Spirit of NKS
09-18-2014 | 08:03 PM
#8181
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,887
Likes: 0
From: Guppy Capt.
Speaking of food, if you have a chance, White House sandwich place.....
09-19-2014 | 04:59 AM
#8183
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
From: Switch, Lever & Light Specialist
What are you saying? That a large LEC should concede it's responsibility to its members just because the smaller LEC refuses to make any concessions on their part? If say, SPA77 has 70 members and SPA109 has 300 members(as was the case when 77 was started), do you believe that the 77 reps have equal say to the 109 reps if the 77 reps don't agree with 109? If that were the case, each 77 member has approx three times the vote of each 109 member.
We certainly agree that roll call voting in a MEC isn't the best way to accomplish the pilots business, but you seem to be bestowing an amount of respect and honor on the reps from the smaller Council just because they come from the smaller. IOW, you're assuming the the larger Council, or larger block of votes, is automatically wrong just because they are larger.
Roll call should be avoided, just as obstruction should be avoided. If we are going to condemn one practice, we should condemn both practices.
You don't have to come up with a conspiracy theory when you are explaining a known event. The SPA 109 reps attempted to install at least one member on the NC of their choosing and their choice was rejected. Under the system you would seem to espouse, that those holding the voting majority should not use that majority to force their will, the 109 Reps should have gotten their guy on the committee. It wasn't a conspiracy, it was politics.
We certainly agree that roll call voting in a MEC isn't the best way to accomplish the pilots business, but you seem to be bestowing an amount of respect and honor on the reps from the smaller Council just because they come from the smaller. IOW, you're assuming the the larger Council, or larger block of votes, is automatically wrong just because they are larger.
Roll call should be avoided, just as obstruction should be avoided. If we are going to condemn one practice, we should condemn both practices.
You don't have to come up with a conspiracy theory when you are explaining a known event. The SPA 109 reps attempted to install at least one member on the NC of their choosing and their choice was rejected. Under the system you would seem to espouse, that those holding the voting majority should not use that majority to force their will, the 109 Reps should have gotten their guy on the committee. It wasn't a conspiracy, it was politics.
Are you being intentionally obtuse? I clearly said roll call was legit. However, it should be avoided if at all possible. Also no, the larger council isn't wrong.....but they may not be right either. I agree being obstructionist is no way to run the MEC; and if the only way to accomplish business is through roll call, then the MEC is broken.
As for the NC: just because your council wants a particular person on the negotiating committee, doesn't automatically make that person a good choice. Not saying they weren't a good choice; but you assert this person should automatically be part of the NC just because a particular council wants it. That's not the way it works.
09-19-2014 | 06:09 AM
#8184
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 758
Likes: 1
Are you being intentionally obtuse? I clearly said roll call was legit. However, it should be avoided if at all possible. Also no, the larger council isn't wrong.....but they may not be right either. I agree being obstructionist is no way to run the MEC; and if the only way to accomplish business is through roll call, then the MEC is broken.
As for the NC: just because your council wants a particular person on the negotiating committee, doesn't automatically make that person a good choice. Not saying they weren't a good choice; but you assert this person should automatically be part of the NC just because a particular council wants it. That's not the way it works.
As for the NC: just because your council wants a particular person on the negotiating committee, doesn't automatically make that person a good choice. Not saying they weren't a good choice; but you assert this person should automatically be part of the NC just because a particular council wants it. That's not the way it works.
Yes, we both acknowledged that roll call is legit.
I point out a flaw in your logic and you go personal.
Are you in a position to judge whether the NC choice of two duly elected pilot representatives is not a good choice?
Welcome to election season folks!
09-19-2014 | 07:47 AM
#8185
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
From: Switch, Lever & Light Specialist
Intentionally obtuse? To be intentionally obtuse would require the intelligence to be intentional. Either you dont know the meaning of obtuse or your being intentionally insulting.
Yes, we both acknowledged that roll call is legit.
I point out a flaw in your logic and you go personal.
Are you in a position to judge whether the NC choice of two duly elected pilot representatives is not a good choice?
Welcome to election season folks!
Yes, we both acknowledged that roll call is legit.
I point out a flaw in your logic and you go personal.
Are you in a position to judge whether the NC choice of two duly elected pilot representatives is not a good choice?
