LOA Results
08-13-2007, 01:55 PM
#111
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 118
One more thing ... I am thoroughly unimpressed with the significance of a majority vote when it's composed of pilots who have absolutely zero intention of EVER bidding to relocate to an FDA. That's like taking a "what's your favorite sex position" survey in a convent, isn't it? It doesn't really mean a thing. We'd have had an entirely different outcome if there had been this caveat at the top of the ballot: "Be advised that a YES vote will constitute a change to your standing bid, and by voting YES, you will have committed to bidding an FDA. A pilot voting YES will have 15 days from the close of the vote to designate the FDA of choice."
THEN, my friends, you would have seen an entirely different outcome. For one thing, the knee-jerk (or just lazy) vote would have been "NO", and for another, the literacy level of the crew force on the provisions of the LOA would have been stratospheric. What we had was a "YES" vote by a bunch of people who really don't give a shee-yit because they're not going there, and "if the union says it's a good deal, it must be, right?". So don't point to the numbers as somehow legitimizing this. I could easily vote for each of you to donate your left nut to science, and I wouldn't lose any sleep on it, either.
THEN, my friends, you would have seen an entirely different outcome. For one thing, the knee-jerk (or just lazy) vote would have been "NO", and for another, the literacy level of the crew force on the provisions of the LOA would have been stratospheric. What we had was a "YES" vote by a bunch of people who really don't give a shee-yit because they're not going there, and "if the union says it's a good deal, it must be, right?". So don't point to the numbers as somehow legitimizing this. I could easily vote for each of you to donate your left nut to science, and I wouldn't lose any sleep on it, either.
08-13-2007, 01:57 PM
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: FDX MD11 Capt in MEM
Posts: 886
Originally Posted by HerkyBird
That's like taking a "what's your favorite sex position" survey in a convent, isn't it?
It's better than a Catholic girls' school.
08-13-2007, 02:07 PM
#114
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 281
Originally Posted by HerkyBird
<< I think a few big brothers at the table may be a tad greedy, and maybe some of the family includes some pretty weak sisters ... >>
Excuse me ... but when you want to refer to a weak, sniveling, "the sky is falling" weenie, who can't be bothered to read a proposed LOA for himself because he's too friggin' lazy, then call him what he is. GUTLESS - for sure. SPINELESS - obviously. NUTLESS - in spades. But it's an insult to your union sisters, especially those of us who have been very outspoken on the LOA issue, to call them "weak sisters". We, your union sisters who had to fight just to be accepted in this business, deserve better than that from you, our union brothers. Call them what they are -- WEAK [RICHARDS]. But NOT weak sisters. They can't touch us.
Excuse me ... but when you want to refer to a weak, sniveling, "the sky is falling" weenie, who can't be bothered to read a proposed LOA for himself because he's too friggin' lazy, then call him what he is. GUTLESS - for sure. SPINELESS - obviously. NUTLESS - in spades. But it's an insult to your union sisters, especially those of us who have been very outspoken on the LOA issue, to call them "weak sisters". We, your union sisters who had to fight just to be accepted in this business, deserve better than that from you, our union brothers. Call them what they are -- WEAK [RICHARDS]. But NOT weak sisters. They can't touch us.
All in good fun.
By the way, I like the way you think (or at least type). You sure you are a chick?
08-13-2007, 02:56 PM
#117
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Assumed
Posts: 120
Herk, Why would you assume that "Yes" voters have "absolutely zero intention of EVER bidding to relocate to an FDA"? Some will, some won't. Its always been that way. (Guess I've been here a bit longer.)
08-13-2007, 03:06 PM
#118
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 118
You just hide and watch, Strut. If they didn't do it for an FDA that would have allowed them to stash some cash over the years, they sure as hay-yull aren't going to do it for an FDA that will cost them (easily) $65K out of pocket annually between extra taxes (over SFS), housing, and schooling. I'm in my 50s, single, and childless, and I can't afford it. Maybe some are better situated than I, but it's a bad, bad deal all around.
08-13-2007, 03:27 PM
#120
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Assumed
Posts: 120
Originally Posted by HerkyBird
You just hide and watch, Strut. If they didn't do it for an FDA that would have allowed them to stash some cash over the years, they sure as hay-yull aren't going to do it for an FDA that will cost them (easily) $65K out of pocket annually between extra taxes (over SFS), housing, and schooling. I'm in my 50s, single, and childless, and I can't afford it. Maybe some are better situated than I, but it's a bad, bad deal all around.
If you're "in your 50s, single, childless" and still can't afford it, perhaps you have other issues. Best wishes.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
