Originally Posted by
ATCsaidDoWhat
Pages and pages could be devoted to your revisionist history...as you have elsewhere...however the facts don't change.
So you're dodging my challenge, because you can't produce evidence to show that you didn't
LIE.
FAPA laid out our options - there was no pressure to join or not join. There HAS been pressure to pay IBT (perhaps "encouragement" is a better word). That's been quite clear.
Originally Posted by
ATCsaidDoWhat
... you trash the RAH pilots over their “lousy” contract.
I have done no such thing myself. I have, however, pointed out that IBT contracts in general are pretty lackluster compared to others.
Originally Posted by
ATCsaidDoWhat
...You demanded special treatment, despite the fact that you are part of a single carrier.
We asked for the same treatment that IBT later afforded the flight attendants. I don't recall any fuss over it being "special".
Originally Posted by
ATCsaidDoWhat
You fly an Airbus…like a lot of other folks. And the laws of aerodynamics don’t give a rip if you are in an RJ, a turboprop or a ‘bus. You haul more people simply as a function of the seating capacity. So get over yourself.
The logical extension of your reasoning is that the senior pilots at UA and DL shouldn't fly the 747's just by virtue of having more time invested in the industry/airline, and there's no reason airlines should hold experience to be of any value in their hiring decisions.
Originally Posted by
ATCsaidDoWhat
When the company violates the RLA and goes around the Local to bargain directly with the First Officers...
Another
LIE. There was no bargaining with the FO's, and they didn't "go around" the local. The local expressed no objection to the idea when it was presented to them. The local needs some education on what a contract is, and needs to understand that they can't give the company the OK do take actions in violation of the contract. Or perhaps you could hire FAPA as consultants.
Originally Posted by
ATCsaidDoWhat
Your LoA that you speak so highly of. It codifies that if there is profit sharing, that FAPA will be involved in the disbursement…it that correct? (And let’s be serious here…FAPA and FAPAInvest are the same thing).
To your question, FAPA is not involved in the disbursement, and by my understanding, FAPA Invest will not be involved in the disbursement either.
To your claim - No,
FAPA is a union, representing the interests of all the pilots of Frontier Airlines.
FAPA Invest is an LLC that represents the interests of a group of investors. Those interests of the two are often inherently in conflict with each other. If you drew a Venn diagram, the two groups are not 100% overlapping. There are people who are members of each individual group without being members of both.
Originally Posted by
ATCsaidDoWhat
And they have something FAPA never had and never will have…the support of an organization of 1.4 million members, staff, tremendous assets and the ability to marshal those for forces and resources...
I hate to be blunt, but a fat lot of good that's been doing you. For 4 years?