|
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
(Post 702071)
No one has anything to hide. If this issue hadn't been turned into some kind of witch hunt with intentions to crucify one or more of the candidates, you would probably already have your answer... however irrelevant that answer is.
As for me and my "cadre of politicians?" You are barking up the wrong tree my friend. |
FWIW, via the television news, the FAA just announced that it revoked the certificates of the Flight 188 pilots. I haven't seen anything written on the internet yet.
|
The Wall St Journal is also repoting that. They are the only credible news source I believe that isnt slanted left or right. People want blood on this one. They are doing a great job deferring attention away from the taxiway landing. Kind of like 9-11 to Congressman Condit. He was THE news 9-10. Never heard his name again after that. I will consider myself refreshed on company policy on autopilot monitoring when they have a i-crew pop-up screen.
|
David Nestor saw this is a good idea. He received a phone call on Sunday from one of the current reps stating exactly what you have an issue with. So here is David Nestor’s part:
David Nestor thought this was a good idea David Nestor wrote an intra candidate e-mail stating that he thought this was a good idea David Nestor called Publishing at ALPA National on Oct 19th to check on the legality of this. ALPA National called back stating that there was no issue with this type of document being sent. David Nestor provided input in to the final appearance on how the final document should be sent out. His exact words were that leaving all the candidates names off of the document would allow there not to be a bias towards the ones who paid or did not pay, and the ones who sent it or who did not hit the send button. IE without political bias He did not give final approval to National on the wording of the document nor did he give proxy to another person on what to say, how to say it, or what was said. David Nestor was one of a few candidates that was willing to send it. He in fact did not send it and another candidate sent it to National and gave the final approval. He would have sent it as well, but did not. No one sent this document via proxy from one of the candidates, it was a direct send National has told our LEC 44 reps (or so it has been told to DN) that DN gave final approval on the document. That is false. Now to the good part. David Nestor takes responsibility for the fact that no names were on the document. It was his suggestion he gave to the candidates that talked about it. He told you that. He told that to the vice chair. It was not his hand that hit send. Fact is that no malice was behind it. National was consulted by Nestor to make sure that it was not screwed up and done correctly by all of the candidates. They were aware the document was coming. No one is hiding behind a skirt on this one. No by laws were broken, even though some have said that there will be changes from this. Fact is that as admitted to you and the vice chair, that your point and area of concern is valid, but that the accusations that Nestor and the other candidates had devious motives behind their actions is false and without merit. Nestor took your and the vice-chairs words to heart, but not the anger behind it. If another document of this type is done and all of the participating candidates agree to have their answers shard like this one, then your concerns will be discussed about. Point is that Nestor hears your concerns and sees merit in them. I will add to this: Nestor as well as a few other candidates see the importance of getting a side by side comparison of the same questions. If you read them everyone that chose to answer steered around or did not steer around a given landmine. My personal opinion is that these are the questions being asked by everyone that sends e-mail to the candidates. It allows access to a lot of pilots. Candidate Nestor seem the importance in that. He gets that your issue is not the q and a but the "deceitfulness" that you see in it being anonymous. Many of the candidates discussed how to do it. As I stated above, candidate Nestor thought that a lot of the groups/ pilots would see it politically motivated to include a message from the sender(s) when all of the candidates agreed for their answers to be shared. It was decided to not favor any candidate that way, and keep the answers to the same questions by the participating candidates as the only positions in the mailing. Candidate Nestor saw that adding names to the e-mail as unfair to the ones that were not there. After discussions with you via PM, with the vice-chair and countless others, nothing was done incorrectly. Candidate Nestor sees your point and the merit of it, but did not intend to deceive anyone. The motivation and goals of the mailing were to have the candidates go to the pilots in the form of a q and a where they could make their decisions based on the merit of the answers each candidate provided, not the candidate that sent it, nor the candidates that paid for it. Politics is ugly and the simple fact is that Candidate Nestor and many other that contributed to this document want the pilots to make an informed decision. Fact is that except for you and the vice chair candidate Nestor's avenues of communication have all been positive. He seeks transparency of the issues that face our union. Do not distort the facts. |
Originally Posted by RockyMtMadDog
(Post 702086)
Explain this to me. How could knowing the name possibly satisfy a witch hunt--if there were one, and what would be the motive for this witch hunt you suggest? How could I or anyone "crucify" the candidate?
If you just can't sleep at night without knowing the name of the person who physically clicked the "send" button (as agreed to by the rest of the candidates who answered), I find it curious that you would come to a public, "anonymous" forum to try and find this piece of irrelevant (but very important to you) information. It sounds a lot more like politically motivated grandstanding to me, rather than an honest fact finding effort. |
Originally Posted by dragon
(Post 702067)
Guys,
Hearing rumblings the post SOC bid is going to be bigger than previously reported. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 702113)
I am hearing that too!
|
Originally Posted by dragon
(Post 702067)
Guys,
Hearing rumblings the post SOC bid is going to be bigger than previously reported.
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 702113)
I am hearing that too!
|
Look at the recent announcements about the 2010 schedule. The SEA 7ER idea may be back as well.
|
Originally Posted by freightguy
(Post 702125)
Why? More displacements? MD-90 arrivals? 777 arrivals? Increased flying out of LGA? Widebody vacancies due to the 2010 summer international push?
Fact is that it will be larger or so they say. What that means is anyone's guess. I am sure that if they move more jets there will be more displacements and awards, Simply, no idea. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 702146)
No details.
Fact is that it will be larger or so they say. What that means is anyone's guess. I am sure that if they move more jets there will be more displacements and awards, Simply, no idea. The question is WHEN will the big post SOC bid be? |
Originally Posted by gearsdown
(Post 702170)
The question is WHEN will the big post SOC bid be?
Considering the taxiway landing and the MSP overflight, the FAA may not be in a mood to look as if they're rolling over for Delta/Northwest. We may get a delay in SOC approval just for FAA public relations purposes. |
Can they do the bid before SOC with the conversions not officially taking place until after SOC?
|
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 702109)
The motivation and goals of the mailing were to have the candidates go to the pilots in the form of a q and a where they could make their decisions based on the merit of the answers each candidate provided, not the candidate that sent it, nor the candidates that paid for it.
Did one or more of the candidates pay for this questionaire to be distributed? If so who? Was the pilot who asked the questions a supporter of one or more of the candidates? I ask just to know if this really was a non partisan questionaire. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 702109)
David Nestor thought this was a good idea Politics is ugly and the simple fact is that Candidate Nestor and many other that contributed to this document want the pilots to make an informed decision. Fact is that except for you and the vice chair candidate Nestor's avenues of communication have all been positive. He seeks transparency of the issues that face our union. Do not distort the facts. He has the support of many who seek greater union transparency. The fact that the Imperial Guards have felt the need to come out and attack Candidate Nestor is all I need to know. He's got my vote. |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 702176)
The threshold question is now WHEN is SOC going to occur?
Considering the taxiway landing and the MSP overflight, the FAA may not be in a mood to look as if they're rolling over for Delta/Northwest. We may get a delay in SOC approval just for FAA public relations purposes. That being said, fear of a SOC delay may be why there has been such swift action. Management might be acting a little more harshly in order to keep the intergration moving along. |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 702188)
This was not caused by new procedures as a result of the merger being performed incorrectly. Both of these incidents were something that could have easily happened if the merger never occured..
|
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 702186)
I hope Candidate Nestor knows he is far from alone.
He has the support of many who seek greater union transparency. The fact that the Imperial Guards have felt the need to come out and attack Candidate Nestor is all I need to know. He's got my vote. |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 702196)
On the contrary. The NTSB said these guys were busy learning the Delta PBS system. That's why they had their laptops out. The FO was teaching the Capt how to bid. Its directly related to the merger.
I disagree with you as it was them using their laptops that was the problem, NOT what they were using their laptops for. |
Originally Posted by Reroute
(Post 702185)
In the interest of full disclosure and transparency.
Did one or more of the candidates pay for this questionaire to be distributed? If so who? Was the pilot who asked the questions a supporter of one or more of the candidates? I ask just to know if this really was a non partisan questionnaire. I do not know why you see these as one sided. They are the questions that the candidates are getting in their in box daily by a ton of pilots. Why not just send them out to the pilots and take the message to them and not do it so secretly. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 702208)
Candidate Nestor will not speak for other candidates, but he did pay part of it. No outside party paid for it. He did pay a portion.
Shouldn't the guy who wrote the questions pay for their distribution? Would candidate Nestor pay to have anyones questions distributed? |
I hope I get displaced to ATL. Probably not going to happen though.
|
Originally Posted by Reroute
(Post 702230)
Why would he pay for some one elses questions to be distributed?
