Originally Posted by
newKnow
I don't know much about Lee, what he flies, or what motivates him. But, for every 777 or 747 on the property that's a bunch of 767-400, A-330, and 7er pilots that move up and or out.
Most of the list is positively affected. I say let's bring on all the 777's and -400's we can and I'm sure that the people in the know want the same thing.
Bring it. Bring a ton of them and get guys off my plane... or maybe I can hold DC9A Knew? Would you teach me how to fly it if everyone forgot to check their AE bid?
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
Sorry, but where does it say that volunteering to serve as a leader for your fellow pilots means you sign up for abuse. Who created that rule? It seems to me that the most abusive forum posters are the ones who created that rule. What if I were to find out the real name of Check Essential was John Doe and then I started posting about what "someone said" about John Doe. I could post any abusive or untrue comment and then justify it by saying "John Doe signed up for abuse by posting in a public forum."
So sorry, you do not have the right to abuse people just because they have taken positions of leadership in the union. You can question their decisions and strategy, but you do not have the right to abuse them. If someone gives themselves the right to abuse people, then they are a lowlife in my book. If someone can't stick to the facts and avoid innuendo and personal attacks, then their ideas suck and they need to develop better arguments. Shouldn't we hold ourselves to higher standards than 12 year old girls who post nasty comments on Facebook? Shouldn't we at least try to stick to the facts when dealing with personal reputations? What would your response be if Delta management attacked one of your fellow pilots like this?
I like the rumor of buying multiple 747's or 777's just as much as the next guy. These rumors are rampant in this industry. I just think that when we are dealing with the personal reputation of your fellow pilots, they deserve the same respect you would expect from them in a personal interaction. We should not allow our standards to fall in the gutter just because we can.
A) I don't get excited about any rumors, until you see it, it doesn't matter. As we have found, even if RA and EB said "9 more 747-400s stat", so what. I'd imagine that's like step A and you've got to get to step W to have the planes on the line and that'd mean there is a lot of places for all of that to come to a stop.
B) Abuse isn't appropriate for anyone. And I don't think Check means Moak deserves having David Letterman tell jokes about a profesisonal baseball player knocking up his 14 year old daughter during the 7th inning stretch just because he signed up to be a politician.
I think Check meant abuse as in, take the heat. And that Moak knew the seat would be hot but he can take the heat and he knows how to handle it.
But I don't speak for Check and nobody wants me to speak nor write for them. Grammar and spelling issues. I get it. But lets see how well you spell when your public school system is the one that gave us Allen Iverson and Michael Vick. Thats my excuse anyways.
