Eagle TA independent view.
03-26-2014, 10:06 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Position: Airbus button pusher
Posts: 2,447
Originally Posted by bedrock
03-26-2014, 10:39 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Furloughed
Posts: 625
Originally Posted by AllisonRR
No I'm not management or have any desire to be I like to fly and this is why I bother to post. I don't believe the NO is the smart choice.
For the record that article is biased and I only posted it because it looks very similar to what we get from Dallas and New York LEC's.
I have always said that the TA has risks and rewards and it is only my opinion that the risks do not outweigh the rewards.
I respect the pilots that vote on principle. And I would like the same respect as I don't share their opinions.
VOTE SMART
For the record that article is biased and I only posted it because it looks very similar to what we get from Dallas and New York LEC's.
I have always said that the TA has risks and rewards and it is only my opinion that the risks do not outweigh the rewards.
I respect the pilots that vote on principle. And I would like the same respect as I don't share their opinions.
VOTE SMART
03-26-2014, 10:42 AM
#23
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 787
I remember very recently on this website many of you saying to analyze the content of a message and not the author.
Now those very same people are on here attacking the author without giving any thought to the message.
Your personal feelings towards the author doesn't diminish the validity of the facts she puts forward. You don't have to agree or disagree but it is no different than the NO letters written by Rich, Gavin, and the daily emails we now get from Val.
Both sides of the debate have a right to express their views as long as they are not attacking people personally...which seems to be very difficult for the NO side to do.
Now those very same people are on here attacking the author without giving any thought to the message.
Your personal feelings towards the author doesn't diminish the validity of the facts she puts forward. You don't have to agree or disagree but it is no different than the NO letters written by Rich, Gavin, and the daily emails we now get from Val.
Both sides of the debate have a right to express their views as long as they are not attacking people personally...which seems to be very difficult for the NO side to do.
03-26-2014, 11:04 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Position: Right Seat Spouse
Posts: 452
Originally Posted by bedrock
03-26-2014, 01:05 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Hot tub for now
Posts: 1,203
Originally Posted by Skyvector
I remember very recently on this website many of you saying to analyze the content of a message and not the author.
Now those very same people are on here attacking the author without giving any thought to the message.
Your personal feelings towards the author doesn't diminish the validity of the facts she puts forward. You don't have to agree or disagree but it is no different than the NO letters written by Rich, Gavin, and the daily emails we now get from Val.
Both sides of the debate have a right to express their views as long as they are not attacking people personally...which seems to be very difficult for the NO side to do.
Now those very same people are on here attacking the author without giving any thought to the message.
Your personal feelings towards the author doesn't diminish the validity of the facts she puts forward. You don't have to agree or disagree but it is no different than the NO letters written by Rich, Gavin, and the daily emails we now get from Val.
Both sides of the debate have a right to express their views as long as they are not attacking people personally...which seems to be very difficult for the NO side to do.
She is incorrect in her statements and she omited writing the cons of the agreement.
03-26-2014, 01:46 PM
#28
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 787
Originally Posted by seafeye
If she is a journalist she should check her facts and not be biased.
She is incorrect in her statements and she omited writing the cons of the agreement.
She is incorrect in her statements and she omited writing the cons of the agreement.
I agree that it didn't mention any potential downside...but none of the letters we get from Val, Rich, or any of the NO letters ever acknowledge any of the TA's positives.
03-26-2014, 02:48 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 548
IMHO - As a former AE guy, the vote will not even be close to 95% no and it may even pass by a significant majority. In my history, you can't find anyone who voted yes in a TA that passes by 80%.
I am not pushing either way, just saying. Good Luck either way.
I am not pushing either way, just saying. Good Luck either way.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bernoulli1129
Flight Schools and Training
28
01-17-2017 02:48 PM