Shouldn't the guy who wrote the questions pay for their distribution? Would candidate Nestor pay to have anyones questions distributed? We vote for names and all too often nobody can associate the views of the candidate with the names, not to unlike some minute local elections when you get to the ballot box and there is no (R) or (D) next to it. You can either guess or skip so in a situation where you cannot be readily differentiated and a situation where you are trying to promote a message that you as important then I see a valid reason to send out questions and I think all of the candidates should have chosen to do it. And even if they missed the deadline they should've still done it. As to your second and third question, say Carl decided to ask 20 questions for the candidates of 44. Why would he pay to send them out? He's trying to do his part to get the information out there for people to make informed decisions but its the candidates who'd need to flip the bill imo. And I think many of us would pay to support our candidates if given the chance. But imo reroute I thought this was an adequate post to answer your questions:
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 702109)
David Nestor saw this is a good idea. He received a phone call on Sunday from one of the current reps stating exactly what you have an issue with. So here is David Nestor’s part:
David Nestor thought this was a good idea David Nestor wrote an intra candidate e-mail stating that he thought this was a good idea David Nestor called Publishing at ALPA National on Oct 19th to check on the legality of this. ALPA National called back stating that there was no issue with this type of document being sent. David Nestor provided input in to the final appearance on how the final document should be sent out. His exact words were that leaving all the candidates names off of the document would allow there not to be a bias towards the ones who paid or did not pay, and the ones who sent it or who did not hit the send button. IE without political bias He did not give final approval to National on the wording of the document nor did he give proxy to another person on what to say, how to say it, or what was said. David Nestor was one of a few candidates that was willing to send it. He in fact did not send it and another candidate sent it to National and gave the final approval. He would have sent it as well, but did not. No one sent this document via proxy from one of the candidates, it was a direct send National has told our LEC 44 reps (or so it has been told to DN) that DN gave final approval on the document. That is false. Now to the good part. David Nestor takes responsibility for the fact that no names were on the document. It was his suggestion he gave to the candidates that talked about it. He told you that. He told that to the vice chair. It was not his hand that hit send. Fact is that no malice was behind it. National was consulted by Nestor to make sure that it was not screwed up and done correctly by all of the candidates. They were aware the document was coming. No one is hiding behind a skirt on this one. No by laws were broken, even though some have said that there will be changes from this. Fact is that as admitted to you and the vice chair, that your point and area of concern is valid, but that the accusations that Nestor and the other candidates had devious motives behind their actions is false and without merit. Nestor took your and the vice-chairs words to heart, but not the anger behind it. If another document of this type is done and all of the participating candidates agree to have their answers shard like this one, then your concerns will be discussed about. Point is that Nestor hears your concerns and sees merit in them. I will add to this: Nestor as well as a few other candidates see the importance of getting a side by side comparison of the same questions. If you read them everyone that chose to answer steered around or did not steer around a given landmine. My personal opinion is that these are the questions being asked by everyone that sends e-mail to the candidates. It allows access to a lot of pilots. Candidate Nestor seem the importance in that. He gets that your issue is not the q and a but the "deceitfulness" that you see in it being anonymous. Many of the candidates discussed how to do it. As I stated above, candidate Nestor thought that a lot of the groups/ pilots would see it politically motivated to include a message from the sender(s) when all of the candidates agreed for their answers to be shared. It was decided to not favor any candidate that way, and keep the answers to the same questions by the participating candidates as the only positions in the mailing. Candidate Nestor saw that adding names to the e-mail as unfair to the ones that were not there. After discussions with you via PM, with the vice-chair and countless others, nothing was done incorrectly. Candidate Nestor sees your point and the merit of it, but did not intend to deceive anyone. The motivation and goals of the mailing were to have the candidates go to the pilots in the form of a q and a where they could make their decisions based on the merit of the answers each candidate provided, not the candidate that sent it, nor the candidates that paid for it. Politics is ugly and the simple fact is that Candidate Nestor and many other that contributed to this document want the pilots to make an informed decision. Fact is that except for you and the vice chair candidate Nestor's avenues of communication have all been positive. He seeks transparency of the issues that face our union. Do not distort the facts. |
Originally Posted by Reroute
(Post 702230)
Why would he pay for some one elses questions to be distributed?
Shouldn't the guy who wrote the questions pay for their distribution? Add to that, that this set of questions has been on the DALPA forum for a few months asking for pilot input from the group. Fact is that after talking to the author about this, at least one question came from a pilot who posted it on the forum, and the original questions came from another pilot. Point is that the pilots had input in to this Q and A. It was the most complete set of questions sent to date. Dave as well as a few others felt that this along with the desire for transparency superseded any political arguments that would or could have been made. Dave stands by the fact that most pilots see this as a positive. [qutoe] Would candidate Nestor pay to have anyones questions distributed?[/QUOTE] That is a loaded question. Dave was not singularly responsible for this. He worked with many of the other candidates. He feels that transparency is important. It has been stated that if another set of questions that sought pilot input was brought forth, and the candidates agreed to answer them, and agreed to have them published, then yes, Dave would be willing to get those answers out there to the group. |
Originally Posted by Reroute
(Post 702185)
In the interest of full disclosure and transparency.
