Delta MEC Maneuvering, aka coup
11-05-2013 | 04:34 PM
#71
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Likes: 0
Sink,
It is one thing to support your candidate. It is quite another to disparage a sitting Rep.
Also, their facts are not quite right. Obviously the Chairman had the majority, when elected. The roll call vote which removed the Chairman was no where near as close in the balance as the letter purports. In the roll call vote the Rep split his vote along the lines of the feedback he received from pilots he was trying to represent. (not that it mattered, CVG is tiny anymore)
The Rep's decision (splitting his vote) was a little unusual, but his logic was reasonable.
Now that the writers of that letter have "gone negative" loudly and proudly they should be able to take it just as well as they dish it out. I kept my powder dry because I figured it does absolutely no good to shoot within the circle ... .
It is one thing to support your candidate. It is quite another to disparage a sitting Rep.
Also, their facts are not quite right. Obviously the Chairman had the majority, when elected. The roll call vote which removed the Chairman was no where near as close in the balance as the letter purports. In the roll call vote the Rep split his vote along the lines of the feedback he received from pilots he was trying to represent. (not that it mattered, CVG is tiny anymore)
The Rep's decision (splitting his vote) was a little unusual, but his logic was reasonable.
Now that the writers of that letter have "gone negative" loudly and proudly they should be able to take it just as well as they dish it out. I kept my powder dry because I figured it does absolutely no good to shoot within the circle ... .
11-05-2013 | 04:37 PM
#73
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Carl
11-05-2013 | 05:04 PM
#74
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
11-05-2013 | 05:21 PM
#75
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Carl
11-05-2013 | 05:55 PM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
From: 7ERA
From my conversations with David, he and Ryan disagreed, and respect each others votes, because they are their votes based on their past experiences, concerns and references. Each probably was wighted differently, and they came to different conclusions. Happens all of the time.One saw the political angle and one decided to look at the functional issues and not the politics. It even sounded like he considers Ryan a real friend. Amazing grown men disagree on something but can still respect each other and remain friends, accept the outcome and desire to continue the work they were elected to do. Novel concept.
11-05-2013 | 06:12 PM
#77
Straight QOL, homie
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,202
Likes: 1
From: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
This whole SNAFU is unseemly, dysfunctional, and highly embarrassing to the pilot group.
Sure would be nice to have a non-public forum to debate these issues.
Oh, ron ricco and rogue 24 showed up. Must be their day for FPL.
Sure would be nice to have a non-public forum to debate these issues.
Oh, ron ricco and rogue 24 showed up. Must be their day for FPL.
11-05-2013 | 07:35 PM
#78
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Sink,
It is one thing to support your candidate. It is quite another to disparage a sitting Rep.
Also, their facts are not quite right. Obviously the Chairman had the majority, when elected. The roll call vote which removed the Chairman was no where near as close in the balance as the letter purports. In the roll call vote the Rep split his vote along the lines of the feedback he received from pilots he was trying to represent. (not that it mattered, CVG is tiny anymore)
The Rep's decision (splitting his vote) was a little unusual, but his logic was reasonable.
Now that the writers of that letter have "gone negative" loudly and proudly they should be able to take it just as well as they dish it out. I kept my powder dry because I figured it does absolutely no good to shoot within the circle ... .
It is one thing to support your candidate. It is quite another to disparage a sitting Rep.
Also, their facts are not quite right. Obviously the Chairman had the majority, when elected. The roll call vote which removed the Chairman was no where near as close in the balance as the letter purports. In the roll call vote the Rep split his vote along the lines of the feedback he received from pilots he was trying to represent. (not that it mattered, CVG is tiny anymore)
The Rep's decision (splitting his vote) was a little unusual, but his logic was reasonable.
Now that the writers of that letter have "gone negative" loudly and proudly they should be able to take it just as well as they dish it out. I kept my powder dry because I figured it does absolutely no good to shoot within the circle ... .
The irony after reading that is am I really supposed to believe the 'majority' truly wanted to work with the now deposed MEC Chairman from the start? Did they really try to work with him for 10 months or did it take 10 months to get him fired?
What was the vote for Roberts to win the election, 11-8? So the majority was at 42% when Kingsley was elected? And the majority (now at 52.6%) put him out on a 10-9 vote?
11-05-2013 | 07:39 PM
#79
At home on the maddog!
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,874
Likes: 0
From: Retired (mandatory age 65)
I guess that's it, the bold part is as you said earlier, ugly. The vitriol is sharp, and it makes you wonder about the interactions behind the scenes.
The irony is, am I really supposed to believe the 'majority' truly wanted to work with the now deposed MEC Chairman from the start? Did they really try to work with him for 10 months or did it take 10 months to get him fired?
Because when you look at how that letter is written towards the MEC Chair and the anger towards the CVG FO rep, it makes you wonder how functional the CVG LEC is right now?
The irony is, am I really supposed to believe the 'majority' truly wanted to work with the now deposed MEC Chairman from the start? Did they really try to work with him for 10 months or did it take 10 months to get him fired?
Because when you look at how that letter is written towards the MEC Chair and the anger towards the CVG FO rep, it makes you wonder how functional the CVG LEC is right now?
11-05-2013 | 08:56 PM
#80
Thread Starter
On Reserve
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
As for the "coup," current and former members of the MEC have also called it just that. This letter removed all doubt for me.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
