|
Originally Posted by NuGuy
(Post 1176934)
Why? So you could witness the death of American space exploration? So you could tell your kids "I was there when we gave up"?
I'll pass. It was more depressing than anything else. NASA's budget, even at it's peak, wasn't even a rounding error in the overall budget, yet employed tens of thousands of SKILLED Americans...scientists, engineers, machinists, plus thousands more in the ancillary industries. Plus we got really, REALLY cool stuff. THAT'S the way you waste taxpayers money. How small we've become :( Nu Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1177297)
Yeah, and my underboob rehab was going just fine until Jesse posted this:
Screw rehab! Carl You weren't deadheading on my ac today were you? Met a really cool whale driver but didn't get much of a chance to chat. |
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1177301)
Carl
You weren't deadheading on my ac today were you? Met a really cool whale driver but didn't get much of a chance to chat. |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1176958)
Donut strategy meetings all day. We aren't invited.
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1175522)
So you are assuming that they will blindly vote no.. and that is somehow a good thing? Really? Wow, they must be dumber than I thought.
Carl |
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1177301)
Carl
You weren't deadheading on my ac today were you? Met a really cool whale driver but didn't get much of a chance to chat. Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1177311)
You would have known it was me Buzz...I would have shamelessly asked for an autographed book!
Carl |
Originally Posted by NuGuy
(Post 1177143)
Heyas Gloopy,
You are spot on. With ANY union communication, it's what they don't say versus what they do. What we should start doing is get the APC "Latest and Greatest" crowd divvied up into teams, so as to get ready to examine, pull apart and put back together any TA. Consider it kind of a "Dissenting Opinion" that points out the bad, as well as the good. There are eight ways to Sunday they can game a "balance of flying", and a merger is just one of them. Brocc laid out just one example. If they want more 76 seaters, all they need to do is buy them. Watch how any TA will be couched in a "take this or wait a long time aura". In other words, "hurry up and sign this, offer expires at midnight!!!" Watch how any job gains (say from 717s) will be CAREFULLY offset by loss of jobs, replacement flying or other aircraft retirements. That part won't be mentioned. If I see one more 76 seater in any TA, I will insta-click "NO" on my vote. It's a non starter. Nu As I've said for many months now, this MEC will return a TA with more scope sales in it. This MEC will then threaten to resign if we vote NO. This MEC will then warn us that we'll be many years getting back to square one if we vote NO and they resign. O'Malley's letter is the setup for it. The above notwithstanding, we can beat the MEC at their own game by voting NO. It will take 100% of the bottom half of the list to hold strong however. The bottom half of our list will make us, or break us. Carl |
Originally Posted by Free Bird
(Post 1177148)
One would think that DALPA surely knows any more allowances for scope will result in their being replaced by DPA?
Carl |
Originally Posted by Jesse
(Post 1176140)
While it's not under or side, overboob will do in a pinch.
http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/...is-3.jpg?w=500
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1177297)
Yeah, and my underboob rehab was going just fine until Jesse posted this:
Screw rehab! Carl Carl, Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are in underboob rehab. Jesse's picture is clearly overboob. Your recovery is a three-hundred-sixty degree process. You have to take it one degree at a time. If you get lost, just start over. Good luck. :D |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1177116)
Not sure what to think about it. Maybe it's tin foil hat-ish of me but what I read between the lines could very easily be interpreted as more large RJ's as long as the total ratio swings more in our favor. But that's happening anyway with 50's being parked as well as Saabs, etc. we could allow 9 76 seaters for every 10 50 seaters parked and that would fulfill that "production balance" talking point 100%.
Then there was the veiled threat of you really need to vote for what we bring you cause if you don't it'll be many years before you get any raise. While that's probably true, it in no way justified a single additional large RJ unless we fly it but I worry we may be about to throw management into the briar patch with this production balance interpretation. Most if not all if what we gain would likely be gained anyway (50 seater block hours in perpetual decline with more 90's and maybe 71's coming regardless) while the losses of more long term large RJ DC -9-10 replacement jets will be disproportionately larger than any possible gain. I really hope we aren't about to fall for that. Also many will state that section1 is not just about rj's but JV's codes shares holing companies. Et al. There are huge holes in a lot of this that will require significant capital to fix. The reps know this. Wait and see what we are presented. It may involve more rj's but more mainline jobs and tighter language on all parts of section 1. I gathered that from the letter. As much as I want to read the conclusion out of this letter, the devil is in the details and until we see them all we should be doing is filling our reps in boxes with constant direction on what we do not want. We need to take a long view on scope and this needs to be constantly imputed to the reps. So type away and let them know what you will vote NO for. I do agree with Nu, this letter makes me think we are getting close. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:45 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands