Originally Posted by Karnak (Post 1650237)

You realize that the product Donatelli and the negotiators put in front of the MEC was what they asked for?

According to my reps there was some question about a pay-no credit part of the CDO's, but other than that, it was what the MEC told them to get.

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.

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1650249)

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.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1650273)

Carl,

Mind your own base. While applauding the pandering you overlooked that the efforts of one you applaud wasn't even there (he phoned it in by proxy, yeah ... applause).

As a DPA supporter and separatist bent on disunity it does not surprise me that you would like to see a true blue died in the wool labor guy like Donatelli gone. (I think he is terrific)

You probably could care less that pilots who lost pay as a result of a PD (taking one for the team) would have their pay restoration delayed by needless memrat while the issue hung in the balance and possibly was lost as a result of DPA grenade throwing. You figure the improvements in pay, crew rest and clarifications on reserve will not effect you.

Save us the reposts of DPA advocates' poorly considered talking points. Like your friends you do not care if we support our negotiators by ratifying what we've told management is a "deal," twice. You probably think our team aren't "professionals" and as such you want them to fail in hope of offsetting a ever depleting box of expiring cards.

You count on the more rational, smarter and more disciplined among your pilot group to carry the load while you run amok throwing grenades at them. So, I applaud the reps who stood up, took responsibility and represented us.

Besides they will not move your jet to Atlanta until the end of the year ;)

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 Carl Spackler (Post 1650350)

That is false. My reps gave no such direction to the NC to pursue this in the 117 negotiations. In all the voluminous and constant emails from my council and the MEC over the last year, not a word about pursuing CDO's. Not a word.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1650350)

If you have actual evidence to the contrary, please post it.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1650284)

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

I guess you could have applied to the furlough emergency relief fund ... cash flow that tight? Goodness. Had no idea.

So which is it? Did you want your association to get you your money ASAP, or drag it out while engaging in meaningless chest beating. I mean if you needed the money it would seem sooner is better.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1650344)

This TA is not all positive. It was some gain and some concession. Allowing members to vote is not "going through the motions."



What difference would that make? You only want MEMRAT when you personally disagree with something?



That's not true, but it's beside the point. See below.



Your logic is puzzling because you're really laying out a scenario where MEMRAT is never used. When something is perceived as a majority positive for pilots, MEMRAT is a waste of time, money, and just "going through the motions." When something is perceived as bad for pilots, people like you, shiznit and the others say not to worry because if it's bad, our reps will just vote no for us and thus not require MEMRAT. So in your world, exactly when is MEMRAT appropriate?

Carl

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1650286)

Where do I sign?

Originally Posted by RonRicco (Post 1650348)

Excellent post, but just to be fair with regards people who tend to vote the same.. You could have said the exact same thing about LAX, one from SLC, 3 from ATL, one from CVG. Is it ok for them to vote as if "brothers" but not the others you speak of?

Originally Posted by RonRicco (Post 1650312)

And what would we do if ALPA polled and 51 percent said no to memrat?

Originally Posted by RonRicco (Post 1650312)

What would we do if ALPA polled and 51 percent that we shouldn't poll any more?