Originally Posted by Denny Crane

Why would I expect them to exceed our rates? Because if the bar we set was so abysmally low, I would of thought that other unions, especially independent ones, would never have settled for less. Heck, they went years without achieving restoration. Why not continue that battle? If pattern bargaining is not alive and well, they should have been able to far exceed what we have and yet they cannot even equal it.

I believe I'm a reasonable man. On the one hand I want restoration just as much as you and any one of us does and on the other is the NMB. Where I differ from you (I think) is I believe the NMB (via the RLA) is the single biggest hurdle to reaching that goal in a reasonable amount of time. IMO, if others cannot exceed our hourly wage, it makes it even more difficult for us to achieve significant gains because of the route we have to take thru the NMB. Do you believe the NMB would allow us, with the highest hourly wage of the legacies, to strike if we do not get a 32 percent hike in pay on top of that?

Our company is doing phenomenally well and I do believe significant gains are to be had but they have been made much more difficult to achieve by the lack of gains on top of ours by unions at other passenger carriers.

Denny

Originally Posted by Hillbilly

Suppose I had been giving Carl and tsquare each $20 a week for lunch money for the last 15 years and then Carl negotiated a deal with me where he would now get $25 per week in return for facilitating me only having to give tsquare $15 a week. To me this is a cost neutral deal, since I'm still only out $40 per week, and I would feel comfortable stating that to anyone who asked, even on an investors call. To use my statement that it was a cost neutral deal to then imply that Carl gave up as much as he gained and therefore gained nothing in the deal overall would be inaccurate and completely false.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

There's a number of ways one could have found out, but that's not the point. The point is that the email wasn't mentioned. The only thing mentioned was the hacking, and that's the post you quoted. Then you proceeded to go on an emotional tirade about the TWA lawsuit. Stop digging dude...you blew it. It happens.



What's even funnier is you thinking you've proved anyone wrong. You only prove you're too proud to admit a mistake.

Carl

Originally Posted by Sink r8

We can have lengthy debates about whether the net result was acceptable or not, but in a way, we voted almost 2:1 in favor of taking the gain, and moving forward.

I suppose you could say we helped close the gap with Southwest, but, really who cares about Southwest? When we get back to payrates at or above Southwest, should we stop? Of course not.

I don't agree with using them as a benchmark, but I think we can all agree that even the most ardent supporters of C2012 didn't claim it to be a stand-alone achievement. It's Time to get some more Money for our Value to the company.

My concern is that we're completely distracted with power struggles, and power plays. I haven't been asked about Part 117 trade-offs, and interim objectives. I wasn't asked for input on the Pacific deal, and I didn't get to ratify it. I haven't seen systematic polling in a very long time. These are the things we should be doing. I saw a couple of good posts by Gloopy in the L&G about Part117. The surprising thing was, after all this Southwest/DPA/Election stuff, it barely registered.

Then I realized we're completely failing to focus on the basics. We're not talking about the details of our profession. While we vomit on and on about Alinski, and while people [bleep] around with each other's councils, we're actually forgetting what's in the contract, never mind what should be in the contract.

Between the Virgin JV, Part 117, TATL JV, and possibly a follow-on transaction, our window for max leverage is going to close. We better have a VERY good idea of what we need, because the company needs us only for a few more pieces of the puzzle. After that, they'll play defense only, and run out the clock. The only kind of engagement you'll get thereafter will be when your CP wants to know why you're sick.

Originally Posted by scambo1

Nice re-focus Sink and all too true.

Originally Posted by johnso29

The ALPA Constitution and By Laws specifically state that a assessment necessary for covering awarded damages may only occur via MEMRAT.

(I am paraphrasing)

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

Got chapter and verse for that, johnso?

Originally Posted by scambo1

But if we had LGBP, no wait, wrong argument.

Didn't Carl used to get all $40 like 10 years ago?

Is this a form of weightwatchers?

If I was a bully, could I shakedown one of these guys for some DCA slots?

Yeah, I'm bored.

Originally Posted by Hillbilly

This would not be a Strike Assessment, MEC Assessment or LEC assessment. It would fall under a General Assessment of the membership.

Section 7 A.3. of the ALPA Constitution and Bylaws:

(3) General assessments may be levied by the Board of Directors or Executive Board on all Active members to cover extraordinary expenses provided such assessments are approved by a majority of the valid ballots returned by the Active members in good standing by ballot, conducted under Association Voting Procedures, and provided that such approval is obtained before such expenditures are made.

Originally Posted by scambo1

I'd agree that it is a large sum compared to the DPA, but the DPA doesn't have 3-4 pending lawsuits one of which could well be over a $B and that's not spin.

Originally Posted by Hillbilly

Suppose I had been giving Carl and tsquare each $20 a week for lunch money for the last 15 years and then Carl negotiated a deal with me where he would now get $25 per week in return for facilitating me only having to give tsquare $15 a week. To me this is a cost neutral deal, since I'm still only out $40 per week, and I would feel comfortable stating that to anyone who asked, even on an investors call. To use my statement that it was a cost neutral deal to then imply that Carl gave up as much as he gained and therefore gained nothing in the deal overall would be inaccurate and completely false.

Originally Posted by tsquare

Exactly. Carl knows that too, but it is a lot more fun to take the entire thing completely out of context... suits his propaganda much much better, and maybe someone who is not paying any attention will buy into his bull****.

Oh, and "hillbilly" is derogatory. We are "Appalachian Americans"