With all due respect, Carl, you often state your opinions and/or beliefs as though they were fact, and only when called upon to provide proof do you acknowledge them as being such. You and I have discussed this several times.

While it is true that you do not say they are facts, you don't always make it clear initially that they're only opinions. I think that's what Tsquare is talking about.

Exactly. It's like a lawyer saying "He told me he stabbed her with the candlestick". Then the judge saying "The jury will disregard that statement". Carl knows exactly what he's doing.

Duplicate post.

Unfortunately, there remains the concern of being labeled as an operative, a special committee member, out to minimize pilot costs, management plant, etc.

Why is that, Carl? Why can't we all just offer our own opinions and debate the issues based on facts without resorting to the type of labelling you mention?

I didn't say that at all. Here's what I said:

Really? If you believed in something and wanted it changed, that's the course of action you'd recommend?

That's good. I'm glad I can still keep you doing the same "work" you did while you were in DALPA.

Don't you just hate people like that:

Carl

Carl, you must have struck a nerve. alfaromeo (along with his prodigious arrogance) has been summoned from golf practice (he needs to prepare for the ALPA golf tournament) to browbeat and belittle you for having the audacity to call out DALPA's questionable methods, transparency, accountability, and results.

Why is that a concern? If it's known or strongly suspected, then say so. The tsquares around here have been labeling me in every conceivable way for years now. My concern is when I read quotes from reps who lament about MEC meetings where some members try to shut up other members by telling them that opposing opinions are divisive. It's the difference between me and them. I don't want people silenced...they clearly do.

See above. I have no problem with labeling if the evidence justifies it. I do have a problem with those who try to silence others.

Carl

As you label those with whom you disagree.

The problem that I have is that you do the exact same thing when you label those with whom you disagree as someone working against the best interests of the pilot group. That too is an attempt to silence them, or at least minimize the validity of their opinions.

We took a 42% pay cut, lost our pension, and had thousands of our jobs outsourced resulting in a full decade of stagnation. And today (10 years later), our rates are still 34% below the buying power of Delta's pilot rates throughout most of the 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's.

A good argument can be made that those of us who have been here the past 10 years have contributed in the neighborhood of $1 million EACH to Delta' recovery. And all we're asking is that our compensation be restored going forward. That means an increase in W2 of somewhere in the neighborhood of 50%. Keep my $1 million. Just fix my compensation going forward, now that Delta is historically profitable and our industry has been restructured in a way that should result in more consistent profitability in the future.

I think that is an extremely reasonable (and generous) position. To argue against that position means accepting bankruptcy as a reset, establishing a new baseline from which we only expect "reasonable" improvements. I see no way to characterize that other than "working against the best interests of the pilot group."

Please do not feed the troll.