FAA spot checks are on, manuals included.

nevermind............

That sends shivers down my spine seeing aspirations like that ;)

Sorry... still a former 47'er malcontent and current 66 rebel rouser....

They are shooting the cans....

Well, no SILs for December either.

Guess the NFLs are what they want.

"He hates these cans!!!"

I've got some real problems with that "blast mail."

Were certain candidates told a deadline to get responses in and then had the deadline change to their disadvantage and exclusion? Answer: Yes.

Did certain candidates get to see the answers provided by other candidates in advance, providing them the opportunity to edit their own? Answer: Yes.

That blast mail was sent to C44 with no identification of the originator, no identification of the authors of the questions, and an inequitable opportunity for answering by all the candidates.

It was akin to one side of a debate being provided the answers beforehand.

Is this the type of "leadership" we can expect from folks who campaign in this manner?:mad:

If that was the goal, then this episode sure doesn't support it. This creates the appearance of dirty politics.

Everyone was given the same deadline by the author. In fact there was no set deadline.
Only to send it, no amendments were made that I am aware of. (Convert to a PDF file so that the answers could not be changed)
These concerns were brought up be some of the candidates and they still had the right to withhold their answers. No one opted to that contributed.
I guess I do not get this last statement. Those were questions that were presented to all of the candidates. Some saw them as one sided. I have to say that the questions that were provided have been asked in some form from every e-mail that has been sent to me. People want to know where you stand on these issues. I do not see it as one sided, but that is just me.

The point of this, was to see the candidates answers side by side.

I do not see a type of leadership in this. I see guys willing to answer questions provided by a line pilot. He wanted them sent to everyone. The cost of printing out 50 pages of answers 3800 times is astounding. ALPA legal was consulted and they had no issue with this. Hence a blast mail and not a v-file drop.

I do not get this either. I answer the questions sent to me. I allow them to be shared. I do not see anything dirty in this.

I believe that the goal of providing your answers is to show the pilots what your "Book End" views are so that when you are negotiating without the ability to seek pilot input, pilots can see where you will be coming form. If gives a baseline on where you stand.
Again, Slow I did not see depict or anything dirty about this. If it were private e-mails I think you would have a point. The thrust behind these questions we to make them public, a fact that each and every pilot running knew from the start.

I know at least one candidate that will vociferously disagree. He was disadvantaged.

The fact that this was e-mailed on behalf of a candidate and that candidate had the opportunity to amend creates the appearance of impropriety. If there was no improper intent, then it shows how naive some involved in this process are.

It's good that you acknowledge the questions were slanted and that this wasn't really an issue identification piece. I view it as a poorly disguised advocacy piece.

Slow, when the person that got the piece, it was already in PDF format. He could not make amendments.