Notices

C20 Update (8/19/16)

Old 08-20-2016, 03:40 AM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Aug 2014
Position: C-17 IP
Posts: 143
Default C20 Update (8/19/16)

C20 / DTW UPDATE August 19th, 2016

First of all, Thank You very much for your patience during this very busy period. We appreciate it and continue to hear you even if we haven’t responded promptly, or at all in some cases, to your input. Please continue to patiently provide it. We haven’t seen this level of activity and involvement since the TA last year. Contacting more than one of us will also help in getting a timelier response since we all fly on different schedules. Texts and phone calls will likely get the quickest response. Please use those methods if you need a quicker response or have a time critical issue.
Negotiations Update.
The MEC just finished its second special meeting in as many months last week, which was dedicated to refining direction to the Negotiating Committee. Emphasis Items:
 Despite record profitability, billions being returned to investors, including the arguably dubious stock buy backs, pilot agreements at our peer airlines (including UPS) that surpass us significantly, and being the only remaining employee group not to regain pre-bankruptcy levels of non-inflation adjusted compensation and contract value from more than 12 years ago, the Company has not moved significantly above their early July pay and compensation offer Negotiator's Notepad 16-07. That offer included:
o A 4-year deal with pay raises starting at Date of Signing (DOS) of 15.5% (1% above the weighted average of UAL’s pay banded rates that actually has a maximum differential of 19%), followed by three 3% annual raises.
o Profit Sharing (PS) changes that were conservatively equivalent to a 4- 6% W2 value through retaining the changes to the PTIX formula from TA1 that would award management stock (recently voted by the Company BOD to be reallocated at likely increased levels) essentially “off the top” thus reducing PS as well as removing the DC contributions from the PS (similar to UAL but certainly very “tone deaf” when the pilot group has increased concerns and expectations about improving what are already completely insufficient retirement parameters, especially for many older pilots).
o Minor pay / no credit vacation improvements



o Not mentioned in the proposal is that they also remain fixated on a couple of very unpopular issues (Profit Sharing changes and more big RJs), as well as refusing to include a few relatively low cost positive items from last year’s TA, apparently for no other reason than to just say they excluded something positive from last year’s deal (per diem on a backside rotation deviation, removing the disability cap for alcoholism and mental health, premium pay for a reserve spill trip into a regular month, to name a couple).
o It was (still is) a very underwhelming proposal, especially considering that after including the PS offsets it was only worth approximately in the 10-11% DOS pay increase range.
o The MEC CH and Negotiating Committee stated that they will be updating the pilot group soon about the Co’s most recent overall position.
 NMB “Timeout”. The NMB suspended negotiations for three weeks due to lack of progress from both sides (contrary to some of the hand-wringing that is was all ALPA’s fault). An NMB “Status Conference” is scheduled on August 26 to determine if both sides have enough latitude to continue negotiations. See the August 5th Chairman's Letter.
  •  Our recent meetings have focused on negotiating direction that both needs to meet significantly increasing pilot expectations (emphasis on polling with strong consideration on individual pilot contact relative to items where reaching conclusions are more difficult via polling) and allow for continued progress during our NMB mediated negotiations. We believe that we have provided more than sufficient latitude to the Negotiating Committee. More details on this later. We’ll also discuss some of the recent MEC conflicts and some “over the top” LEC communications after the more significant items.
  •  “Routes” to an Agreement. We believe that there are two primary routes to reaching an agreement, which overlap in many areas; continue to the endgame (proffer of arbitration, release to engage in “self-help”) of the NMB process (longer timeline) or to reach an agreement prior. Reaching an agreement prior means that the Company needs to be motivated to do so in some way. Contrary to some of the PR, superficialities, and platitudes about our value, they are unlikely to follow that up with the necessary substance just because they say nice thigs about us. Getting things that they want are likely more motivational than altruism.
     Productivity. (Note that the items discussed below are from ALPA’s re- engagement proposal from last fall and based upon pilot input. The order discussed is not necessarily indicative of negotiating prioritization).
o The Company’s primary difficulties revolve around staffing, especially as attrition picks up over the next several years. Note that Sick Leave is also a staffing issue.
o Their “planning” has already led to some significant shortfalls in the past year. It’s certainly not the pilot group’s fault but it does provide an avenue to reach the pay and compensation aspirations that have been emphasized.



