|
Originally Posted by Wuzatforus
(Post 2291623)
The real double standard is this - the same folks who howled about reserving recall for only the most egregious acts now think it's perfectly acceptable to recall these two.
I'm confused about what they're being recalled for (well, actually I'm not). First it was promoted as performance (the Flower Fund for Chrissakes) even though the recall started within minutes of the MEC elections, then it was for voting against JM (actually it's for BB) and voting against 82% of the pilots (purposely twisting vote logic and conclusions to distort). Now, it's performance again (we don't get along so it's their fault). So, the average line pilot, many of whom have no clue to ALPA's insider club and the damage they've caused, now are beginning to wonder if there's smoke there must be fire. In round 1 of recalls, there were clear derelictions of duty coupled with a demeaning and condescending attitude towards the constituents. I've not heard one instance of these two mocking anyone's Yes or No vote or saying "the smart vote is Yes (or No), which means you're stupid if you're not voting the same as the rep. The irony in all this is that the first round of reps almost cost us $1B (?) and the second round of reps (including the two FOs up for recall) salvaged it. If not getting along in C44 puts an extra $1B in our pockets, I'm all for them not getting along going forward. MECs that got along have cost me millions and I'm not exaggerating. Thank John Malone and your 44 Captain reps for this contract. It was achieved in spite of your 44 FO reps efforts to derail it. They could have cost you dearly had it not been for the leadership of Captain Malone. Then to double down on their "fantastic" representation, they vote for a MEC Chair who the overwhelming majority of 44 did not want. Time to make 44 relevant again. The FO reps must go (IMO) |
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 2291628)
You are grossly exaggerating. (Right up there with your C2K belongs to Dubinsky comment.)
Thank John Malone and your 44 Captain reps for this contract. It was achieved in spite of your 44 FO reps efforts to derail it. They could have cost you dearly had it not been for the leadership of Captain Malone. Then to double down on their "fantastic" representation, they vote for a MEC Chair who the overwhelming majority of 44 did not want. Time to make 44 relevant again. The FO reps must go (IMO) Jimmy and Chris ensured this never happened. They stood by thier campaign promises to protect scope. Delta is making BILLIONS in record profits. Wasting BILLIONS on stock buy backs each year. Why would John, Scott and Sam feel the need to gut our scope? They cannot break free of management's spell of concessions during record profits. The Aeromexico JV will be front and center in March. IMO Scott and Sam will be carrying the ball for managment. Opposing MEMRAT of any potential letter of agreement. Jimmy and Chris will favor MEMRAT, protect our share of the flying and ensure we make significant gains in minimum day, increased defined contribution percentage and increase in the value of a vacation day. |
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 2291659)
Captain's Malone, DeRosa and Martin all were in favor of allowing 50 more 76 seat jets to Delta connection carriers. Done deal.
Jimmy and Chris ensured this never happened. They stood by thier campaign promises to protect scope. Delta is making BILLIONS in record profits. Wasting BILLIONS on stock buy backs each year. Why would John, Scott and Sam feel the need to gut our scope? They cannot break free of management's spell of concessions during record profits. The Aeromexico JV will be front and center in March. IMO Scott and Sam will be carrying the ball for managment. Opposing MEMRAT of any potential letter of agreement. Jimmy and Chris will favor MEMRAT, protect our share of the flying and ensure we make significant gains in minimum day, increased defined contribution percentage and increase in the value of a vacation day. Denny |
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 2291628)
You are grossly exaggerating. (Right up there with your C2K belongs to Dubinsky comment.)
Thank John Malone and your 44 Captain reps for this contract. It was achieved in spite of your 44 FO reps efforts to derail it. They could have cost you dearly had it not been for the leadership of Captain Malone. Then to double down on their "fantastic" representation, they vote for a MEC Chair who the overwhelming majority of 44 did not want. Time to make 44 relevant again. The FO reps must go (IMO) After you speak with them individually, ask yourself how our low end scope looked in the final contract. The dirty dozen had the integrity to do their deed in plain sight, while the old Moak regime would have made their voting choice the night before at the bar. This is transparency and I hope ATL does the right thing and finally makes Moakism irrelevant. |
Originally Posted by Karnak
(Post 2291549)
...The issue is whether or not the way our reps vote on a TA is justification for recall. It doesn't matter if "times have changed". Is it appropriate or not?
The reason they should be recalled is because they refuse to engage and debate within the expectations of our democratic organization. Every rep should be willing to engage and debate up to the minute before a decision (vote) is taken. Maybe something said would change their minds, improve an LOA, make a better product for the pilot group. When you have a closed mind, make secret deals, and come back to the MEC with a "take it or leave it" ultimatum without being willing to discuss issues, it will eventually give us a worse future. That's why Jimmy and Chris need to be recalled. |
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 2291628)
Time to make 44 relevant again. The FO reps must go (IMO)
You're the one that's delusional, Trip. Your backyard politics mean so little to those of us who don't live in PTC. Maybe you can get back at those FO reps by keying their golf carts when they're not looking. |
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 2291628)
You are grossly exaggerating. (Right up there with your C2K belongs to Dubinsky comment.)
Thank John Malone and your 44 Captain reps for this contract. It was achieved in spite of your 44 FO reps efforts to derail it. They could have cost you dearly had it not been for the leadership of Captain Malone. Then to double down on their "fantastic" representation, they vote for a MEC Chair who the overwhelming majority of 44 did not want. Time to make 44 relevant again. The FO reps must go (IMO) The contract is thanks to all the reps. The minority position often moves the majority. The "12" did save us from more RJs. The administration was comfortable with more RJs. Ask someone who you can trust to give a straight, non-political answer. Harder to quantity the prevention of something than the gain of something. |
Originally Posted by cornbeef007
(Post 2291737)
Have you ever sat down with ALL of your reps individually and asked exactly what was being discussed just prior to the walk of infamy? Do that and see which reps sidestep the conversation, the members of the "dirty dozen" or the "appeasement 7". The only reason this is continuously perpetuated is because the appeasement guys don't ever need to give you or their other constituents a straight answer. Everything was in closed session, so they can spin it anyway they want but they will never give you a simple, factual answer.
After you speak with them individually, ask yourself how our low end scope looked in the final contract. The dirty dozen had the integrity to do their deed in plain sight, while the old Moak regime would have made their voting choice the night before at the bar. This is transparency and I hope ATL does the right thing and finally makes Moakism irrelevant. If the Captain reps state a contract was achieved in spite of the FO reps, maybe they should state what they accomplished in the new TA instead of publishing letters of support from random C44 line pilots. |
The 44 Captain reps have made it crystal clear that they can't work with the FO reps by way of their written words. If the recall doesn't happen, certainly the honorable thing to do for SD and SM would be to resign, no?
|
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2291600)
Is recall justified for a TA rejection? Yes, but so is any other vote...
If it was ok to recall reps in 2015 for their vote, then it's ok to recall reps this year for their vote. There are indications the votes themselves were not the sole reasons for seeking recall in C44. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:49 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands