Let's see........the union talks up the deal to us. The company talks up the deal to investors (who didn't want us to get anything, maybe even take a cut down to USAir levels). The real proof will be if/when anyone at the company who negotiated the deal either gets promoted or fired. Then we'll know what they really think.

Sorry, lots of cynical in the coffee this morning.

You can do that before your coffee? :eek: :D

It's almost sad that you keep beating the "Ed Said.." drum. Falcon is right on the money. What do you expect him to highlight on an investor call? That he gave the pilot group a much improved contract-and 6 months BEFORE the amendable date?

If Delta finds a way to offset the value of our contract somewhere else in their business plan and is able to call it "cost-neutral" I say great! We should be constantly looking for opportunities to make that happen again in the future. If parking RJ's, upgauging lift for better economics/customer satisfaction, etc allows Ed to make those statements, then it's a win-win. Do you want/expect Ed to publicly kneel at the earnings call altar and confess his sin of being "bamboozled by those crafty pilots"? Would that make you guys "feel" better?

I personally don't care if Ed's comments satisfy my ego or not. I examined the deal and found it favorable on my own accord - we weren't sold anything. I know because I read everything and came to an objective conclusion instead of launching emotional rocks from the back of the room. PLEASE for the good of the group stop spewing Angry Pilots Association rhetoric (need I remind of the abortion scare or would you rather I pull the "fire alarm"? GMAFB) - it's nothing but divisive. Of course on 2nd thought that IS your primary goal here :rolleyes:

See if I can get this to work

Thankyou Mrs Peel

There you go FERD

Ferd,

Check out this. It should help you with your YouTube post.

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/yo...be-videos.html

Finally..........see above

odd that the url doesn't paste the way you copy it. I'm sure I wasn't copying from the correct spot.

You make great points Carl.

I expect him to tell the truth on investor calls. He did exactly that. It was our MEC administration that didn't tell the truth. They were intent to refute the comments of 5 LEC officers who questioned why we would settle for a TA that didn't come close to restoration and didn't cost management one additional penny. The MEC administration instead put out disinformation stating that the TA would increase costs by hundreds of millions of dollars. Completely untrue of course. But the MEC administration stated it anyway.

Again, that's not the point. They "found" a way to make it cost neutral before we even voted. That's why they called it cost neutral before we voted...much to the chagrin of the negotiating committee. The point is that our entire MEC administration went on a full court press to refute any description of cost neutrality. If you're happy with the contract and voted YES, that's great. I'm happy you're happy. But that's not what we're talking about.

Excellent.

That's just direct talking point language from the former MEC administrators. Voicing an opposing opinion is not throwing rocks from the back of the room. Those kind of characterizations are one of the reasons those admins are now back on the line. When 5 LEC officers questioned why the negotiating committee would come to us with a cost neutral TA, they weren't throwing rocks from the back of the room...they are part of the process in a bottom-up organization. If we were a bottom-up organization that is.

Name calling doesn't help your cause. Try to stay on topic.

Carl