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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

He absolutely did NOT tell the truth in his letter.
THAT'S A FACT!

 

This is so telling of that special rocking chair mindset. This guy prizes things that are not "divisive" over what is TRUE or not. Incredible.

Carl

 

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?

 

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.

 

Agree. BTW how can anyone who was not there claim to know absolutely what happened?

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?

 

What is the cost per year of your proposed fixes (over 30 items you said)?
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.