hawkeye
hawkeye you took my comments about your support of lowerlobes comments, about a fictional rigging of the JFK vote, too narrowly. I simply meant i was disappointed that by saying you agreed with his (lowerlobes)stupid comments about having the AEC organise the vote, that in effect you were giving credence to the possibility of the FAAA vote as somehow not being legitimite.
Of course, you didn't say that was the case..... i wasn't suggesting that.
The final point i'm going to make about the actual vote mechanism and arrangement is this..... crew elect officials in the FAAA.... it is not too much to expect that there should be an acceptance by rational people that our elected representatives...no matter who they are ... would not act to "rig" any vote. People who actually believe in such a proposition are actually suggesting that crew generally then are disreputable and dishonourable people.... and in fact, prepared to engage in almost criminal behaviour...because the FAAA officials are all flight attendants too.
Paying a large amount of money to the AEC to send out and count ballot papers is not a good or sensible use of resources for a small union, just to appease the lunatic fringe who see conspiracy everywhere. Furthermore, the FAAA is simply not going to pander to these sorts of suggestions...to do so is to indirectly acquiesce that there is even a remote possibility that rigging or other illegal behaviour could occur.
In relation to the JFK vote..... it was about getting approval from crew about the specific change to the 14 hour planned limitation BUT and more importantly, it was about seeing if crew understood the more important issue of whether the FAAA's call for the need for flexibility generally... was being understood and accepted by crew. THIS WAS STRESSED IN EVERY NEWSLETTER ON THE ISSUE. CLEARLY THE PENNY HASN'T DROPPED WITH SOME INDIVIDUALS, BUT CERTAINLY IT HAS WITH MOST CREW.
(and i'm not suggesting that you don't understand that point hawkeye).
If the vote had been NO, that would have meant that the FAAA didn't explain the issue sufficiently, what it also would have meant , is that QF would accelerate the closure of the L/H Division. The vote was a demonstration to QF by the FAAA leadership that QF's view of L/H as being totally obstructive , was in fact incorrect.
Maybe it hasn't dawned on some people yet, but crew in L/H are well and truly in the sights of the QF gun. The FAAA is trying to convince the most senior level in QF that L/H crew and their job security should be protected. How ridiculous and how undermined would that endeavour by the FAAA have beeen, if crew had rejected the JFK dispensation. Dixon would have had his view of L/H confirmed and the Company would have been pushed even more to the prevailing view in senior QF circles , that L/H needs to be closed down and substituted by their "other options".
There are many things occurring in the background at the moment, some of which can be discussed publicly and some which can't. Also, we are not privvy to Company planning that is also occurring.
The FAAA has delivered on it's promises to crew and the current FAAA people do not lie to crew. In this dangerous environment that we are in...L/H crew should trust that their best interests are being served, both in what is happenning publicly and what is occurring behind the scenes.
Suggestions, by people like lowerlobe if actually listened to and acted upon would result in disaster., and that is why suggestions by people with no idea will and have to be totally ignored.