Response to Captain Tucker
06-24-2012, 05:24 PM
#41
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Not a problem. Just trying to stop this thing from degenerating any farther than it already has.
If it passes, you can resume moderating excessive underboob.
If it fails, we'll get to see how bad Anderson wanted this deal. It wouldn't take very long to fix this thing and send it back out for another vote. Tighten up the scope without destroying the pieces management really needs plus a few more dollars and he'd have a deal.
06-24-2012, 05:31 PM
#42
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Not a problem. Just trying to stop this thing from degenerating any farther than it already has.
ACL;
That's probably a good idea.
Doing damage control in the internet age is not a pretty sight.
Since I do not have perfect information and was not in the room, all I have is my personal speculation...
All the potential mudslinging on this board is not going to change my opinion (or probably anyone else's) of what happened and continues to happen behind the MEC door.
06-24-2012, 05:49 PM
#43
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by scambo1
ACL;
That's probably a good idea.
Doing damage control in the internet age is not a pretty sight.
Since I do not have perfect information and was not in the room, all I have is my personal speculation...
All the potential mudslinging on this board is not going to change my opinion (or probably anyone else's) of what happened and continues to happen behind the MEC door.
That's probably a good idea.
Doing damage control in the internet age is not a pretty sight.
Since I do not have perfect information and was not in the room, all I have is my personal speculation...
All the potential mudslinging on this board is not going to change my opinion (or probably anyone else's) of what happened and continues to happen behind the MEC door.
I agree with your statement wholeheartedly.
Just trying to stop the next five pages of bashing back and forth. This has gotten very emotional for many. Understandably so, after all its our lives and quality thereof we are deciding with our vote.
06-24-2012, 05:51 PM
#44
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by Check Essential
5 more days. Then we'll all move on.
If it passes, you can resume moderating excessive underboob.
If it fails, we'll get to see how bad Anderson wanted this deal. It wouldn't take very long to fix this thing and send it back out for another vote. Tighten up the scope without destroying the pieces management really needs plus a few more dollars and he'd have a deal.
If it passes, you can resume moderating excessive underboob.
If it fails, we'll get to see how bad Anderson wanted this deal. It wouldn't take very long to fix this thing and send it back out for another vote. Tighten up the scope without destroying the pieces management really needs plus a few more dollars and he'd have a deal.
I'll agree with that. Like I said a month ago. One 777 in costing a year plus a bunch of no or low cost items to total probably 30 total items and we would have a much different view on this ta.
06-24-2012, 06:19 PM
#45
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: 7ER
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
TT told the absolute truth in his letter. (Edit-TOS). That's a fact.
Carl
Carl
THAT'S A FACT!
06-24-2012, 09:10 PM
#46
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by SailorJerry
Were you there? Do you know it all to be true? Or is this another "True as the word of Carl"?
This doesn't even begin to touch dysfunction, although it was absurd of both parties to publicly attack each other. Not just now, but ever. Can we expect a fist fight at the next MEC meeting?
Good thing I'm not a council 20 pilot. The rest of the MEC however would be wise to distance themselves from Tom's idea of reality. True or not, it was divisive and inappropriate under all circumstances.
This doesn't even begin to touch dysfunction, although it was absurd of both parties to publicly attack each other. Not just now, but ever. Can we expect a fist fight at the next MEC meeting?
Good thing I'm not a council 20 pilot. The rest of the MEC however would be wise to distance themselves from Tom's idea of reality. True or not, it was divisive and inappropriate under all circumstances.
Carl
06-25-2012, 03:05 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 165
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
I'll agree with that. Like I said a month ago. One 777 in costing a year plus a bunch of no or low cost items to total probably 30 total items and we would have a much different view on this ta.
You propose ALPA getting the company to fork over 30 additional items and management getting nothing from ALPA in return.
You view that as an easy negotiation (i.e. you agree with CheckEssential).
You think this easy negotiation could be completed quickly and we easily vote in favor and move on.
Is that what you're saying?
06-25-2012, 03:16 AM
#48
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by hitimefurl
I'd like clarification please.
You propose ALPA getting the company to fork over 30 additional items and management getting nothing from ALPA in return.
You view that as an easy negotiation (i.e. you agree with CheckEssential).
You think this easy negotiation could be completed quickly and we easily vote in favor and move on.
Is that what you're saying?
You propose ALPA getting the company to fork over 30 additional items and management getting nothing from ALPA in return.
You view that as an easy negotiation (i.e. you agree with CheckEssential).
You think this easy negotiation could be completed quickly and we easily vote in favor and move on.
Is that what you're saying?
What I am saying is that the number of items that need to be fixed is minimal, and overall cost per year is not outrageous.
I also strongly suspect that fixing the TA; should it fail, is still cheaper than plan B. That said, a "hope" that it will be a quick fix is not the reason I voted the way I did.
06-25-2012, 03:16 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 273
Originally Posted by Delta1067
This from a coward himself who hides behind an anonymous screen spewing 7,500 tough guy posts. (edit content) Get a life Carl. 
And FWIW, I think it's funny that the most prolific and vitriolic poster on APC Forum (or as I like to call it DPA Propaganda, Inc.) is in lock step with the Council Chairman.
The same Council Chairman has been quoted in DPA publications.
The same Council is the home base of the DPA founder.
What exactly is the nexus between C20 reps and DPA?
06-25-2012, 03:30 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 165
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
What I am saying is that the number of items that need to be fixed is minimal, and overall cost per year is not outrageous.
What vote would they yield?
If the vote count was 49% in favor, are you just trying to get to 51%?
If the company has a "Plan B", how close does that plan come in value to "Plan A"?
Do your fixes make Plan A's requisite contractual relief so costly that it virtually eliminates the financial superiority of Plan A, thereby driving the company to Plan B, and negating the leverage the pilot group has?
Isn't that called "overplaying your hand"?
[Looks like you went back and changed your post while I was replying]
I'll say this, if your belief that a fix is easy is not reason for voting against the deal, what real world plan do you have? That's in a real world where there's two parties to a negotiation and we're not just typing on our keyboards.
What is the cost per year of your proposed fixes?
What vote would they yield?
If the vote count was 49% in favor, are you just trying to get to 51%?
If the company has a "Plan B", how close does that plan come in value to "Plan A"?
Do your fixes make Plan A's requisite contractual relief so costly that it virtually eliminates the financial superiority of Plan B?
[Looks like you went back and changed your post while I was replying]
I'll say this, if your belief that a fix is easy is not reason for voting against the deal, what real world plan do you have? That's in a real world where there's two parties to a negotiation and we're not just typing on our keyboards.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bintynogin
Major
60
07-14-2007 07:09 PM