o The pilot group has also expressed a strong desire to improve our bottom of the industry vacation parameters. Vacation is a significant driver of increased staffing requirements.
o Since “Quality of Life” (QoL) issues are also important, the MEC, MEC CH, and the Negotiating Committee have worked to make these productivity enhancements mostly voluntary. This is certainly not going to be an “even trade”, “zero sum” effort; we expect much more value in return. When negotiations began in 2014 (prior to TA1) we agreed to address the Company’s issues first with the explicit expectation that when they agreed to discuss pay and compensation issues at the very end, it would be a sufficient proposal. Clearly the less than 9% increase, net of the Profit Sharing (PS) changes, as of the amendable date was not.
o As we began the current round of negotiations earlier this year we started heading down the same path. This led to an animated debate about whether to insist that the Company produce a pay proposal prior to addressing any more of their items. We agreed to press on through final direction on Sick Leave (which was the first significant AIP), but that we’d need a Co pay proposal to continue after that. See above.
SluggoC17 is offline  
Old 08-20-2016, 03:41 AM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Aug 2014
Position: C-17 IP
Posts: 143
Default

The “AIPs” (Agreements in Principle). Negotiator's Notepad 16-08, Negotiator's Notepad 16-09, Negotiator's Notepad 16-10, Negotiator's Notepad 16-11.

 We’re certainly glad that the MEC directed the release of the AIPs, and that the MEC CH and Negotiating Committee quickly published the AIPs as well as the earlier Company position on pay and compensation.

 Making this interim negotiating update and information available to the membership is not how things have been done at least since the MEC merger in January 2009. We welcome and appreciate the increase in transparency.

 Certainly the information has gotten the attention of the pilot group and required a more significant time and effort commitment from us to explain the details, receive your concerns and attempt to take action where necessary.

 We still believe it was / is worth the extra effort.

 All direction (and certainly ultimate acceptance) on any of these items is

completely dependent upon significant pay rates...... which is, again, where the polling / survey data put a clear emphasis. This has never historically been a secret.

 The initial direction was given to the Negotiating Committee last fall (2015) prior to entering NMB mediation.

 We have continued to work to minimize the negatives and ultimately supported the effort on many or most with some significant caveats, which include necessary changes or improvements highlighted via pilot input and the receipt of more detailed information (i.e. VEBA).

 Keep in mind that the net value of the AIPs in the Co’s favor represent approximately 1% of the value of the overall current contract (approx. $3B). Note that the end state (final year) value of the PWA as a result of our re-engagement proposal is well in excess of $4B. We believe that a valuation at this level is necessary for approval.

 Most of the comments have been very critical of the AIPs. The context of a full agreement may address or mitigate some of those concerns.

 Pay, Pay, Pay. Of course pay rates are easier to define and generate clear(er) data about. The problem is that other priorities weren't / aren’t as clearly defined.

Retirement.

We have just begun more specific polling on retirement issues.

 One of the biggest problems addressing overall retirement issues and the

associated heightened interest in Defined Benefit (DB) plans are that responses during the survey and polling last fall emphasized increasing Defined Contribution (DC) as the retirement vehicle priority. A DB plan wasn’t in the re-engagement proposal in part for this reason as well as the expectation of high cost and complication when we evaluated the deployment of negotiating resources and priorities.

 Obviously and understandably pilot attitude about retirement and DB plans has been affected by FDX and UPS keeping / improving theirs in their recent contracts.

 Admittedly, another factor could be that the earlier questions about retirement issues and DB plans weren’t specific enough.

 Furthermore, there were recent difficulties getting more specific polling questions included even now due to concerns about the need to have extensive "education" about DBs prior to polling. Certainly more information prior to polling is always better, and there are other areas where it would have been beneficial for more information to have been available yet the polling was completed anyway. It’s unfortunate that the “education” issue has held up polling relative to DB’s.

 Prior to the recent March turnover on the MEC, we were unsuccessful convincing the MEC to agree to even cost a very generic forward looking DB plan for comparison / order of magnitude purposes. Fortunately, that attitude changed and the current MEC CH directed the R&I committee and specialists to get that done a couple of months ago.

 The very, very approximate, order of magnitude annual cost of a new, forward looking DB plan, assuming all or most of the hurdles described in MEC Alert 16-15 could be overcome, would be in the $400M range annually for a plan structure similar to the terminated Delta Pilots’ DB plan, and would likely increase annually for some time depending upon a large number of variables. Note high emphasis on all the caveats.

 See MEC Alert 16-15 addressing some of the issues associated with establishing / re-establishing a DB plan. Certainly there are a lot of “coulds”, “mays”, “possibilities”, and other qualifiers that “may” indicate that it would “likely” be very difficult to establish a new forward-looking plan and certainly be difficult to un-terminate or un-freeze the respective DB plans.

 That doesn’t mean that it’s impossible and that it shouldn’t be tried if we receive sufficient input that it has become a higher priority, especially a new plan.

 However, the stark reality of the situation is that, since it wasn’t included in last fall’s direction and we’re under NMB mediation, it would be very difficult to attempt to include DB parameters now where it would “likely” significantly divert efforts, resources, and priorities.

 The most “likely” circumstance where a DB could be revisited would be to reach the end (or very near the end) of this current round of negotiations and not be able to reach (or ratify) an agreement. At that point the subsequent repackaging and reordering of priorities “could” include a DB plan of some amount.

 Keep in mind, as painfully lacking as many older pilots’ retirements are, making that an overarching priority for them, there is an increasing demographic who are younger and would prefer a high value DC plan with the funds in their own name, as well as other older pilots who are also cognizant from their own, the previous generation’s, and even their parents’ very negative experiences with retirement benefits dependent upon their company’s financial health. Getting data that supports the prioritization of a new DB plan is not assured, even as we get to asking more comprehensive questions about it.

Negotiating Committee Direction Process. Since the special MEC meeting ended last week there’s been some distorted, over the top communications from other LEC / MEC members who were unhappy about the Negotiating Committee (NC) direction process at the meeting. Here’s a review of how the process generally works, and our perspective(s) about how it’s worked in the past, what happened last week, the ensuing hyperventilation and potential rationale(s) for it.

Background.

 Direction is given via a “straw poll”, which is an unofficial vote of the status / voting reps on a one person, one vote basis. No roll call is allowed since it’s not an official vote and it doesn’t become part of the meeting record.

 Done in closed session when addressing negotiating direction for amendments to the PWA up to and including RLA Section 6 negotiations.

 The MEC first receives briefings from the NC and other committee members / professional ALPA Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) supporting the issue to be addressed. The Negotiating Committee usually develops recommendations for MEC direction for the MEC to consider.

 The MEC members discuss the issues during the meeting during organized debate and more casually at other times before, during, and after the meeting day. This discussion occurs between multiple groups of Reps during caucuses, breakfast, lunch, pre-dinner, dinner, and beyond. Usually the direction phase is the last day of the meeting so that these discussions (sometimes more like negotiations between individual members or groups of members) occur for more than a day or two.

 After considering the differing perspectives as well as what each rep believes is required to represent their constituents (which can certainly be honestly different for even the same constituency), usually like-minded or generally philosophically aligned members (in general or just for a particular set of issues) coalesce and agree to coordinate arguments and priorities for the debate of the direction during the meeting. This coordination occurs during caucuses (during the meeting day) sometimes limited to those having the same strategy, as well as lunch, dinner and other casual settings in intentionally selective groups for the same reason. Sometimes the discussions will seek to avoid including those whose attendance would be intended (or perceived to) solely to impede the coordination or priorities.

 The coordination can be maintained through common talking points, emails, texts, etc.

 Certainly during this whole process, the NC, MEC CH and Admin engage the MEC members individually and in smaller groups to advocate for something close to the direction that they prefer or believe that they need to accomplish the overall negotiating task.

 Once the direction debate starts usually several iterations of the recommended direction are generated via multiple straw polls that lead to a final straw poll that determines item by item or total package direction.

