Originally Posted by Roadkill

Again, no solid arguments, just the appearance of them. Virtually everything alfaromeo writes ends in a QUESTION back to you, for YOU to support YOUR prior concerns. Never a presentation of facts to argue your concerns or ANSWER them--always ending in a question of your position to support yourself. This from the guy(s) who have usually better data to use to actually support an argument if desired.


Meanwhile, alfaromeo again gives no facts, no data, no reasoned arguments, no considered opinions to peoples honest concerns. Everything is always put back on them in a "you're wrong, now you prove this and this..." instead of just giving a well reasoned argument.

I went to the crew-lounge and talked to my reps the other day. Virtually everything that came out of the Capt rep's mouth was slightly false. When we talked about the clause on "beyond the control of the company" he first equated it to force majeure instead of an additional clause increasing the companies latitude. Then he claimed everything beyond their control was defined, until confronted with the verbage that the definition is merely a list of SOME THINGS covered, not everything. Then he claimed the exclusions for everything else are covered in the paragraph where they define economic downturn etc. as NOT being usable under this out, until confronted with the verbage that says these are SOME THINGS that can't be used.

I left with the extremely strong impression that the reps were 100% willing to slant the truth and discussion away from all concerns, and flat out mis-characterize or mis-quote the actual TA verbage to support their reading of it. All my concerns were belittled and characterized several times as an uninformed reading. My opinions of what lawyers and company managers (backed up by solid past evidence!) MIGHT do with our TA verbiage against us we flat out called foolish and uninformed--despite being opinions on intangibles like human nature and business decisions under duress. I have to say, I went there hoping to be convinced the TA was good, and all I got was attacked for all my concerns. Their attitude was similar to alfaromeo's, NO informed discussion explaining with numbers why a concern or fear could not BY A LAWYER WITH PROFIT INTENT be abused, but just a steady attack and asking me to support MY position.

I know a snake sales job when I hear one, and I can tell the difference between someone who honestly does know more than me and is trying to explain it to me... and someone who is BSing me. Had I planned to vote yes, I would now be reconsidering my vote based solely on the slanted and semi-fraudulent answers I got there.

Yes, our current PWA is better in my mind. Yes, I think our current RJ limit combined with todays market forces better protects me for the next 5 years. Yes, I think our current PWA protects my interests and the career and profession better than what this TA leads to. And no, I don't care if going back to Delta with a "no" asking for better puts them in a terrible bargaining position with all their other negotiations.