|
P.M. signed his questionaire; "Thank you for your Support. PM" DN signed his "I look forward to serving you and furthering your agenda."
I'm not sure if any of the other candidates acknowledged that they had the support of the pilot asking the questions, or whether in fact the pilot asking the questions was in fact a supporter of one or more of the candidates and may have colluded in the questionaire. We will never know, but it appears to be a bad practice for third parties (if they really are third parties vs. agents of a campaign) to interject themselves in the process or misrepresent themselves as some sort of nuetral, when in fact they are supporters of one or more of the candidates. |
Originally Posted by Ratherbeoffwork
(Post 699944)
Thank God no one was on taxiway M when a 76 came barreling down it. Seriously.
|
Originally Posted by Reroute
(Post 699951)
P.M. signed his questionaire; "Thank you for your Support. PM" DN signed his "I look forward to serving you and furthering your agenda."
I'm not sure if any of the other candidates acknowledged that they had the support of the pilot asking the questions, or whether in fact the pilot asking the questions was in fact a supporter of one or more of the candidates and may have colluded in the questionaire. We will never know, but it appears to be a bad practice for third parties (if they really are third parties vs. agents of a campaign) to interject themselves in the process or misrepresent themselves as some sort of neutral, when in fact they are supporters of one or more of the candidates. Singed that way because of the intent of this letter being mass distributed to ALL of the 44 pilots. The author stated that intention from the get go. Hence the signature. Plus, did contact info really needed to be added if a candidate was only talking to the author? Who does the author support? I couldn't tell you if you asked me. Does he support you? |
Anyway.....How bout those Knicks?
|
Why doesn't the world's largest airline have its own in house union? Just the fact there is a potential for progression to ALPA National, higher wages, different and better retirement schemes, the potential for promotion and offers to company management positions and ultimately lucrative high-power positions within the government are clear indicators that leaders are all too often motivated by their future career progression elsewhere and not focused clearly enough on the current profession. A no compete clause is a no brainer for representatives.
|
Originally Posted by TOGA LK
(Post 699974)
Why doesn't the world's largest airline have its own in house union? Just the fact there is a potential for progression to ALPA National, higher wages, different and better retirement schemes, the potential for promotion and offers to company management positions and ultimately lucrative high-power positions within the government are clear indicators that leaders are all too often motivated by their future career progression elsewhere and not focused clearly enough on the current profession. A no compete clause is a no brainer for representatives.
|
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 699941)
I'll pony up the $75 if whoever feels slighted wishes to expose their version of "I'm for restoration, higher pay and scope" wants to publish. The only caveat being that they have to write down how they would have voted on the Compass recommendation and why. That seems to be a pretty clear litmus test on how Candidates feel about representation and it clearly differentiates the group. (regardless of which side of the issue - it does make a stark contrast in how someone looks at representation and scope)
I like the questions that deal with recent votes. That form of vetting does help differentiate the Candidates. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 699946)
We could migrate back to the ALPA boards and give Buzz some work :)
|
Originally Posted by Reroute
(Post 699951)
I'm not sure if any of the other candidates acknowledged that they had the support of the pilot asking the questions, or whether in fact the pilot asking the questions was in fact a supporter of one or more of the candidates and may have colluded in the questionaire. We will never know, but it appears to be a bad practice for third parties (if they really are third parties vs. agents of a campaign) to interject themselves in the process or misrepresent themselves as some sort of nuetral, when in fact they are supporters of one or more of the candidates.
Its bad practice for voters to interject themselves in a campaign? Who do they think they are? I guess the election of Council 44 reps is much too important for Council 44 pilots to be messing around with. Sounds like somebody's been "Moaked". Welcome my son. Welcome to the Machine. What did you dream? It's alright, we told you what to dream. Walk toward the light. We will bring you back safely. |
Originally Posted by DeadHead
(Post 699973)
Anyway.....How bout those Knicks?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:38 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands