Originally Posted by
acl65pilot
Carl; you just need to make sure the majority of pilots are willing to err on the side of more risk. Nothing more nothing less. Many will not. (FWIW, I am still not convinced this will pass the Reps much less MEMRAT)
Again, you seem to be equating veiled threats with actual risk. The FAR riskier vote would be to change our current language to allow more 76 seaters (or even higher seat numbers). We'd literally be falling for a con job if we weakened our current language because of the unused threats in our current weak language.
Originally Posted by
acl65pilot
On wetting my pants; lets not start the insults back and forth. It is just not constructive.
It's because I was so surprised and disappointed that you would say what you've said in your previous few posts. You of all people. You pay attention to this stuff. You know how devastating it would be for us to weaken our scope further, yet you actually say: 'we may be forced to accept this ugliness to preserve our top end flying...'
You can't fold like cheap patio furniture with the first little bit of pressure. I'm trying to tell you that if you fall for this, you can expect this in your future:
Young regional kid to the grizzled old acl65pilot: "You greedy bastard! You sold scope back in 2012 and kept me out of the majors. Thanks for selling scope to pad your own wallet."
Grizzled old acl65pilot: "Wait a minute, you don't understand. We HAD to give up more 76 seat flying. They said they would just JV and code share the whole airline if we didn't. We had no choice. We didn't understand until later that management never intended to JV/code share any more. We've been wanting to change it, but who would have guessed that when that 2012 contract was amendable way back in 2017, the company would still be dragging their feet 15 years later?"
Sound familiar?
Carl