Harwood recalled
03-09-2016, 04:14 PM
#31
Straight QOL, homie
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
I'm just saying that gloating about it on here and Facebook doesn't reflect well upon our pilot group.
It's in the vein of storming the court after a March Madness basketball upset. It could be construed as gloating, but it's really just plain ol' exuberance.
So when guys say "AMF" to Harwood...we mean that in the most optimistic , sincere, and altruistic manner.
"March Madness." I think that's what we should label this MEC meeting!
Last edited by Purple Drank; 03-09-2016 at 04:25 PM.
03-09-2016, 04:30 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Originally Posted by 76drvr
He wasn't recalled because of his demonstrated capabilities in the merger field, he reset the bar for original, expansive, and effective thinking regarding pilot seniority list integration, and he has re-written the books on how they will be conducted in the future. He was recalled for other reasons that have yet to be communicated to the pilot group.
It's a shame that this was done as a last minute rushed resolution on the first day of an MEC meeting, without him even being present, and that it was done with little to no warning or advance notification of the pilot group, particularly when the Master Chairman offered a more elegant solution; just schedule a new election and announce it to the pilot group. Not really the transparent MEC many were hoping for.
It's a shame that this was done as a last minute rushed resolution on the first day of an MEC meeting, without him even being present, and that it was done with little to no warning or advance notification of the pilot group, particularly when the Master Chairman offered a more elegant solution; just schedule a new election and announce it to the pilot group. Not really the transparent MEC many were hoping for.
03-09-2016, 04:56 PM
#34
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,870
Originally Posted by Timbo
I spoke with him on the phone as we were getting ready to vote on LOA 51 which, for you who weren't here, was the "Second bite of the Apple", or the 15% pay cut to secure bankruptcy exit financing. This was right after the MEC had replaced JM with LM. I asked why we were changing horses in mid stream. He said because JM was NOT going to give Delta ANY MORE CONCESSIONS, (JM gave them the 32% pay cut to stay out of bankruptcy) and Delta said they would have to liquidate if we didn't give them the 15%.
I said, "Of course that's what they said! They have NO OTHER LEVERAGE! I can't believe YOU believed them! Have you never played poker? They are bluffing! Delta Air Lines survival does NOT depend on US taking another 15% pay cut, but if it does, then let's put a snap back clause on it. As soon as Delta recovers, and you KNOW they will, WE GET PAID BACK FIRST, Before any Management Tools get Bonuses!!"
He said, "No management team would agree to that."
I said, "Well, I guess they don't really need it that badly then, do they?"
He said, "I don't know about YOU Tim, but I NEED THIS JOB!"
I said, "I need the job too Rich, but if Delta can't survive without another pay cut, screw them, I'd rather they liquidate NOW, while I'm still young enough to go to Emirates!"
Rich was an enabler, a battered wife, or suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, I believe.
LOA 51 passed, (60-40?) we took yet another pay cut, Delta survived, with no snap back to our previous pay once Delta started earning Billions. We are today still being paid 18% LESS than in 2004, with no DB plan.
I want to hear RH explain rapidly rising and falling oil prices next, using his Common Sense Capitalism rational.
(Thanks for posting RH's stuff 76drvr)
Timbo,
Great post. I voted yes on LOA 46 because I was naive and stupid. I actually believed the "Do it once - do it right BS." As stupid as I was, at least I can eventually learn and consequently voted No on LOA - 51.
My thoughts were similar to yours - If they really need it lets put snap-backs in writing.
What a screwed up time in our history.
Scoop
03-09-2016, 04:58 PM
#35
Straight QOL, homie
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by 76drvr
It's a shame that this was done as a last minute rushed resolution on the first day of an MEC meeting,
In any case, I suspect you would object whether it was on the 1st, 3rd, or 86th day of the MEC meeting. Maokists gotta stick together, I guess.
here is something to help you cope. http://www.elephantjournal.com/2016/...their-victims/
Last edited by Purple Drank; 03-09-2016 at 05:18 PM.
03-09-2016, 06:02 PM
#36
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 474
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
Just because you didn't hear about it first doesn't mean it was "rushed." You just might be out of the loop now.
03-09-2016, 06:06 PM
#37
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by 76drvr
I'm not out of the loop at all when my union keeps me informed. In this instance, only after the fact do we hear about it, and only through unofficial channels. I was surprised and disappointed to see this handled in this fashion. I'd be interested in seeing if this was on the advanced agenda. When did this resolution show up?
You're going to have to up your game...
He's openly against the new admin and he's willing to work against us to prove that all of his absolutist statements that he made about NA2015 come true.
That is absolute poison right there. Good riddance.
03-09-2016, 06:10 PM
#38
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,870
Originally Posted by 76drvr
I'm not out of the loop at all when my union keeps me informed. In this instance, only after the fact do we hear about it, and only through unofficial channels. I was surprised and disappointed to see this handled in this fashion. I'd be interested in seeing if this was on the advanced agenda. When did this resolution show up?
76drvr,
First I heard about was also via the forums. If RH had anything to do with Kingsley getting recalled then you have to believe that this is just Karma doing what Karma does.
Scoop
03-09-2016, 06:13 PM
#39
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 474
Originally Posted by Scoop
Timbo,
Great post. I voted yes on LOA 46 because I was naive and stupid. I actually believed the "Do it once - do it right BS." As stupid as I was, at least I can eventually learn and consequently voted No on LOA - 51.
Great post. I voted yes on LOA 46 because I was naive and stupid. I actually believed the "Do it once - do it right BS." As stupid as I was, at least I can eventually learn and consequently voted No on LOA - 51.
03-09-2016, 06:22 PM
#40
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 474
Originally Posted by Scoop
76drvr,
First I heard about was also via the forums. If RH had anything to do with Kingsley getting recalled then you have to believe that this is just Karma doing what Karma does.
Scoop
First I heard about was also via the forums. If RH had anything to do with Kingsley getting recalled then you have to believe that this is just Karma doing what Karma does.
Scoop
What I don't understand, and this isn't an option with MEC officers, is why they didn't just call for a merger committee election. You'd have the same result. If RH wanted to continue on the committee he'd have to get elected.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
