Carl Spackler

This has nothing to do with NDA information. This is about information they are willingly giving out. Moreover, it's about reps who are giving out their positions on what they will require before they can vote YES. In every case that I have seen either in writing or have been told in person, they are refusing to mention whether or not they require the TA to either hold the line on 76 seat jets or even reduce them. Radio silence on that topic. Instead, there is lock step unanimity in using the term "improving the balance of flying between DAL and DCI."

I don't know why you refuse to address that, and instead choose to talk about NDA's. Nobody is asking for anyone to violate them. And as you must know, giving your position on what it will take for you to vote YES is not in any way covered by an NDA.

Never said Tom lied. Tom and others are the ones stating what they will need to see in a TA before they can vote YES. They are choosing to NOT talk about more or less 76 seat jets. How you can blindly look the other way is astonishing.

Have no idea what you're talking about. I'm quite sure you don't either.

Carl

Carl Spackler

Amazing that you could say that, after you posted this garbage:

You really are the Bill Clinton of budding ALPA politicians. More importantly, you and Johnso29 are moderators. You're supposed to know better. I shouldn't be the one having to tell you two to take it to the other thread.

If there are any other real moderators out there, maybe we should move all of these posts from our two merry band of moderators to the other thread to pre-empt another DPA back and forth.

Carl

Carl Spackler

As is nearly always the case, you miss the point. It's almost as if your "My ALPA Right Or Wrong" (MAROW for short) attitude keeps you from any comprehension. The point is that 24J shouldn't be there. Our union personnel should not be paid by management for work they are doing on OUR behalf. Mangement pays us for work we do on THEIR behalf, and that's how it should be. This current situation of management paying for union work is wrong. Period. If you allowed your MAROW eyes to open, you'd see that.

Carl

hoserpilot

Carls right. Too much Krispy kream talk on the last few pages. Que the Homer Simpson pic....

hoserpilot

Management got bit by having too many 50 seaters. We all know that the contracts and leases are expensive and tough to get out of. Maybe their famous words are coming back to haunt them......

......"a contract is a contract." Doh!!!

More Bacon

Say what you want about Slick Willie, but the man got a lot of ass.

Carl Spackler

It's improper. Our union dues should pay for those activities...not management.

Again, you don't get it. Our pay should be increased by a commensurate amount of our dues increase so that OUR DUES pay for these union activities. It would be a dollar for dollar wash, except that all of those dollars would come from the members...not management.

IF there are transparency issues? Unbelievable. MAROW.

Carl

acl65pilot

Carl the other thread is about ten pages back, I responded to a few posts and frankly nothing precludes the debate here, we just do not want to have the entire thread about it.

As for Mod's we are and that does not preclude us from the debate.

If you want to debate DPA I will do it over there but I am not going to fish for all dead thread. I prefer we keep it there. Bus's retort which I replied to was after your comment. Honestly I did not know that stuff was on that site since I do not read it.

More Bacon

True. I thought the "lack of transparency" concern was accepted as legitimate by all rational players.

BTW, what's the latest on the FPL accountability thing? I realize negotiations are ongoing, but I hope DALPA knows they are not off the hook by any means regarding the p!ssing away of our money.

Carl Spackler

Love it! You knock down your own straw man of NDA's, and I'm myopic. Hilarious.

You actually build strawmen for a living...don't you.

Take it to the other thread.

Carl