I know the first thing we'd have to give up, LAX.

I think it's Haneda out of Seattle. Carl will be there in a 747-400 to accept the salmon.

Carl will be handed the salmon and keys to the city.

Newk, will go get his own salmon.

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs4/1107629_o.gif

Anyone remember how we used to fly 777-200ERs JFK to BOM and then ATL-BOM on the LRs, but pulled it due to air india starting to fly 777-200s?

They appreciate it.

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...53799311_n.jpg

Now Air India featuring much larger 777-300ERs JFK-BOM.

Don't you know the MEC and ALPA Legal have final creative control over LEC Letters? That's still vastly filtered. That's like a horse that can talk. "That's amazing!" you say, but you should still wonder later why that horse could talk.

The MEC controls the spin. The contract survey said simply "more money, less RJs". One Internet based survey isn't enough to specify specific contract demands. In terms of two months of section 6 we got exactly what we paid for.

I feel like I just saw a drunk pony type a couple sentences....

Most Definately. Here is my favorite part...


Wow, the force is strong with your BS. Apparently now, even though the will of the pilots was ignored that's OK because there was only one survey and that's not enough.

You should get hip waders, this BS is spilling over the top of your boot.

That is factually incorrect. While it is customary to submit communications to the Comm Chairman for review, and edits and corrections are frequently incorporated it is not mandatory to do so, nor binding.

LEC communications and opinion, while usually supportive and complimentary, are independent of the MEC. If you have read the perspectives and opinion of 1, 20, 54, and occasionally others who express a counterpoint it is quite evident they were not "approved" and endorsed prior to publishing.

Reference the contact survey it was comprehensive, with a high level of participation from all demographics and categories and provided statically accurate highly valid data. There were both general "improve this" as we'll as very specific values. It provided clear direction. The MEC's job was to filter the achievable from the unrealistic (i.e. we want everything) and prioritize. It is a source of ongoing discussion of how well that, and the direction of the MEC was followed, aka "navel lint" and "hammering at our foundations"

I miss reading Carl's posts..... We have to get him out of retirement and start posting again.

Time of year to get out the MD88 study materials again.