Originally Posted by D Mantooth (Post 1684527)

They didn't.

I'm not on FPL (though I'm very glad that some are - not sure why or how that became a bad thing).

Damn! Two posts! I'm being dragged in!

Originally Posted by D Mantooth (Post 1684527)

Damn! Two posts! I'm being dragged in!

Originally Posted by D Mantooth (Post 1684519)

Carl,

I'm just a lurker. God willing, this will be the only post I make, as arguing on the internet is a bit like racing in the Special Olympics - even if you win, you're still...well, you know.

That said, I need to correct one thing. I don't expect you to believe me, but perhaps others might.

Your rep is either lying to you or he has a bad memory.

I was there. Every step of the way. I was at every meeting, in every closed and executive section, and on every conference call. I assure you, the MEC knew from the start of negotiations that 76-seaters were on the table, and knew that reductions in profit sharing were being discussed near the end-game. If I cared enough to get out my notes, I'd find you the exact dates of the meetings during which we discussed the RJs, and the conference call during which the profit sharing reduction was discussed.

Perhaps your source missed some meetings and calls, but that doesn't mean that they didn't happen. The idea that the admin just went rouge, while widespread (by some with a questionable agenda), is simply false.

Feel free to believe me or not. Your choice. But those reading your posts should know that just because something is repeated often doesn't make it true.

I'll leave you guys to your arguing! Enjoy!

Originally Posted by Fly4hire (Post 1684567)

And you sir are perhaps having some selective and contextual memory lapses as well while still being factual :rolleyes:. To wit a conference call does not constitute a meeting for parliamentary process, and "direction" can only be given in a meeting. The majority "opinion" during the call was do not trade profit sharing for pay. Why was it done? Because the MEC Ch and Negs danced around "direction" - the Reps didn't direct them not to because they couldn't because it wasn't a meeting. I recall a special meeting was proposed over the issue and the admin was adamant it was not necessary - in retrospect likely because direction might have been given contrary to where they wanted to go with PS for pay.

76 seaters were in the discussion *after* the 717 proposal was pitched by the company. That was not in the beginning of negotiations.

Of course my memory might be faulty also :p

Originally Posted by D Mantooth (Post 1684519)

Carl,

I'm just a lurker. God willing, this will be the only post I make, as arguing on the internet is a bit like racing in the Special Olympics - even if you win, you're still...well, you know.

That said, I need to correct one thing. I don't expect you to believe me, but perhaps others might.

Your rep is either lying to you or he has a bad memory.

I was there. Every step of the way. I was at every meeting, in every closed and executive section, and on every conference call. I assure you, the MEC knew from the start of negotiations that 76-seaters were on the table, and knew that reductions in profit sharing were being discussed near the end-game. If I cared enough to get out my notes, I'd find you the exact dates of the meetings during which we discussed the RJs, and the conference call during which the profit sharing reduction was discussed.

Perhaps your source missed some meetings and calls, but that doesn't mean that they didn't happen. The idea that the admin just went rouge, while widespread (by some with a questionable agenda), is simply false.

Feel free to believe me or not. Your choice. But those reading your posts should know that just because something is repeated often doesn't make it true.

I'll leave you guys to your arguing! Enjoy!

Originally Posted by D Mantooth (Post 1684519)

Carl,

I'm just a lurker. God willing, this will be the only post I make, as arguing on the internet is a bit like racing in the Special Olympics - even if you win, you're still...well, you know.

That said, I need to correct one thing. I don't expect you to believe me, but perhaps others might.

Your rep is either lying to you or he has a bad memory.

I was there. Every step of the way. I was at every meeting, in every closed and executive section, and on every conference call. I assure you, the MEC knew from the start of negotiations that 76-seaters were on the table, and knew that reductions in profit sharing were being discussed near the end-game. If I cared enough to get out my notes, I'd find you the exact dates of the meetings during which we discussed the RJs, and the conference call during which the profit sharing reduction was discussed.

Perhaps your source missed some meetings and calls, but that doesn't mean that they didn't happen. The idea that the admin just went rouge, while widespread (by some with a questionable agenda), is simply false.

Feel free to believe me or not. Your choice. But those reading your posts should know that just because something is repeated often doesn't make it true.

I'll leave you guys to your arguing! Enjoy!

Originally Posted by Fly4hire (Post 1684567)

And you sir are perhaps having some selective and contextual memory lapses as well while still being factual :rolleyes:. To wit a conference call does not constitute a meeting for parliamentary process, and "direction" can only be given in a meeting. The majority "opinion" during the call was do not trade profit sharing for pay. Why was it done? Because the MEC Ch and Negs danced around "direction" - the Reps didn't direct them not to because they couldn't because it wasn't a meeting. I recall a special meeting was proposed over the issue and the admin was adamant it was not necessary - in retrospect likely because direction might have been given contrary to where they wanted to go with PS for pay.

76 seaters were in the discussion *after* the 717 proposal was pitched by the company. That was not in the beginning of negotiations.

Of course my memory might be faulty also :p

Originally Posted by gzsg (Post 1684369)

Ferd

Sounds good.

Retirement 415 max at $260,000. We will probably get 17% DC. UAL has 16% and I think American gets to 17%.

Still best to leave profit sharing alone. You will thank me in 2016.

Cheers

Jerry

Originally Posted by pilotjockey (Post 1684594)

not sure who is correct here, and no way to prove it. if both of these guys were theres a disconnect and the one claiming malfeasance apparently went along with it at the time because i dont remember any alpo at all who made a stink or mentioned it in council comms when it was going on. the only reps who complained didn't do it until after the ta was already out to the pilots. where was the "we have problems but we cant give specifics" statement before the last meeting

the alpos who said nothing until it was too late are weakspined and that inability to actually be accountable before it was done and the denial "dont blame me" window opens is why im fed up with alpo

the yes alpos suck too, but at least they had the balls to stand behind their vote

is there something other than alpo or dpa, jesus, they all suck but something has to change