The “Terrible 12 vs. the Saintly 7”. Last week’s meeting.

 All the normal steps and interactions mentioned above occurred.

 After discussions between most MEC members it was clear by the third night

of the meeting that there were a couple key, bright line issues where individual

positions were hardening. Nothing new.

 12 of us (voting reps) worked out what we were willing to focus on to address

these key issues (where we did have general agreement) most effectively.

 We came up with a proposal primarily along the lines of what the NC had optionally offered in their recommendation. We did not specifically address all open issues.

 The long-winded among us were politely requested to minimize or refrain from comments other than the focused comments we had agreed upon. (We complied).

 The normal process would have been for someone to state the priorities and then those who were in agreement would each take a turn essentially saying “What he just said”. (Or try to at least; see previous bullet).

 The difference occurred when, during the presentation of the direction we had focused on, it was explicitly stated that there were 12 of us who had pre- agreed to it. Rather than the normal exercise where it’s already implicitly obvious that something has been coordinated and agreed to, yet all take a turn at the speaker’s list to reach the de facto conclusion. Every voting rep in the room (and many non-voting reps) knew this was how things have worked, (and not just in our organization), especially the CVG / C108 CH who worked as part of a highly disciplined machine for years that very effectively coordinated group efforts, votes and straw polls through the use of talking points (printed & electronic) including speeches written for “member” reps (sometimes from the MEC Admin, at that time, itself). A key notable example was the recall of the MEC CH in 2013.

 So......Feelings were hurt and the 7 who were not part of the coordinated direction “refrained” from giving any direction or discussing any of the issues further, including issues that weren’t addressed in our joint position. The irony is that a few of the 7 frequently attempt to discredit and disregard those with whom they disagree with by stating that they are making “emotional” decisions and statements, yet their refusal to further participate, as well as obnoxious, overwrought actions and statements since from a couple / few, seem to be highly “emotional” responses.

 Or.... It could just be cynical opportunism on some of their parts to try to create enough hysteria to attempt to bully and berate some to changing their positions and expectations relative to overall negotiating priorities. (Even though our differences are not that large in the context of the wide gulf between the ALPA and Co positions).

 We’re sorry about the hurt feelings and the apparently fragile damaged psyches from the meeting direction but we’re certainly not sorry about the direction itself. Clearly it would be better just to press on as previously during debates where minds have already been made after extensive discussion, rather than have the same bruised feelings and egos again. Having been part of the minority view on many key issues for a very long time, refusing to engage during negotiating direction, even in cases when explicitly mentioned that there was already a majority and our perspective didn’t matter, was not an option.

 The bigger irony is that many of the 7 would have supported parts of the package if they had been willing to address the items individually. Apparently the ongoing “firing for effect” is more of a priority.

 No one, at any time, had their speaking rights taken away, not by parliamentary means nor otherwise, and no “manifestos” were issued. No pilots that the 7 represented went unrepresented. Ridiculous. They know that, but it’s too inconvenient to allow that to get in the way of some feel good righteous indignation; they individually made choices not to engage on further issues after it was, albeit indelicately, pointed out that they were in the minority on a few issues.

 In our opinion, a couple of the 7 also need to consider that constant bullying, insults (including suggesting that another MEC member has a brain tumor because of the way he talks / writes), accusing many who simply disagree with them of being “liars”, and trying to deflect the importance and seriousness of core disagreements about key issues by frequently assigning political motivations, both before and after the last meeting, may not positively predispose other members to actively consider their points of view.... Not cause to ignore a good suggestion, just not to be as open to hear it.
SluggoC17 is offline  
Old 08-20-2016, 03:41 AM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Aug 2014
Position: C-17 IP
Posts: 143
Default

Executive Inactive (EI) Membership Status.

 Allows the placement of senior Flight Operations personnel, specifically Company Officers and Directors, in an inactive membership status (can’t vote, attend meetings, etc.) with significantly reduced dues.

 The Executive member can request this status (which subsequently needs to be approved by the MEC) or can be placed on it by the MEC without a request.

 Many ALPA pilot groups have policies that automatically place Co executives on EI. Neither Delta nor formerly NWA has / had such a policy.

