about expense reports. There is no question about what is right and what is wrong. If you incur a qualified expense, you can claim it. If you did not incur the expense, you cannot claim it. We have clear rules about carrying firearms. There is no question that you are not supposed to have a loaded pistol in your suitcase and take it aboard an airplane. So, when pilots violate those clear rules, the investigation and discipline procedures in our CBA are used to deal with the pilot. The Association does its part to represent the pilot throughout the process, and we fight hard to preserve the pilot's career. That usually does not happen unless the pilot confesses to the wrongdoing, and repents, promising to not do it again. He suffers a penalty, often the loss of money, and is placed under a microscope of "probation" for a period of time.

The pilots who were fired for bumping jumpseaters violated no such rules. They exercised their PIC privilege, as defined by Title 14 CFR (The "FARs"). They did nothing wrong, so they should not have been required to confess wrongdoing and promise to do it no more. They should not have suffered monetary penalty, nor should they have been required to face the extra scrutiny of probation.

The pilots who were fired in Hong Kong also did not violate any clearly defined rules. They were open with what they did, keeping their ACP fully informed of their situation. There was no attempt to circumvent rules or hide their actions. To this day, The Company will not provide a clear definition of what "relocate" means to them, or how they determine whether a pilot has relocated, or has continued to be relocated (one pilot awaiting arbitration was said to have "unrelocated" when he married, so they stopped his housing allowance -- find the definition for that somewhere), or whether a pilot's spouse has relocated, or continued to be relocated, or whether a pilot's dependent child has relocated, or continued to be relocated ... how often can a spouse travel to Japan and still be considered relocated? ... how long can a spouse vacation in Arizona and still be considered relocated? ... For the purposes of the Immigration Department of the Hong Kong Special Adminstrative Region, a dependent is an "unmarried child, under the age of 18." If my son, 17 1/2 years of age, decides to enroll in college in Tennessee, have I failed to relocate him? When he turns 18, have I magically met the mysterious definition? Even though nobody has moved, he can no longer be my dependent, as far as HKSAR is concerned, so does that make FedEx happy?

The Hong Kong pilots deserve different treatment because they did not violate clearly defined rules. They have no sins to confess, no behavior from which to repent, and they do not deserve to suffer financial penalty or to be placed under the microscope of probation.

At least that's the way I see it.

But let's put a bookmark here and take a look at the point I tried to make originally.

That's the way that I see it, and that's the way the large group of Hong Kong pilots who attended their Local Council meeting saw it when they voted unanimously to recommend the MEC adopt an assessment. The MEC considered their resolution and adopted a different strategy. I disagree with the strategy, but I did not attempt to argue their decision in this thread. When they rejected the Council 14 resolution, they committed to engage in an enhanced communication campaign to keep the issue on the minds of all FedEx pilots.

They said they were going to do something -- communicate. Their Chairman, their spokesman, the voice of the MEC ... what has he said? What has he communicated?

I'm not here to argue that there should be an assessment. My point is that the promise to engage in an enhanced communication campaign regarding the pilots who were wrongfully terminated has not been kept. They are being ignored.






.