Carl Spackler

I've spoken to a number of my fellow YES voting brothers. Very few were excited about their yes vote. By far, most said they voted yes because the MEC roadshows said a no vote would be disastrous for our futures and our families and that the company had a plan B that we would definitely not like.

At what point do you acknowledge that the MEC administration has tremendous power to sway opinion, and that yes votes are not the same as confidence votes FOR the MEC?

Carl

Carl Spackler

That is correct Dorfman. Nobody can be sure unless you're the FBI.

Most of their posts don't say that. But the few where they do state what you've said above shows they don't understand how the FBI operates. They were wrong to state so definitively.

Neither, just uninformed regarding FBI operation.

So, have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?

Carl

Karnak

It will be at the point you post something that you don't contradict later.

You posted this yesterday -

Which is it?

The evidence, such as your voting record when compared to the actual results of ratification ballots, indicates your views and opinions aren't shared by a clear majority of the pilots. I'm sure your perspective overlaps with the majority on some issues, but certainly not on most of them.

That's not a slam on you personally. It's a disclaimer that should be added to any of your posts that include such statements as, "The pilots want…", and "ALPA is out of touch with the line pilots."

Claiming that ALPA insiders perform Jedi Mind Tricks to sway pilots is an insult to the pilot group by suggesting they don't read and digest the Con arguments published by their reps (such as your's and mine during C2012 ratification). What's more likely is that your thoughtfully-reached conclusions aren't shared by most of your fellow pilots, and because you feel you reached them via impeccable logic, the only possible alternative is that ALPA is hypnotizing most of the pilots to vote yes.

I don't think you can have it both ways: "ALPA guys are masters of persuasion" versus "ALPA guys are poor debaters."

It's simpler than that.

Purple Drank

Karnak, I'm calling you out as a member of Moak's regime, coasting at ALPA national with aspirations for a future elected position. You haven't flown the line in...who knows how long. You don't give a flying #### for the Delta line pilot. You care only for furthering your personal advancement and ALPA's bloated agenda.

If I'm wrong, I invite you, here and now, to refute the following:

-you collect pay from ALPA (and thus, our dues) instead of flying, and have done so since you serviced Moak when he was the DALPA MEC chairman
-your bidding line shows "ALPA" as the reason for your FPL
-you are on the ballot for an elected position at ALPA national

Alan Shore

Or we could all just relax and debate the issues as men considering the merits of each other's arguments in an objective fashion.

Nice backpack by the way.

Purple Drank

I fully understand your desire to debate solely "based on ideas." And surely you didn't attempt to claim that you are engaging in "an objective fashion." (although I do give you credit for being more objective than many of your DALPA colleagues here).

Funny thing is, the folks who push hardest for unconditional ideological debate are the hardcore ALPA supporters.

I don't want to know who folks are, nor divulge their identities if I did. I value my anonymity here, too.

However, I do think it's critical to know from what general perspective each of us posts.

For example, it would be big news for me to say that "Moak's constructive engagement strategy is a huge success for Delta pilots." (Which I am not).

It would be big news for Alan Shore to say "Moak's constructive engagement strategy is costing Delta pilots money and time off." (which he, so far, has not.)

It matters who says what, from where.

Dorfman

Carl,

If they are uniformed about how this investigation business works yet still publish misinformation to pilots why should I trust them to understand how representation works and give me correct information? This and other missteps by DPA have made people like me, 1500 of us by TC last email, not renew are cards.

As for my wife since I never started I never had to stop but nice try. I guess I could ask you do you still support the Tanksley lawsuit?

Carl Spackler

I don't think there will be a vote. DPA couldn't get past about 5,500 cards. Just not enough. For now, ALPA is here to stay.

Now for my question: Who are the names of the "Special Committee" members?

Carl

Carl Spackler

I would say half. Maybe a little more.

Carl

Carl Spackler

Great example of the DALPA method of deceitful communications. Yes there were some council reps that published the cons within TA2012. But those were ONLY local documents that were NOT available to non-members of those councils unless a pilot clicked through multiple links on ALPA.org to find the document. Conversely, the MEC administration's pro only documents were emailed directly to every line pilot regardless of council affiliation.

That represented a huge advantage to an MEC administration that was desperately trying to save face in front of their management partners. Remember this: Not one single document from the MEC administration had one single con related to TA 2012. Not one. Only pros.

Carl