In a previous post you finally admitted to you guys taking concessions. yet read through the posts and you were such on your high horse that you didn't. Why the reversal all of a sudden? Just because the guys at RAH said something about getting what you were promised, but never see? As far as being separated, I have my popcorn waiting to see how this plays out. Will the top guys go with the planes or will the F9 guys go with the planes? With a no bump and flush, looks like the F9 guys will be looking for planes to fly.... Not that I am hoping for that, as I hate to see any guys on the street, but how would that play out?

Can't believe I've been sucked back in. Maybe just once a week for me this time.

It's been asked probably 100's of times on these forums, but have any of you actually read LOA 67? It's just over 2 pages in length so shouldn't take much effort. Ask the IBT for a copy. They must have one somewhere since they are suing us over it.

Or

Read these excellent Cliffs Notes so accurately documented by Zooropa:

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/1075519-post44.html

Read it. He provides a no BS summary of everything you would find in LOA 67 if you had read it.

con·ces·sion

Something done or agreed to usually grudgingly in order to reach an agreement or improve a situation

By that definition I would say that, yes, we took concessions. But don't confuse concessions with "pay cuts". As for pay rates, LOA 67 does nothing more than defer to a later date raises worth 3.2% and 1.04% to me..

Yea keep trying to justify the shady back door end around that is LOA 67. The only ones convinced it was anything but an illegal "up yours" to the IBT and RAH pilots are F9'ers......and BB.

"Illegal" - an opinion
"Up Yours" - absolute fact!

Dude, you are such a loser. We ratified and signed LOA 67 on June 24, 2011. That's when we took "concessions" although "concessions" infer that it was solely a "give", we got things in return.

They were - F' it if you can't find it on your own, I'm not going to put a feed bag on you as you apparently need. (It'll make sense in a moment, try to keep reading, focus on comprehension).

5 months ago we signed a LOA that modified, slightly, our pay and some of our benefits. We got "things" in return. Shortly thereafter IBT National sued RAH for signing LOA 67, I think they're nuts, but that's NOT the point.

Do you read anything that goes on here? Do you and ATC share a split personality, where one checks out for awhile and the other wakes up 6 months later and thinks they've only been asleep for a night?

And it's not just on APC, there ARE other sources of information in the aviation world. Do you actually talk WITH people? There's a difference between talking TO people and talking WITH people, mostly it entails LISTENING.

So, what was your question?

Is it that "In a previous post you finally admitted to you guys taking concessions. yet read through the posts and you were such on your high horse that you didn't."

Disregarding your grammar, punctuation and capitalization, (did someone gift you with a high school diploma?) your question is still very difficult to understand.

If your question is, "Did I previously deny that we took "concessions" and have subsequently changed my position?", you're just not paying attention.

I grew up with 70 horses. Some were short, some were tall, (we didn't call them "high" or "low"), some were like pets, some were mean, all of them had good days and bad days. Some responded to love, some responded to force, I think it had to do with their upbringing. It didn't take me very long to recognize the aft end of a horse and to identify what came out of that end. That's also the "kicking end." Strangely enough, you remind me of the lesson regarding the aft end that I learned at age 5.

We didn't use feed bags, just hay, grass and oats. However, I can't shake the picture of you (or if you flip back to being ATC) putting on a feed bag of popcorn and looking like two horses watching a tennis match, with an equal amount of understanding.

Why do you come on this board? Is it just to sow angst, suspicion, strife, divisiveness and berate everyone? Is there ANYTHING you've posted in your life that has been happy, with metaphorical unicorns, butterflies and rainbows?

Or would you categorize your posts as being the equivalent of an overly fed horse with gas that backs into the stall (APC in this case) and just lets it fly, I can tell you it's not a nice pile, it's an explosion.

Face it Dude, you bring NOTHING positive to ANY conversation, how many wives or committed Domestic Partners have you been through, we can add that number to ATC's number.

I'm embarrassed that it only take a couple of morons to bring me out of my peaceful, trying to get along place, to ripping into the equivalent of the aft end of a horse.

Worse, I like most horses more than most pilots, the worst horse I've ever met was FAR better than the worst pilot I've ever met, I've been able to reason with EVERY horse I've ever met.

I'm going to go do an hour of Shavasana, when it's over, hopefully you'll be gone, the world will a happy place and be back to being only occasionally stressful.

Why do we waste our time with the 2% clowns like MOOONKEY and QXLOOPER? We will be separated soon enough. Is it not what you RAHers wanted? Blame Frontier for this and Frontier for that. You will get your wish soon enough and we can quit with the constant whining. You on your own and F9 on our own.
I would be concentrating on your strike and worrying about a contract that pays decent wages.

Yea keep trying to justify the shady back door end around that is LOA 67. The only ones convinced it was anything but an illegal "up yours" to the IBT and RAH pilots are F9'ers......and BB.[/QUOTE]

"Illegal" - an opinion...of EVERYONE but the F9'ers
"Up Yours" - absolute fact! You stay classy ;)[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you can post IBT's argument as to why they think it's illegal? The sum total of the LOA is that we agree to deferred pay in return for an investment in the company and some changes to the structure of Frontier. There's nothing illegal in that. It's happened before at other airlines and nary a word was said.

Yes, I do think. Maybe, you've figured out that I won't support any level of RAH involvement in F9, unless we divest 100%. Any level of ownership >0%, is too much not to have an integrated seniority list.

For the next contract I'll push for scope tied to revenue, and .00000001% ownership, any management sharing, or liability will qualify for an integrated seniority list.

And we all know that RAHers will have a new CBA about 5 years after BBs new brat starts grad school.

All of those people seem to regret it too. Why would you want to take paycuts for an airline that hasn't pulled a profit in years when you could keep full pay?