 All members in good standing have rights and responsibilities. Members who are in management necessarily have duties and responsibilities to the corporation as a result of their positions. These include:

o Discipline with the implicit ability to end or significantly alter other members’ careers.

o Making operational choices and policies that can emphasize the interests and expenses of the Co over improving other members’ working environments and ability to do their jobs.

o Representing the Co’s interests in negotiations,which in many cases are in direct opposition to the priorities established by the membership through ALPA.

 Those who favor EI for specific management personnel (who are members)

generally emphasize the above points.

 Those opposed to EI generally believe that there’s an advantage to have an

executive retain active membership to better understand what the pilot group needs to best accomplish their jobs, be fairly treated, and sufficiently compensated.

 We supported the effort requesting that the Sr. VP-Flights Ops voluntarily seek Executive Inactive status primarily due to what we believed was the inherent conflict between active membership status and actions taken as essentially the Co’s lead Negotiator. Even more so when it became clear that negotiations have taken on a more confrontational tone after last year’s TA failure and since progress this year has been very slow.

 Certainly considering and developing an overall policy that is management position-dependent may be a longer term goal, although once out of contract negotiations the inherent conflict doesn’t draw the attention that it does while in negotiations.

 We certainly appreciate the Senior VP-Flight Ops ultimately requesting Executive Inactive membership status. The MEC approved his request at last week’s August special meeting.

Local Issues.

The Hassle of Coming to Work.

Here’s what the DTW CPO published in their recent update:

“With the ongoing removal of the SIDA badges, we committed to those of you that drive to the airport ways to reduce travel time into the facility. We have been working with the stakeholders to come up with some solutions. One item that we have come to agreement on is a second KCM checkpoint that will be located closer than the current entrance at the Westin Hotel. This will be a second KCM checkpoint in addition to the current Westin checkpoint. Plans have been reviewed by Delta, WCAA (Wayne County Airport Authority) and TSA and they are currently out for bid with the construction companies.

We currently expect this new checkpoint to open by the end of October and we will keep you advised along the way in the newsletters and billboards in the lounge area. Other company wide initiatives, such as “remote check-in” are also in the works and will greatly expedite this process. Once completed, this second KCM will provide more direct access to the trams and center of the terminal. As we get closer to the opening date, we will provide more on the location and associated details. Please keep your feedback coming into the office as it is a great way of crowdsourcing ideas that help the entire group.”

We certainly appreciate the efforts that the DTW RD and CPO have made to address a bad situation. We are still very disappointed that a solution similar to ATL, where the flight crews screen in the parking lot and are still dropped off at an AOA bus stop near Operations, could not have been developed (or allowed with the current AOA parking screening facilities) for DTW flight crews.

Interactions with the Chief Pilot’s Office (CPO).

Even though we have a good relationship with the DTW CPO, we always recommend that any time a pilot is asked to see a Chief Pilot (or FOM, or Assistant Chief Pilot, whatever they’re called these days) they always seek ALPA representation, even if the issue seems relatively (or completely) minor. Sometimes interactions with any CPO can seem non-threatening but then head down the wrong path.

Please, do not hesitate to call one of us regarding any meeting, request for a meeting, seemingly “hey, while you’re here” innocuous chat, email or phone call. It’s what we’re here to do.
SluggoC17 is offline  
Old 08-20-2016, 05:51 AM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 167
Default

 We’re sorry about the hurt feelings and the apparently fragile damaged psyches from the meeting direction but we’re certainly not sorry about the direction itself. Clearly it would be better just to press on as previously during debates where minds have already been made after extensive discussion, rather than have the same bruised feelings and egos again. Having been part of the minority view on many key issues for a very long time, refusing to engage during negotiating direction, even in cases when explicitly mentioned that there was already a majority and our perspective didn’t matter, was not an option.

 The bigger irony is that many of the 7 would have supported parts of the package if they had been willing to address the items individually. Apparently the ongoing “firing for effect” is more of a priority.

