Uhhhh...the conversation devolved there, or it continued what this guy started in that post? Seems pretty juvenile to me...and very much like a playground taunt.

It wasn't enough to post that twice on FB, and start the poo slinging contest, you had to post it here? Have you made it to chitchat yet? How about A.net?

Could be a failure on both sides. But to have a deal that would conceivably pass by 70% and not present it for a vote would be the fault of who? If there is no deal it absolutely could be a failure of our team.

Conceivably pass by 70%? By what data and who's estimation? When has that ever happened?

Was that metric used last time? If so, it was way off. If not, why not?

The MEC has our input and our surveys, if we don't get a deal the threshold has not been met. No, if there is no deal, it is entirely managements fault.

We don't need a deal, we need a restorative deal because now they can afford it. QOL is not negotiable.

Negotiations are all about costs and in this case cost increase tolerance by management. If they need more pilots to fly, hire more pilots. If they can't hire more, invest in training and recruitment by making the job more desirable. Everything comes down to dollars. If there aren't enough dollars on the table its because management didn't put them there.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being don't care and 10 being go full sick abuse, should I care about this topic?

Another failure for Bartels: He and others from Council 20 voted against our TA in 2002 but allowed it to go to membership for a vote. It passed by 80%. Just a little out of touch, maybe he should have been recalled.

If the major points of contention are fixed it will pass. Sick leave, LCA OE trip pulls, PTIX definition were at the head of the list. Make the net gain greater than last time, UAL +X% and it'll pass 70%, 60% - whatever. It will pass.

Or wait forever for a pound of flesh and 40% more in pay rates.

If that's the input the MEC is working with then you have nothing to worry about.

I'm still at UA+ on rates and no concessions (actually 2004 rates is my minimum on principle alone.) I think others are more extreme than that. We also need gains in other areas. See our December proposal. Record profits buys a lot of solutions but leaves no room for concessions.

Bingo.

Harwood wrote that to go after Bartels for one simple reason: He believes (and has convinced others) that Bartels ran a "misinformation" campaign and without him, the TA wouldn't have failed. There is nothing more to it than that.

Harwood is the token snake in the grass sore loser. His product got shot down, and he wants a scapegoat. Freaking pathetic. He can't accept that he under delivered and what was going to happen happened. He cannot accept that he failed...after all, he is the smartest man in the room.

Bartels is one vote. One. TA 2015 failed in an unprecedented manner for one reason: it was a poor product.

He voted to allow MEMRAT because the majority promised an honest pro/con.

They lied. Same old sell job like the failed C2015.

Captain Bartels was reelected by a wide margin after that.

Bill is one of the most, if not the most, intelligent and well read leaders I have observed in over 30 years.

Hanson, O'Malley and the rest of the Apple Dumpling Gang are just upset that the Delta pilots are more informed than at in point in their history.

For a decade a small group did as they pleased. The only reason they are not still in power is social media. Their lies and distortions died a quick death when they were shown the light of day.

It is amazing really. Not pretty, not perfect, but what our forefathers envisioned without a doubt.

And who is still in the leadership now that the lights are on?

Captain Bartels.

It is interesting to me that Alpha lacks the courage to attack Captain Brielmann. Tom makes Bill seems like a *****cat.

And my hat is off to him.