Airline Pilot Central Forums - FDX-Block 5 Rep email

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Cargo (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/cargo/)

- - FDX-Block 5 Rep email (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/cargo/57468-fdx-block-5-rep-email.html)

Block 5 Rep Speaks For Me!

Thank God for TC! :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2005 Blues (Post 957668)

Thank God for TC! :)

Watergate, all over! Thank heavens that TC stood up and let the voice of reason be heard.

Why is this "essay" more convincing than the alternative point of view? Must be because he dares to speak for the minority, everyone loves an underdog.

If it fails, I am sure his FO's in HKG will appreciate his martyr status as they continue to live on 2700 bucks.

If he is all about revealing the truth, how come he never told his block that he had bid on and been awarded a HKG CA position BEFORE he ran for a MEM block rep opening? Seems like not the thing to do if he was truly a man of truth, honor and the American way. :rolleyes:

Politics and Spin, I thought the MEC was NOT GOING TO SELL!!!! Well I guess they must have meant they would not sell a yes vote, but a NO vote can be lobbied and sold by one of their own, that is obviously a different animal.

Sincere thanks for your dedication to your fellow pilots TC. Your professional courage and integrity speaks volumes for your comprehensive explanation. This educated, insightful and eloquent explanation crystallized my opposition to this TA. Let's hope this get's widely circulated to the rest of the pilots. Shame on our MEC for not sponsoring it's distribution!

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4A2B (Post 957674)

Yeah I'll bet TC is planning his own DVD mailing and 12 roadshow hubturn meetings. If you think this is a hard sell but the dog and pony shows arent you might be biased. He sent an email to his block explaining his vote. But you have a problem with it. :confused:

It could be this opinion is more convincing because the MEC"s explanation for why they think we lack leverage rings hollow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FDXLAG (Post 957682)

the distinction is it is the Officers and NC and others who are doing their job and informing and answering questions. Road shows are not the purview of the MEC.

The MEC advertised themselves as "you decide", that is the difference I see. I do not think his opinion is any different than some of those represented here, just that one mans opinion, no more no less. If you think it overrides the NC, Officers and majority of the MEC that will be your view no matter what.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4A2B (Post 957689)

His opinion doesnt override the NC, Officers and majority of the MEC but it but it is line with mine and since I am talking about my vote mine is the only one that counts. Yours should be the only one that counts for your vote but it sounds like you let others decide for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4A2B (Post 957674)

Thats it. His "essay" is convincing because he is an underdog! Nothing to do with his logical explanation of his views.

Yep, and if it fails, he will have martyr status also! If so, and if questioned, I would guess that he would be able to explain his position to anyone.

And I guess he was deceitful by not revealing the truth about his upgrade bid to his block! (thats if he didnt reveal it, not sure) Damn him and the American way!! :rolleyes:

Politics and spin seem to be on the non-underdog side. Otherwise, he would have been able to do it through the normal union channels. And, it would seem that with DVD's, online vids with the ALPA guy, and other forms of communication; some which is pretty good, the union has in many ways said a yes vote is needed. Thank goodness they arent selling it as a yes!

"...unspeakable insult to heinous injury.."

To make matters worse, crew positions with fewer than 100 active pilots (Hong Kong and Los Angeles fit that description today, maybe Cologne tomorrow?) are excluded from the line construction limitations forever. And to add unspeakable insult to heinous injury, the company felt it necessary to craft language, excluding the B-777 fleet from the calculations, which contemplates the possibility of invoking §4.A.2.b. during the upcoming year!

Hit the nail on the head, as usual. Kudos, Tony. Far from "fixing" 4a2b, this TA would cement 4a2b shortcomings in place. You may only have 20 of us in your corner, but we're loyal.:D