 No one, at any time, had their speaking rights taken away, not by parliamentary means nor otherwise, and no “manifestos” were issued. No pilots that the 7 represented went unrepresented. Ridiculous. They know that, but it’s too inconvenient to allow that to get in the way of some feel good righteous indignation; they individually made choices not to engage on further issues after it was, albeit indelicately, pointed out that they were in the minority on a few issues.

 In our opinion, a couple of the 7 also need to consider that constant bullying, insults (including suggesting that another MEC member has a brain tumor because of the way he talks / writes), accusing many who simply disagree with them of being “liars”, and trying to deflect the importance and seriousness of core disagreements about key issues by frequently assigning political motivations, both before and after the last meeting, may not positively predispose other members to actively consider their points of view.... Not cause to ignore a good suggestion, just not to be as open to hear it.



I cannot believe my dues pay for this. The majority/minority are both screwed up and need to figure it out.
Yoohoo1 is offline  
Old 08-20-2016, 06:17 AM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 260
Default

Out of curiosity, in Bill Bartels' long career at ALPA (which for some reason seems to be ok for him but not others), has he ever voted for or achieved anything that resulted in a single dime in contract improvements for the pilots? I'm not sure about NWA, but he certainly hasn't at Delta. And yet he's a hero.

I guess results don't matter in Council 20.

Last edited by D Mantooth; 08-20-2016 at 07:02 AM.
D Mantooth is offline  
Old 08-20-2016, 06:23 AM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,224
Default

Originally Posted by D Mantooth View Post
Out of curiosity, in Bill Bartels' long career at ALPA (which for some reason seems to be ok for him but not others), has he ever voted for or achieved anything that resulted in a single dime in contract improvements for the pilots. I'm not sure about NWA, but he certainly hasn't at Delta. And yet he's a hero.

I guess results don't matter in Council 20.
I do find it interesting that he repeatedly stated that contract 2012 was cost neutral but now claims we are at 3 billion a year in contract costs. Even with the huge waive of hiring he claimed would never happen it looks like we are up 500 to 600 million a year adjusted for hiring from the 1.8 billion prior to contract 2012.
sailingfun is offline  
Old 08-20-2016, 06:41 AM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 260
Default

Another guy who's never said a thing his pilots didn't want to hear, regardless of the truth.

There's leading, and there's pandering. One produces results. So, the proof is in the pudding. What are Bill Bartel's results after what seems like a lifetime at ALPA? What was his crowning achievement?

He's a panderer. It just surprises me that Council 20 pilots still don't realize it.
D Mantooth is offline  
Old 08-20-2016, 07:03 AM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 429
Default

Originally Posted by Yoohoo1 View Post
 We’re sorry about the hurt feelings and the apparently fragile damaged psyches from the meeting direction but we’re certainly not sorry about the direction itself....

I cannot believe my dues pay for this. The majority/minority are both screwed up and need to figure it out.
OFG to New Fly Guy.. or Gal. I think these episodes are bound to occur. What I "don't expect" to happen is for the MEC/LEC to air the dirty laundry in public. The real question is DID the NC actually get the needed direction to reengage the company. .. and what was it?! Our opinions and desires are all over the map. For instance I'm O-L-D yet I do not want a new DB; others disagree. The reps are in the middle trying to craft an acceptable solution for 13,000+. Personally, I don't care how they make the sausage as long as its the best overall sausage in the industry. Again, JMO, OFG
OldFlyGuy is offline  
Old 08-20-2016, 07:08 AM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 4,116
Default

so DM....is it your assertion it was superior 'leadership' that produced a TA that 2/3rds of the pilots rejected?
BobZ is offline  
Old 08-20-2016, 07:20 AM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,565
Default

It would've passed had it not been for SM and Satan(Bartells) is what he meant.


Originally Posted by BobZ View Post
so DM....is it your assertion it was superior 'leadership' that produced a TA that 2/3rds of the pilots rejected?
NERD is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Stoutflier
Delta
9
07-15-2015 08:08 PM
Nevets
Regional
215
07-24-2013 09:46 AM
gettinbumped
United
0
12-11-2012 11:29 AM
cactiboss
American
29
05-16-2012 06:24 PM
HSLD
Hiring News
2
11-14-2006 04:32 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices