Pro/Con Papers?
02-10-2023 | 08:17 AM
#671
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 916
Likes: 5
OK... for the sake of discussion....
How many pilots do you think had already voted by the time these were released? (I'll bet the MEC already knew that this thing has passed) Would these papers have changed any minds? Probably not, so I think this is a weak attempt at publishing something that the MEC had no real interest in doing in the first place in an attempt to placate the 'no' voters. IMHO it is a disservice that the MEC didn't want these released prior to commencement of voting because they are all in on this TA. After talking to two of the ATL reps, I have no doubt that they would do anything to ensure passage. I guess what bothers me is that they essentially withheld information. So why even bother with memrat? Let's just go back to the days before we had it.
How many pilots do you think had already voted by the time these were released? (I'll bet the MEC already knew that this thing has passed) Would these papers have changed any minds? Probably not, so I think this is a weak attempt at publishing something that the MEC had no real interest in doing in the first place in an attempt to placate the 'no' voters. IMHO it is a disservice that the MEC didn't want these released prior to commencement of voting because they are all in on this TA. After talking to two of the ATL reps, I have no doubt that they would do anything to ensure passage. I guess what bothers me is that they essentially withheld information. So why even bother with memrat? Let's just go back to the days before we had it.
02-10-2023 | 09:46 AM
#673
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 8,099
Likes: 1,047
OK... for the sake of discussion....
How many pilots do you think had already voted by the time these were released? (I'll bet the MEC already knew that this thing has passed) Would these papers have changed any minds? Probably not, so I think this is a weak attempt at publishing something that the MEC had no real interest in doing in the first place in an attempt to placate the 'no' voters. IMHO it is a disservice that the MEC didn't want these released prior to commencement of voting because they are all in on this TA. After talking to two of the ATL reps, I have no doubt that they would do anything to ensure passage. I guess what bothers me is that they essentially withheld information. So why even bother with memrat? Let's just go back to the days before we had it.
How many pilots do you think had already voted by the time these were released? (I'll bet the MEC already knew that this thing has passed) Would these papers have changed any minds? Probably not, so I think this is a weak attempt at publishing something that the MEC had no real interest in doing in the first place in an attempt to placate the 'no' voters. IMHO it is a disservice that the MEC didn't want these released prior to commencement of voting because they are all in on this TA. After talking to two of the ATL reps, I have no doubt that they would do anything to ensure passage. I guess what bothers me is that they essentially withheld information. So why even bother with memrat? Let's just go back to the days before we had it.
Tis thee that has no interest in an honest discussion old windy one.
You prefer to slam my character and throw out the old 'he's throwing the victim card' replies while discounting my concerns.
But as I said earlier, you can relax. You won. Just stop rubbing my nose in it when I point out that it ain't all that great an agreement for everybody.
You prefer to slam my character and throw out the old 'he's throwing the victim card' replies while discounting my concerns.
But as I said earlier, you can relax. You won. Just stop rubbing my nose in it when I point out that it ain't all that great an agreement for everybody.
P.S. For the record, I acknowledge you, and many more before you, got screwed over, and that there is little in this TA for your demographic to be excited about. The only thing that possibly could have been meaningful for you was retirement, and that was a bridge too far. It sucks. I submit to you, however, that your considerable experience and insight would be better served in other threads on APC. I mean that as a compliment, not a dig.
02-10-2023 | 10:21 AM
#677
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 7,292
Likes: 0
From: A350 Both
JamesBond did you wait for the pro/con paper to make up your mind about this TA?
Congratulations on your big win.
02-10-2023 | 10:23 AM
#678
Banned
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 8,831
Likes: 499
so you made your mind up to not even consider a yes before the pro/con came out. Interesting (not really, just a colloquialism)
02-10-2023 | 10:25 AM
#680
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,236
Likes: 80
From: DAL 330
Ok, I’ll throw out a Con. I like 30 hr layos. With the new min calendar day will they all go away? I’ve already seen locations that require 30 hrs due to timing of the only main line flights get swapped to DH out or in on an RJ to make a short layo legal. Seems more trips may get structured that way.
Fair enough, but then if someone doesn't like 30 hour layovers is it a Pro?
Scoop
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