Did one or more of the candidates pay for this questionaire to be distributed? If so who? Was the pilot who asked the questions a supporter of one or more of the candidates? I ask just to know if this really was a non partisan questionaire. Did it ever occur to anyone that the "author" of the questionnaire just wanted to get these answers out so that everyone could benefit from them, regardless of who he personally supports? Take the question about Lee Moak, for example. The question was, "Do you support Lee Moak and his administration? If so, why? If not, why?" Think about it for a moment. Is that a slanted or unfair question? Does it not give someone who is happy with Lee Moak and his strategies the opportunity to talk about how much they agree with him and all the things they like about his administration's strategies, just as much as it gives someone who is not happy with Lee Moak and his strategies the opportunity to talk about where they disagree with and why they may not like some or all of his strategies? Maybe this questionnaire had nothing to do with partisanship and everything to do with getting to know the candidates better. Have you considered that possibility? I think the "who paid for it" question is a legitimate question. I don't think it's particularly important because all of the candidates who answered agreed to have their answers shared in this manner, whether they agreed to pay for it or not. But it is a legitimate question. Yet I still have to wonder... Why would one ask these questions on an anonymous public forum rather than just emailing all of the candidates individually and asking them? If it's really important to you to post who paid for it, then ask the candidates which ones paid for it and if it's okay to share that information here on APC. If they give you the go-ahead, then post away! (Although I still don't see where it's really relevant.) My point is that, this very indirect way of asking these questions here seems an awful lot more like partisan political grandstanding rather than honest questions. Maybe I'm missing something? |
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
(Post 702284)
Yet I still have to wonder... Why would one ask these questions on an anonymous public forum rather than just emailing all of the candidates individually and asking them?
|
Originally Posted by RockyMtMadDog
(Post 702331)
Probably for the same reason a candidate comes to an anonymous forum and speaks in third-person. :eek:
Sounds like some of you ladies are getting nervous and feel the need to come attack people on an anonymous forum :cool: Its ironic that some of these posters making the attacks are new to this forum and have only recently started posting :cool: |
You wanted an answer and you got it from the person you thought was solely responsible. That is what you asked for, correct?
Third person or the candidate's words and not an anonymous pseudonym? You got Dave's words which is more accountable than an anonymous board screen name. |
Originally Posted by freightguy
(Post 702125)
Why? More displacements? MD-90 arrivals? 777 arrivals? Increased flying out of LGA? Widebody vacancies due to the 2010 summer international push?
Look at the announced 2010 Summer Intl schedule. Not sure if they plan to create bases or DH guys to these new routes. If they create bases than 7ER's to SEA, 74's to NYC, 777's to DTW. That would create major movement since 74's and 777's are fenced. Domestically, the rumormill has been putting out taking the MD's out of SLC to Minny and moving the A-320 from Minny to SLC. Obviously more flying in NYC with the LCC swaps. Probably DC-9's to rightsize the Northeastern/Mid-Atlantic corridor. Whatever it is it will be in the co's and our best interests to get it done with one bid. Training will probably take a year to complete. Here's to chaos. |
I don't have a dog in this "fight"
Seems to me, some folks are unhappy about candidates answering questions... I for one am happy about any questionnaire with candidate answers being sent my way and I really could care less about who does the sending and what the wording on the questions is. If anybody (in particular a candidate) is really unhappy about the questions/answers being circulated, put out your own. The more the better in this case, unless you have a secret agenda to push. Cheers George |
Originally Posted by Bigflya
(Post 702339)
Look at the announced 2010 Summer Intl schedule. Not sure if they plan to create bases or DH guys to these new routes. If they create bases than 7ER's to SEA, 74's to NYC, 777's to DTW. That would create major movement since 74's and 777's are fenced. Domestically, the rumormill has been putting out taking the MD's out of SLC to Minny and moving the A-320 from Minny to SLC. Obviously more flying in NYC with the LCC swaps. Probably DC-9's to rightsize the Northeastern/Mid-Atlantic corridor. Whatever it is it will be in the co's and our best interests to get it done with one bid. Training will probably take a year to complete. Here's to chaos.