Welcome to election season folks!
Flaw in my logic??? Ok, whatever you say. You're entitled to your opinion, regardless if we agree...as am I.
No, I'm not in a position to judge whether the NC has the proper members. Are you? Let's not forget, I'm not the one complaining about the NC representation and the conspiracies within.
09-19-2014 | 08:16 AM
#8186
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,577
Likes: 0
You just cant let that go huh?
The Capt rep was displaced, the FO rep bid out for an upgrade. "Council bypass" was not in the SPA MEC Policy manual and the FLL reps at that time had no intention of handing a gun to their potential murderer. The two DTW reps made their desire to oppose anything the FLL reps did very public. The DTW reps were the agressors in a civil war. Im not excusing what the FLL reps did in denying a "council bypass", but when the DTW FO rep sent out numerous emails and other communications accusing the FLL reps of everything from DFR issues to personal attacks on the other guys sexual practices, the stage was set for a decidedly intense battle. FLL just wasnt going to do any favors for the the two DTW reps until the DTW reps retracted their letter of accusations against tbe FLL reps. The retraction never came, even when our Contract Administrator informed the DTW FO rep that most of the accusations were incorrect (he only spoke to issues he had information on). That Contract Admin, and our EVP both attended an MEC meeting in an attempt to put both sides together, but it didnt work. The DTW FO rep stuck to his claims regardless. That wasnt Spirit ALPA's finest hour, one LEC recalling a rep solely because he voted too often with the other council, etc.
Then, as now, it all started over who had political control. DTW tolerated FLL as long as DTW held roll call. After FLL outgrew DTW, the BS started. Recalls, accustions, coup attempts on the Negotiaton Committee, etc.
I would hope that we all learned a lesson back then, but apparently not
The Capt rep was displaced, the FO rep bid out for an upgrade. "Council bypass" was not in the SPA MEC Policy manual and the FLL reps at that time had no intention of handing a gun to their potential murderer. The two DTW reps made their desire to oppose anything the FLL reps did very public. The DTW reps were the agressors in a civil war. Im not excusing what the FLL reps did in denying a "council bypass", but when the DTW FO rep sent out numerous emails and other communications accusing the FLL reps of everything from DFR issues to personal attacks on the other guys sexual practices, the stage was set for a decidedly intense battle. FLL just wasnt going to do any favors for the the two DTW reps until the DTW reps retracted their letter of accusations against tbe FLL reps. The retraction never came, even when our Contract Administrator informed the DTW FO rep that most of the accusations were incorrect (he only spoke to issues he had information on). That Contract Admin, and our EVP both attended an MEC meeting in an attempt to put both sides together, but it didnt work. The DTW FO rep stuck to his claims regardless. That wasnt Spirit ALPA's finest hour, one LEC recalling a rep solely because he voted too often with the other council, etc.
Then, as now, it all started over who had political control. DTW tolerated FLL as long as DTW held roll call. After FLL outgrew DTW, the BS started. Recalls, accustions, coup attempts on the Negotiaton Committee, etc.
I would hope that we all learned a lesson back then, but apparently not
09-19-2014 | 09:41 AM
#8187
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 758
Likes: 1
You made the statement "SPA ALPA is hiding behind procedure". I simply pointed out that this is not the first time this has happened. I remember the MEC Chair hiding behind an 8 1/2 X 11 piece of paper stating indignantly that by-pass just isn't in the manual (not mentioning that it could have been in the manual with the stroke of a pen-had the FLL reps voted to put it there). Neither is acceptable conduct, but please don't come on here and act like your hands are clean. Better than half our pilots weren't here for this so they don't know, but that doesn't mean you get to rewrite history.
The MEC Chair was "indignantly" holding a 8 and half by 11 piece of paper because a couple of members were demanding that "council bypass" be given. You must have been there, how would you have handled a situation where a member demanded that something be done not in accordance with the ALPA C&BL's?
In the case of the 18 reps who lost their position in 2007, there was NO Constitutional provision to leave them in Council 18. "Council Bypass" was not an Constitutional provision, it had to be in the MEC Policy Manual and it wasn't. No attempt was made to amend the MEC Policy Manual to include "Council bypass", the two - soon to be out of their position - Reps went straight to ALPA National (Bill Couette) and requested that he grant them a bypass. He did not do so. Had it have been a Constitutional issue, I have to assume that Bill Couette, the ALPA VP, would have required the SPA MEC to comply. Again, Couette did not. I've already detailed the reason that the 18 Reps refused to do business with the 109 Reps who in turn refused to do business with the 18 reps in a vicious circle started when 18 attempted to recall it's own FO Rep for the specific reason that "he votes too often with FLL". *
In the current case, that of DFW based pilots being effectively locked out of voting for their interim Captain Rep, there appears to be a Constitutional basis for the request that the DFW pilots made to their Council Chairman. That simply being that the meeting be split and they have a DFW location provided for voting. The ALPA C&BL's, Article III, Section 3.B. does in fact provide for divided sessions, where applicable, due to the size of the Council or the availability of the membership.
Sorry to differ with you, but one hand (yours regarding the 18 "Council Bypass" issue) we have a group asking for something that was NOT IN the Constitution and on the other hand (the current request to provide DFW pilots a DFW meeting/voting location) we have a group asking for something that IS IN the Constitution. To be fair to the 77 Council Chairman, he tells me that ALPA National (whomever that may be) tells him that we can not divide this meeting. So be it. But that doesn't change the plain language of Article III. Section 3.B., which leaves us with the appearance that there is something odd going on. If anyone is interested, the 77 Council Chair has denied our request, but hasn't been able to cite a Constitutional basis for the denial. He only states that "ALPA National said NO".
Ram, after reading a lot of your stuff over the last five or so years, I have to assume that you're another person (that's probably my friend at the hotel bar, but) who is holding a personal grudge against the 109 Captain Rep from from 2005 - 2008. Sorry about that man, but my momma told me that two wrongs don't equal one right . Even if mistakes were made in 2007 and I'm sure they must have been, that doesn't excuse mistakes being made in the present.
*Cruise wants us to think that MEC's which can't get along well enough to do business without using roll call are somehow less than functional. In the case of 2006 DTW Council 18, the members attempted to recall their own FO Rep for doing exactly what Cruise says is the way to do business. The 18 FO Rep (R M), for whatever reason, agreed with the two 109 Reps (for that matter so did the 18 Capt Rep on almost all issues) on the way to conduct the pilots business. As such, he was avoiding roll call and it got him recalled. Be careful when you spin things. I am.
09-19-2014 | 10:54 AM
#8188
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,577
Likes: 0
There is a difference between following the C&BL's, and hiding behind procedure.
The MEC Chair was "indignantly" holding a 8 and half by 11 piece of paper because a couple of members were demanding that "council bypass" be given. You must have been there, how would you have handled a situation where a member demanded that something be done not in accordance with the ALPA C&BL's?
In the case of the 18 reps who lost their position in 2007, there was NO Constitutional provision to leave them in Council 18. "Council Bypass" was not an Constitutional provision, it had to be in the MEC Policy Manual and it wasn't. No attempt was made to amend the MEC Policy Manual to include "Council bypass", the two - soon to be out of their position - Reps went straight to ALPA National (Bill Couette) and requested that he grant them a bypass. He did not do so. Had it have been a Constitutional issue, I have to assume that Bill Couette, the ALPA VP, would have required the SPA MEC to comply. Again, Couette did not. I've already detailed the reason that the 18 Reps refused to do business with the 109 Reps who in turn refused to do business with the 18 reps in a vicious circle started when 18 attempted to recall it's own FO Rep for the specific reason that "he votes too often with FLL". *
In the current case, that of DFW based pilots being effectively locked out of voting for their interim Captain Rep, there appears to be a Constitutional basis for the request that the DFW pilots made to their Council Chairman. That simply being that the meeting be split and they have a DFW location provided for voting. The ALPA C&BL's, Article III, Section 3.B. does in fact provide for divided sessions, where applicable, due to the size of the Council or the availability of the membership.
Sorry to differ with you, but one hand (yours regarding the 18 "Council Bypass" issue) we have a group asking for something that was NOT IN the Constitution and on the other hand (the current request to provide DFW pilots a DFW meeting/voting location) we have a group asking for something that IS IN the Constitution. To be fair to the 77 Council Chairman, he tells me that ALPA National (whomever that may be) tells him that we can not divide this meeting. So be it. But that doesn't change the plain language of Article III. Section 3.B., which leaves us with the appearance that there is something odd going on. If anyone is interested, the 77 Council Chair has denied our request, but hasn't been able to cite a Constitutional basis for the denial. He only states that "ALPA National said NO".
Ram, after reading a lot of your stuff over the last five or so years, I have to assume that you're another person (that's probably my friend at the hotel bar, but) who is holding a personal grudge against the 109 Captain Rep from from 2005 - 2008. Sorry about that man, but my momma told me that two wrongs don't equal one right . Even if mistakes were made in 2007 and I'm sure they must have been, that doesn't excuse mistakes being made in the present.
*Cruise wants us to think that MEC's which can't get along well enough to do business without using roll call are somehow less than functional. In the case of 2006 DTW Council 18, the members attempted to recall their own FO Rep for doing exactly what Cruise says is the way to do business. The 18 FO Rep (R M), for whatever reason, agreed with the two 109 Reps (for that matter so did the 18 Capt Rep on almost all issues) on the way to conduct the pilots business. As such, he was avoiding roll call and it got him recalled. Be careful when you spin things. I am.
The MEC Chair was "indignantly" holding a 8 and half by 11 piece of paper because a couple of members were demanding that "council bypass" be given. You must have been there, how would you have handled a situation where a member demanded that something be done not in accordance with the ALPA C&BL's?
In the case of the 18 reps who lost their position in 2007, there was NO Constitutional provision to leave them in Council 18. "Council Bypass" was not an Constitutional provision, it had to be in the MEC Policy Manual and it wasn't. No attempt was made to amend the MEC Policy Manual to include "Council bypass", the two - soon to be out of their position - Reps went straight to ALPA National (Bill Couette) and requested that he grant them a bypass. He did not do so. Had it have been a Constitutional issue, I have to assume that Bill Couette, the ALPA VP, would have required the SPA MEC to comply. Again, Couette did not. I've already detailed the reason that the 18 Reps refused to do business with the 109 Reps who in turn refused to do business with the 18 reps in a vicious circle started when 18 attempted to recall it's own FO Rep for the specific reason that "he votes too often with FLL". *
In the current case, that of DFW based pilots being effectively locked out of voting for their interim Captain Rep, there appears to be a Constitutional basis for the request that the DFW pilots made to their Council Chairman. That simply being that the meeting be split and they have a DFW location provided for voting. The ALPA C&BL's, Article III, Section 3.B. does in fact provide for divided sessions, where applicable, due to the size of the Council or the availability of the membership.
Sorry to differ with you, but one hand (yours regarding the 18 "Council Bypass" issue) we have a group asking for something that was NOT IN the Constitution and on the other hand (the current request to provide DFW pilots a DFW meeting/voting location) we have a group asking for something that IS IN the Constitution. To be fair to the 77 Council Chairman, he tells me that ALPA National (whomever that may be) tells him that we can not divide this meeting. So be it. But that doesn't change the plain language of Article III. Section 3.B., which leaves us with the appearance that there is something odd going on. If anyone is interested, the 77 Council Chair has denied our request, but hasn't been able to cite a Constitutional basis for the denial. He only states that "ALPA National said NO".
Ram, after reading a lot of your stuff over the last five or so years, I have to assume that you're another person (that's probably my friend at the hotel bar, but) who is holding a personal grudge against the 109 Captain Rep from from 2005 - 2008. Sorry about that man, but my momma told me that two wrongs don't equal one right . Even if mistakes were made in 2007 and I'm sure they must have been, that doesn't excuse mistakes being made in the present.
*Cruise wants us to think that MEC's which can't get along well enough to do business without using roll call are somehow less than functional. In the case of 2006 DTW Council 18, the members attempted to recall their own FO Rep for doing exactly what Cruise says is the way to do business. The 18 FO Rep (R M), for whatever reason, agreed with the two 109 Reps (for that matter so did the 18 Capt Rep on almost all issues) on the way to conduct the pilots business. As such, he was avoiding roll call and it got him recalled. Be careful when you spin things. I am.
Thank you for reading this quick reply, now back to the Skybolt channel.
09-19-2014 | 11:05 AM
#8189
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,603
Likes: 0
Worst thread ever!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
