Originally Posted by Purple Drank (Post 1650281)

That's pure horse****. Most of us who had the balls to accept one or more PDs (and the associated managerial harassment) would rather have taken it to a grievance. But DALPA allowed us to play the role of hostage. Let the company think about it until C15.

I guess I'd ask how you can defend why "our" "union" offered zero top cover for those who might have needed a loan in their quests to defend the contract.

That's what causes disunity--waffling and squishy language, passive guidance.

Want unity? Start with strong, firm leadership and a willingness to rumble for guys who lay it on the line.

Originally Posted by badflaps (Post 1650230)

I think you are mistaken sir, that is a test model of the Douglas 808.

Originally Posted by Purple Drank (Post 1650281)

That's pure horse****. Most of us who had the balls to accept one or more PDs (and the associated managerial harassment) would rather have taken it to a grievance. But DALPA allowed us to play the role of hostage. Let the company think about it until C15.

I guess I'd ask how you can defend why "our" "union" offered zero top cover for those who might have needed a loan in their quests to defend the contract.

That's what causes disunity--waffling and squishy language, passive guidance.

Want unity? Start with strong, firm leadership and a willingness to rumble for guys who lay it on the line.

Originally Posted by DLpilot (Post 1650331)

Your argument for taking it to a grievance it does not make sense. The company is making everyone whole. Why would you rather risk going to a grievance? I applaud everyone who stood up and followed the contract. However, I seriously doubt most wanted to drag it out for a grievance that wasn't guaranteed to win.

Originally Posted by gzsg (Post 1650330)

When was the first time the line pilots saw this LOA?

Right after it was a done deal.

If ALPA was the bottom up organization it claims to be, the line pilots would have 7-14 days to review and give feedback to their reps before they vote.

If they are proud of their work, why do they always hide it from us?

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1650284)

Really? You would have a preferred a grievance process to what we got?

Originally Posted by DLpilot (Post 1650331)

Your argument for taking it to a grievance it does not make sense. The company is making everyone whole.

Originally Posted by Herkflyr (Post 1650201)

I think you are being a bit hystrionic. This TA is all positive--do we really need to go through the motions?

Originally Posted by Herkflyr (Post 1650201)

Had the SDPs been kept, then absolutely it should have gone to memrat. In fact I emailed my reps urging them to do exactly that (as a minimum) before the SDPs were finally deleted.

Originally Posted by Herkflyr (Post 1650201)

No work rule changes were made, except in our favor. Nothing was changed at all, except in our favor. The only thing the company got was a firm set of ground rules for themselves as they assign flying to reserves. They paid dearly for those clear cut rules.

Originally Posted by Herkflyr (Post 1650201)

I applaud the entire MEC. I don't think sending this to memrat was a dealbreaker in its current form.

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1650249)

You've been trying to develop this point obliquely for a few pages, but you're failing to get any interest. It’s not because you’ve been too subtle. It’s. Because. No. One. Cares.

I don’t know if you realize this, but the group has gotten over the novelty of the merger. Everyone here is talking about the right lessons, the specifics, the mistakes not to be repeated in order to move the group forward, and you're merely back on APC for merger politics.

Because you live in the past, you fail yet again. You've failed to convince on DPA, and you're going to fail to draw contrasts between "good" and "bad" councils. You're trying to use the "MEMRAT = good argument", but you're only going to embarrass the reps you're trying to glorify.

Everyone understands that the failure in this TA was to include CDO’s without polling or communicating. That’s the problem, and it’s a problem the MEC shares collectively. But let’s say you insist on drawing distinctions, let’s say you high-five “NYC, MSP, DTW, the F/O rep from CVG and the training rep in ATL”. That’s going to cause a few disturbing questions. If you want to insist on describing the performance of my reps, then I’d like to say that, for NYC pilots, your rhetoric on APC is going to raise a few pointed questions:


1) Why is it that “NYC, MSP, DTW, the F/O rep from CVG and the training rep in ATL” are so very, very consistently voting together?

2) How did NYC become so enamored with CDO’s, when we have very little experience with them, and probably would have never even thought to ask?

3) Why is it that we have two CA reps in NYC that (according to a PanAm pilot) go back to PanAm days, and are very close, but one NYC CA is the CA rep for DTW, and the other NYC CA is the CA rep for NYC? And they vote as if they were twins. Is that a good relationship, from NYC’s perspective?

4) How is it, that two guys who campaigned so heavily on communications, communications, and communications never uttered a word about CDO’s, before they became a political liability?

5) How is it that the FO rep, who campaigned on his expertise on rotation construction, and his experience on the RCC, never raised the alarm, or polled, or asked for feedback on CDO’s before they were thrown in our lap?


Until the great CDO riots of 2014, these guys cooked a meal in secret, and brought it to the table, ready to serve. We caught a whiff of a dish of steaming turds, and demanded they throw it away. Now you want us to promote the chefs who until recently were fine-tuning the turd gravy, and probably asked for turds to be put on the menu, for "letting" us vote on how we like the steak? Really?

It’s always a stupid move to interfere with other councils, as we all know. You're not just going to fail on this argument because you’re being a presumptuous asshat, telling us how to handle our representation. You’re going to fail yet again, not because have no point, but because you're obsessed with the politics of the past, and not the solutions of the future. We all want a functional MEC that produces solid results, and you’re just here to promote your peeps. You're failing all of us, badly, when you play these games.






Sorry about the colorful examples, and I hope you all can still enjoy your meal. Have a nice Memorial Day week-end, everyone. You too, Carl.