Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Hey rube, nobody's buying this. It's the same case that Sink r8, slowplay, sailingfun, shiznit, etc. is making, and it's not flying. You can't make the case that reps communicating with those they represent is costing us all money. It just makes you guys look even more foolish...if that's even possible.

This is saving us money and is the best possible thing that could be happening.

Carl

Originally Posted by gloopy

I'll lose the 0.5% if we can also lose the concessions.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

The shiny new used jet I fly was coming anyway but we were told that in order to get the inevitable 717 we had to give DCI more profitable jets to prevent their inevitable withering on the vine. How much of that reduction in their costs is related to having larger more fuel efficient and better casm RJs? Why in the world did we allow that and why should we ever allow that again because, as you argue, it's killing are argument for ending outsourcing.

Btw If fuel prices are down then they're also cheaper now to run here as well even with our higher rates, no? Also, our rates might be up but we are also more productive, no? Ed said so.

So maybe we should crunch those numbers again? When were those numbers crunched? And how much value was assigned to having it under one big roof for QC and performance reasons?

Now maybe is just me but sometimes I just get the feeling some people really like having those... what was the term used... flaps? ****ing little airplanes or something? Anyways, having those jets here. Some people just to be adamentally against it or scope recapture. Makes no sense to me.

Speaking of my spreadsheets, it only calculated the MBH : DBH ratio and capacity changes.

Right now I show 1.66 is the ratio, out of curiosity, what do you show with the real numbers?

Originally Posted by Purple Drank

"Full-blown sales-job?" No. It's a spontaneous grassroots push from the bottom up to make sure we don't get blindsided by a crap deal.

Originally Posted by rube

"Reps communicating with those they represent" should not include closed session material, table positions, or the kind of stuff that gets you in trouble with the SEC. Surely you get that.

Originally Posted by rube

The personal attack (I'm foolish) and guilt-by-association (clearly I'm with so-and-so) just proves you can't win on the terms. Looking at the vast number of posts you have made here, I think you are fine at keeping people honest, but sometimes challenged at staying on topic.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Nothing theoretical about it Sink r8. What you and Prodessor, and slowplay and Sailingfun and rube, etc are so concerned about is that decision might be made without your side completely controlling the message.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

...you sing the same hymn that Sink r8, Professor, slowplay, sailingfun, shiznit, etc. are all singing.

Originally Posted by Sink r8

It has all the spontaneity of a mass, with all the attendant sacrements and liturgies. A fine choir to sing hymns in perfect unison. When Father Carl dispenses divine orthodoxy from the pulpit, his favorite altar boys simulpost the precious words, for they have come down to us from the Councils Most Electable, and rain down invectives on the undecided reps, not to fall victim to the heathens from the church across the street.

Originally Posted by Sink r8

No, I have no doubt that there are plenty of people who are very concerned about a poor deal. I wasn't commenting on that.

Originally Posted by Sink r8

I was commenting on the people who try to co-opt those legitimate sentiments for a political purpose, at a loss for all but themselves.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Here's what you and your team don't understand: The reps control this process. The unelected MEC admins can squeal all they want, but they work at the behest of the reps. If the reps decide something in closed session needs to be communicated to those they represent, they get to decide. They're the bosses. Surely you get that?

Originally Posted by Sink r8

My point exactly. Thanks for illustrating the way in which some posters line up here: sides. Not ideas, sides. I couldn't think of anyone better suited to demonstrate this antiquated, monochromatic, fratricide stuff, so thank you.

Originally Posted by Sink r8

The past has been a long series of... that crap, with two identifiable groups slugging it out, and the rest of us along for the ride. The JCBA, the SLI, the Compass vote, C2012, the DPA, the recall, the 117 TA, this, it's all been different battlegrounds for the same war. The tactics haven't even changed. You could rewind the L&G back to 2012, and plug about 150 pages right in this thing. It's predictable that any college-bound kid could predict the next communications from any given council.

And it hasn't done any good.

Moving forward, I think we have to unite around ideas that work, strategies that work, and decide on results. This pre-supposes 1) respect for the process, and 2) the right of the Delta pilots to decide for themselves based on actual language. That's the side I think we should all be on.