I mean why not just open a small 320 SLC base and MD90 MSP base and ease the transition? But by all accounts its a complete swap. Somebody did the math and they believe thats better. The 9 is coming to ATL by most all accountrs but nobody seems to know for sure if there will be a base, and if there was, how big would it be if the relatively small fleet is still flying out of MSP/DTW/MEM? I think if they said no more 9s out of MSP then ATL could become a base but until it'll be flying through and DHs. Funny, imagine if Delta was to add a 9 base and keep the current 88 flying in ATL? People would be like, remember when Delta had Boeings in Atlanta? But, again, this is a guess. My question, on the flip side, everyone talks about ramping up 88 flying in ATL and a lot of new LGA flying but why is the 88 not discussed for MEM or DTW flying? Or will that be MSP through flights for the 90 out of MEM/DTW plus 9s and large RJs? (I personally would love to see 88 flying out of different bases, just for fun) With international I could see new bases coming open rather easily, like in the case of NYC 777 about 15 on reserve and 25-30 lines per seat. Thats not a whole lot of people. Again, just a guess. |
ACL,
1. Were you ever a supporter of the RJDC during your tenure at ASA? 2. If Transparency seems to be an integral part of your campaign platform, why are you on this board speaking in third person? 3. In your last campaign letter, you wrote that you have been helping Delta Pilots for the last six years. How did you do that if you have been at Delta for less than 3 years? Thanks for your time in answering these questions. I want to make the right decision in the upcoming election. I agree we need to get rid of the current mindset of the MEC, but I don't want another "politician" telling us all what we want to hear to further his own agenda. |
ACL,
1. Were you ever a supporter of the RJDC during your tenure at ASA? 2. If Transparency seems to be an integral part of your campaign platform, why are you on this board speaking in third person? 3. In your last campaign letter, you wrote that you have been helping Delta Pilots for the last six years. How did you do that if you have been at Delta for less than 3 years? Thanks for your time in answering these questions. I want to make the right decision in the upcoming election. I agree we need to get rid of the current mindset of the MEC, but I don't want another "politician" telling us all what we want to hear to further his own agenda. |
Originally Posted by Buttermaker
(Post 702391)
ACL,
1. Were you ever a supporter of the RJDC during your tenure at ASA? 2. If Transparency seems to be an integral part of your campaign platform, why are you on this board speaking in third person? 3. In your last campaign letter, you wrote that you have been helping Delta Pilots for the last six years. How did you do that if you have been at Delta for less than 3 years? Thanks for your time in answering these questions. I want to make the right decision in the upcoming election. I agree we need to get rid of the current mindset of the MEC, but I don't want another "politician" telling us all what we want to hear to further his own agenda. Thats weird because in the below post you talked about working at SWA? :confused: I only bring this up because it seems like people are suddenly popping up out of the woodwork to jump on ACL. Sure seems suspicious doesnt it?
Originally Posted by Buttermaker
(Post 304569)
Thanks for the input Zippy,
With things slowing up, it seems that new hires could be based in OAK/LAS for quite some time before being able to get back to the east coast (MCO or BWI). I'm not complaining, just curious as to how long I can expect to commute to OAK/LAS. Any new hires from the Jan 9th class have any intel? |
Quesiton, if you look at the numbers on the A320-MD90 swappage in MSP/SLC, how is it going to be done?
Currently, MSP has 346 A's and 332 B's on the 320 and SLC has 92 As and 95 Bs on the 90. So is it really a complete swap? Or are there going to be 90ish new 320 slots in SLC and 90ish new MD90 slots in MSP with the remaining 320s still there in MSP? And FWIW, looking at the numbers, the smallest base in the system is MEM DC9 with 30 or so pilots per seat, NYC 777 is small with 40ish pilots per seat. ATL 88 is 450ish per seat and NYC is about 90 per seat on the 88. Wonder if they will ramp up the NYC base or threw flight everyone? |
Hey!!
We ain't got no Oakland base! We ain't got no Baltimore base!! Orlando or Vegas either!! Great detective work, Super! :) |
That is hilarious.
|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 702396)
Or are there going to be 90ish new 320 slots in SLC and 90ish new MD90 slots in MSP with the remaining 320s still there in MSP?
|
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 702398)
Hey!!
We ain't got no Oakland base! We ain't got no Baltimore base!! Orlando or Vegas either!! Great detective work, Super! :) |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 702410)
Sounds like someone was trying to become a Southwestitute and instead joined Deltoids Are Us.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:16 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands