That’s amazing, how do our rules allow a non-based pilot to act in another base’s union rep capacity? How is he “representing” the Denver FOs when he isn’t a Denver FO?

 

Which is precisely why it was written………political cred for a run at a better seat at the table in the future. Low risk/high reward shot across the bow.

 

ding ding ding

 

He's a special kind of carpetbagger. One term and out; his screed will not garner a majority of support anywhere.
This will come up if he decides to run again.

I would consider this to be the opposite of low risk/high reward.

 

Andy, I think your prediction won't come to fruition. Most negative comments are coming from folks that are outside of the council. Most of whom have never been in C33 or to a C33 meeting. Mario did a great job with helping remove two of the biggest proponents of the TUMI TA. And has not deviated from council direction since becoming VC.

I know emotions are high and many want to get the TA done and view Mario as a roadblock to that. And that many disapprove of his letter. A majority of comments regarding him have been on the personal level, which comes with the position, instead of disputing what he wrote. Some have disagreed with the timing and that's fair. But he's doing his job. I can tell you with confidence that he isn't out for "street cred."

There have been a lot of posts that certain reps will vote no over and over again. We need that in order to keep things in check. To point out what folks may miss. Regarding this TA, I don't think anyone can genuinely say that Kirby did not slipped a handful of mickeys in our drink (TA). This part of the the process is to not only champion the good parts, but to recognize the bad. If the TA can withstand that, then the majority of pilots will decide that it is acceptable. I am sure that that will end up being the case.

 

But, it makes you wonder about all his "thoughts" when he totally misrepresents certain facts. Namely, the vacation comparison to Delta. If you have to obfuscate the facts to "prove" your point, maybe you should be viewed with a jaundiced eye

 

passed 18-5… Mario a NO

 

Tony, thanks for your comment/point of view at the six foot level.

I'm not going to rebut this letter point by point; that's already been done for the most part.

I'll say that this is a very good TA. Not perfect, but perfect is the enemy of good. And perfect was never going to happen.

I don't see any mickeys in the TA; I saw a lot of those in the Tumi. The CA assignment for NHs has been beaten to death. I'll just make a couple of comments on that. When you and I were hired, we hired to be Captains. I distinctly remember being told that we were hired to be Captains, not simply pilots. Further, if you or I stroke out on a flight and are incapacitated, I'd like to think that every pilot at UAL could take over and command the plane to a safe landing. That includes a brand new FO fresh off of OE and on high minimums.

I will say that the timing of this letter was EXTREMELY inappropriate. This should have been in the Con POV for the TA. And frankly, several of the items in the letter won't be there because they're not fully accurate.

I hope all is well with you.

 

Andy....I agree completely. The timing was suspect.

"Rabble rousing" on Mario's part comes to mind.

Sorrry, not in the inner circle with the decoder ring to decipher the screen names from the real CV's and real names

 

I agree. From the last LEC meeting I went to I got the feeling it was all posturing. I have doubts about it working out for him.