|
|
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1269977)
I would not say that. As Slow wanted to point out the C44 nomination meeting was in Sept three years ago. Sept 24th to be exact. This time it was earlier in Sept and the voting window closes a month earlier, but he would have been eligible either way.
|
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1269937)
I didn't know that about Phil, but being awarded CA and still running for FO rep is a whole different ballgame.
How was my statement in anyway disingenuous? It's a legit concern and something that really gets under my skin about AG running this time. Like I said, I voted for him last time. By all means, pull out the "but you're a moderator" card again. It really helps your case because I'm obviously lowering the level of discussion by bringing this out into the open. :rolleyes: He is not "technically" eligible, as if he had any other eligibility, it's the only rep position he is eligible for. Of course you knew that, but painted it another way. Sleazy, but consistent from you. There was no manipulation, as you have implied, that's just you making things up again. More APC moderator sleaze. As the near plug on the DC9,, I very much doubt he'll be there for long, maybe not even a few months. This entire issue is a pretext and a disengenuous effort on your part to throw mud. Way to go Moderator, way to elevate discussion on this forum. Soon this place will rightly lose credibility thanks to moderators such as yourself.:eek: |
Originally Posted by DoubleTrouble
(Post 1269828)
Eligible is eligible. Both issues raised should be out there in the open. That way no one is surprised later, and guys can watch/see the conversion timelines.
I prefer F/O reps actually receive F/O pay, not captain pay, for the entire term. For obvious reasons. Less of an issue for me is a F/O that lives in the base he represents, but doesn't fly out of. He is still a F/O.
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1269937)
I didn't know that about Phil, but being awarded CA and still running for FO rep is a whole different ballgame.
How was my statement in anyway disingenuous? It's a legit concern and something that really gets under my skin about AG running this time. Like I said, I voted for him last time. By all means, pull out the "but you're a moderator" card again. It really helps your case because I'm obviously lowering the level of discussion by bringing this out into the open. :rolleyes:
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1269957)
He made the cutoff date by moving his conversion date back a month. That's pretty low.
Originally Posted by 76drvr
(Post 1270027)
Yes, you do lower the level of discourse here. You need to work on that because you discredit yourself and this forum with your childish behavior.
He is not "technically" eligible, as if he had any other eligibility, it's the only rep position he is eligible for. There was no manipulation, as you have implied, that's just you making things up again. As the near plug on the DC9,, I very much doubt he'll be there for long, maybe not even a few months. This entire issue is a pretext and a disengenuous effort on your part to throw mud. Way to go Moderator, way to elevate discussion on this forum. Soon this place will rightly lose credibility thanks to moderators such as yourself. Seriously..... |
Originally Posted by Wilbur Wright
(Post 1269945)
I don't understand the consternation over AG. Isn't the cutoff date the cutoff? He was a FO when nominations closed during the normal nomination process. He wasn't allowed to run as a captain. Now if pilots don't like having a FO who's making captain pay the solution is simple. Don't vote for him.
Captains as FO reps? FOs as Capt reps? Why? Seems like a double standard to me. |
This thread has become useless... Bye...
|
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1269937)
I didn't know that about Phil, but being awarded CA and still running for FO rep is a whole different ballgame.
We're talking about a bottom Captain (probably going to be knocked back to FO when more DC9's get parked). On the other hand we have a NYC7ERB who has not flown a significant amount of time in the ATL base in the last 10yrs. Neither one is doing anything bad. They are both 100% legal and appropriate to be running for the offices they are. But to say the guy who has been flying FO in ATL for the last 15yrs and now holds a fluke bid to be a bottom Captain on a doomed fleet is somehow less able to relate to FO's :confused: I don't see that holding water. Here's another question to the guys that love DPA so much: your fearless leader talks about the benefits of seniority block representation. Under that system, both of these guys would still be running against each other, would they not? And wouldn't ATL & DTW probably end up with a lot of reps flying there :D Potentially zero reps from the really tiny bases like SEA and CVG :eek: |
Originally Posted by Mem9guy
(Post 1270034)
This thread has become useless... Bye...
|
Originally Posted by JobHopper
(Post 1270033)
A couple of years ago the MEM Capt rep was "fired" after he got displaced to DTW. He was not allowed to remain in office because his position changed. A special election was held to replace him.
Captains as FO reps? FOs as Capt reps? Why? Seems like a double standard to me. |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1269999)
Do you know this as fact or are you making stuff up?
Where's TAANSTAFL and Nu worried about slime now?:rolleyes: Here's a council 44 guy talking about council 44 issues for an upcoming election. Otherwise it's hands off for any non-44 folks to even lay even a peep about. Your bro on the other hand wanted to drag an outside council, that doesn't event have an election this year, through the mud. If a SEA guy wants to get up and squawk, then that would be fair play. If you're a council 54 guy, call your rep and get the straight story, then post. For a guy all wrapped up about APC, I'm surprised you don't see the difference. Nu |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1270005)
After a little bit of research, look at the bid award and projected conversion. That was a 6 mo bid award conversion window in march... We are well beyond that now. moved his conversion by at least a month due to "alpa bod."
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:13 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands