You're nothing more than a political hack and a liar Carl. You know it and I know it. No amount of back pedaling will change the fact that you are making things up.

I was on that call, you weren't. You made an assertion, that is a lie, back it up. Just one quote from any rep. You can't,, because it didn't happen.

I wonder how you live with yourself Carl, being a liar and all. I guess in your small and pathetic world the ends justify the means.

BTW, there are no transcripts of conference calls, but I'm sure you already knew that.

 

Wow. The attack dogs are out in full force. Sleeper is jumping right in as one of the usual suspects with a new screen name. Reroute only shows up to do DALPA's dirty work. D. Mantooth...out of the woodwork, makes an unprovable claim that he "was on the call." Then he claims the "burden of proof" is on Carl. That's not the way it works.

You can't make this stuff up.

 

this was in response to your last post on this topic. Still valid.

 

I agree.

If it weren't for that d!p sh!t, nobody would watch....

 

And inaccurate. While correct that it was a conference call and not a special meeting, it is inaccurate that the Neg ch and MEC ch acted contrary to the will the MEC expressed during the conference call with regards to profit sharing. Not a single rep wrote otherwise in the varied opinions expressed after the TA. If you can produce one signed council comm (still available on the Council web pages) that states that the MEC ch and Neg ch acted contrary to the will the MEC expressed on the May 12th Conf call, with regards to monetizing profit sharing, then show it.

Furthermore, the insinuation that the MEC couldn't call, or was convinced not to call, a special meeting flies in the face of previous action. From a C20 Update (when the C20 reps attempted to block a normal negotiator election so that the C2012 Neg com would not be challenged)

"A MEC informational conference call was scheduled for Tuesday, July 5th. The topic of the conference call was to discuss possible negotiating committee elections. A majority of the MEC viewed this method of communication as an impractical and unfeasible method to determine an issue of this magnitude.

Per the MEC Policy Manual one third of the MEC, voting members, can call a special meeting. Two thirds of the MEC requested a MEC Special Meeting in lieu of an informational conference call in writing to the MEC Chairman."


Yet these same reps supposedly accepted a conference call on monetizing profit sharing in lieu of a special meeting. Nope, sorry, that doesn't add up.

On their next update they state that they were against a negotiator election:

"The representatives in DTW, MSP, SEA, and Captain Brian Craig (ATL) voted against holding a negotiating committee election."

It's interesting that the 5 no votes on the TA were so enamored with the negotiating committee that negotiated C2012, that they attempted to block a normal election cycle.

Additionally, contrary to the fiction that is being spread by some here that the MEC ch and Neg ch TA'd the agreement, that is also false. The MEC ch did not TA the agreement, that was done by the Negotiating Committee in their offices, with the MEC ch out of the room. The four committee members voted unanimously to TA the agreement and send it to the MEC.

 

Yeahbutt...which one would you rather sleep with??

Unless Beck swallows, I rest my case on who's got the most... 'talent'!

 

I'm hanging out on the Delta Facebook page waiting for more free porn to show up.

 

 

That's been happening in ATL. I got called in ref MLOA (and other productivity issues). Went in with an ALPA rep. My SLOA was 90% verified so that wasn't discussed (they tried we didnt) and my MLOA was on the up and up and is protected by federal law. The CP were professional-the FOMs...idiots. In the end I gave them some orders...nothing came of it and that was that. Well...that and I talked to the Dept of Labor.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reroute

And inaccurate. While correct that it was a conference call and not a special meeting, it is inaccurate that the Neg ch and MEC ch acted contrary to the will the MEC expressed during the conference call with regards to profit sharing. Not a single rep wrote otherwise in the varied opinions expressed after the TA. If you can produce one signed council comm (still available on the Council web pages) that states that the MEC ch and Neg ch acted contrary to the will the MEC expressed on the May 12th Conf call, with regards to monetizing profit sharing, then show it.

Furthermore, the insinuation that the MEC couldn't call, or was convinced not to call, a special meeting flies in the face of previous action. From a C20 Update (when the C20 reps attempted to block a normal negotiator election so that the C2012 Neg com would not be challenged)

"A MEC informational conference call was scheduled for Tuesday, July 5th. The topic of the conference call was to discuss possible negotiating committee elections. A majority of the MEC viewed this method of communication as an impractical and unfeasible method to determine an issue of this magnitude.

Per the MEC Policy Manual one third of the MEC, voting members, can call a special meeting. Two thirds of the MEC requested a MEC Special Meeting in lieu of an informational conference call in writing to the MEC Chairman."


Yet these same reps supposedly accepted a conference call on monetizing profit sharing in lieu of a special meeting. Nope, sorry, that doesn't add up.

On their next update they state that they were against a negotiator election:

"The representatives in DTW, MSP, SEA, and Captain Brian Craig (ATL) voted against holding a negotiating committee election."

It's interesting that the 5 no votes on the TA were so enamored with the negotiating committee that negotiated C2012, that they attempted to block a normal election cycle.

Additionally, contrary to the fiction that is being spread by some here that the MEC ch and Neg ch TA'd the agreement, that is also false. The MEC ch did not TA the agreement, that was done by the Negotiating Committee in their offices, with the MEC ch out of the room. The four committee members voted unanimously to TA the agreement and send it to the MEC.

Wow,

Pretty interesting that someone that was on the call has such a poor recollection of what was actually said during the call! Lets see if you can recall that the conference call was considered "confidential" by the MEC and that the reps you say did not write about the call were not allowed to write about the call. The obfuscation about Negotiation Committee elections and special meetings is totally irrelevant!

minor point!

Do you recall how every person on the call had at least two chances to state their opinion and that many of them stated that the pilot surveys and inputs to them did not lean toward trading one type of compensation for another? Guess you don't recall that. Do you recall that toward the end of the call the majority stated that trading PS for "extra" percentages was NOT a good idea? Maybe not a consensus but a majority was against a trade. Guess not!

Do you recall that multiple reps asked what the percentage increases would be looking like before accepting a trade? Do you remember the BS answer? The answer was (just 36 hours before the T/A was accepted) that pay rates had not been discussed yet! Did you get that...rates had not been discussed before the reps were asked by the NC and the MEC Chairman to consider a reduction in PS!!!

Do you remember that the NC told the reps repeatedly during the negotiations that their mandate was to "lather, rinse, repeat" which was supposed to mean they they negotiate to what the reps had directed and if they needed to they would come back for re-direction? Where was the re-direction phase?

Do you remember what our MEC Chairman stated during his "We've got a T/A" speech on Monday morning...to paraphrase: "we need not worry about what the pilots said in their surveys, we know better" (if you want an exact quote, it was in one of the Seattle reps updates).

Sounds like Reroute has a problem memory IF he was actually on the call (or just a selective memory)

LP