Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1422917)

I agree with Scambo and BB on Sailing. I'm seriously concession-fatigued, and I'm only one TA away from conceding this TA was a mistake, so Sailing's posts lately aren't exactly resonating with me. That doesn't mean I dismiss them as apologist.

Carl's making a mistake trying to resort to cheap and tired clichés. Maybe he thinks he has the pulse of the thread, and maybe he thinks he can shortcut the debate a little. Maybe he feels Sailing's on the ropes, and he wants to move in for the kill?

Bottom line, it's an APC foul. Loss of one point, everyone goes to their corner.

Debate like a man, or lurk quietly.

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1422917)

I agree with Scambo and BB on Sailing. I'm seriously concession-fatigued, and I'm only one TA away from conceding this TA was a mistake, so Sailing's posts lately aren't exactly resonating with me. That doesn't mean I dismiss them as apologist.

Carl's making a mistake trying to resort to cheap and tired clichés. Maybe he thinks he has the pulse of the thread, and maybe he thinks he can shortcut the debate a little. Maybe he feels Sailing's on the ropes, and he wants to move in for the kill?

Bottom line, it's an APC foul. Loss of one point, everyone goes to their corner.

Debate like a man, or lurk quietly.

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1422866)

Carl;

I have a different perspective with respect to Sailing. I don't think he's an apologist per se. I believe he believes what he says. I don't think he is fed talking points to spout off.

I agree with Bar, I hope he sticks around. I like his input.

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1422866)

Now, another topic is why he believes what he says given evidence to the contrary.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1422815)

I spoke at length with one of the negotiators. Just to set the record straight they did not ask specifically for the E190. They asked for more seats and weight that clearly was geared to that aircraft. They offered higher pay rates in exchange. I think if some here took the time to ever engage one of the negotiators about the process and what was traded back and forth they might have a somewhat different opinion of the results. Negotiations are always a give and take. Negotiations under the RLA give management a huge advantage. One thing I really find a odd comment form junior pilots is that they cite how well the company is doing as something that is wrong. Yet the fact the company is doing well will benefit them far more then the senior pilots over time. Time to take a long break from the giant pity party that has become this forum. I check back in 3 years from now and we will see who's version of the future was more correct.

Originally Posted by dalad (Post 1422923)

Yes, I agree. I know Sailing and he's not a bad guy, and has never been an ALPA volunteer. At least to my knowledge. He just believes in what he posts. I think I'm also done with this thread, when guys like Carl try and control the debate. This whole thread has no useful purpose to me anymore, so I'm done. I've got better things to do in my life than this anymore.

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1422922)

AE question:

If the driver for the 7ERB displacements is the "new" clarity on 757 retirements, would we not see displacements in both seats?

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1422823)

The process was subverted.

We traded concessions (with some improvements) for COLA and large RJs.

Mgmt has an especially huge advantage when our MEC is working for them. How 'bout that strike preparedness committee - never spooled because it was never intended to be used. "Fleeting opportunities" and all.

The only upside I see is a 3 year duration and the (non-guaranteed) possibility of patterning up on Unical and USAA (since our JV partners and other pilots aren't in our competitive set).