The Many Reasons a Delta Captain Votes NO
06-11-2012, 04:53 PM
#111
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: C130
Posts: 303
I'm not telling him how to vote. I AM questioning his opinion however because it is not consistent with his opinions of the last few years that I have been reading his posts..
I don't care what you think or how you vote.. I know nothing about you to begin with, but I THOUGHT I knew more about him and his capabilities to dissect things and connect dots.. I appear to be wrong about that.
And I thought the whole idea of forums was to critique and debate opinions.. especially those of defacto leaders.. and he has been one of those.. So I guess if that is out of line, then I guess an apology might be in order.. but I doubt it was.
Do YOU know where The Manager has gone?
I don't care what you think or how you vote.. I know nothing about you to begin with, but I THOUGHT I knew more about him and his capabilities to dissect things and connect dots.. I appear to be wrong about that.
And I thought the whole idea of forums was to critique and debate opinions.. especially those of defacto leaders.. and he has been one of those.. So I guess if that is out of line, then I guess an apology might be in order.. but I doubt it was.
Do YOU know where The Manager has gone?
06-11-2012, 04:57 PM
#112
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Nope no idea where he is. I don't really care. It's fine to challenge bad facts or even question opinions to see how embedded they are. Slamming others isn't debate it's just hammering anyone who doesn't agree with you which is probably allowed here too. I think he's been more than fair. I wish I could say the same for you. I've enjoyed your perspectives too until quite recently.
06-11-2012, 04:59 PM
#113
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
I'm a little surprised too, but I don't think he's just trying to get his street creds up on APC. If he concludes it's not right, that's his business. I think it's designed to pass, and I don't see a credible path in turning it down. Still, I do think it's not very "meaty".
There won't be a lot of high-fives if this passes, but there will be more sighs of relief than there will be yes votes.
You seem to be quite smitten with it, and I don't worry about your motives either.
There won't be a lot of high-fives if this passes, but there will be more sighs of relief than there will be yes votes.
You seem to be quite smitten with it, and I don't worry about your motives either.
And you are right.. if these forums are any indication.. and I sincerely hope they are not, if it passes I for one will definitely breathe a sigh of relief.
06-11-2012, 05:20 PM
#114
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
ACL, you've got quite the essay here. I don't agree with some of it. Maybe you could fill me in on some of the stuff I may not be correct on:
Everyone has limits, but mine are different than yours.
I have posted this before.
Not for the business plan. Our ratio of 1.56-1 is well below that of the business plan. The intent was to make DCI an accumulator much like we were in the last round. If will be along side us, but before we go from 1.76-1 to 1.56 to 1 on MBH.
I understand fully, and I wanted the language better written. Not a deal breaker at all, but a concern.
We disagree. A clause that stated that DAL would be the only alliance carrier in the US would be a nice catch all.
For DAL to appose a foreign carrier buying us. Oppose, but to what degree. Also it does not limit DAL from being the instigator or purchaser of a foreign carrier. The language is one sided.
quid of jets per jets, at the MBH top threshold. Its what 40 for us and 70 for them?
Not at all. Truth. A look in to the C2015 has been given by some of those that apparently have the data on what is coming up on their mtc or leases at that time.
Wasn't that argument made about the 50's until about six months ago? I know how I will vote on the 100 seat flying at any time in my career.
I see another deal like this one for the remainder of the 50's and 70's yes. and it happened this time shortly after we hit the 255 limit.
I disagree with the paralysis comment, but that's ok. Tighter MBH and non compliance language would have made me a much bigger proponent of this language.
Yes it does, but if we acquire an airline that has this sublift and that sublift is being performed by a current carrier, well you catch my drift.
On the retirement package, I sure hope we see 300. It would make the work rule changes livable, but there are no guarantees. A good guarantee would have been if only X took the pirp then this work rule did not take effect.
A matter of perspective. Most of the concepts are the best out there, bar none, its the fine print that has most people worried.
So coy. Point is where are not at a point in time with our company where we should see these sort of things. You disagree, and that is fine.
Oh the number went up. I though it was 72 jobs at the road show. I still think that is very generous.
What I expected was not to see a major small jet modification without significant small print protections. I did not expect to see major work rule changes that reduced staffing, especially when our Reps keep talking about more consolidation.
Again not just about flying to 99 but being on the hook for that a possible trip that takes you over guarantee. You could be one minute under and sit a few more SC's and never get that trip to get you over the hump.
My time will be reduced by the FTDT. Overall its an improvement but layer it with the ALV+15 and I know how I would get creative to keep pilots on the hook.
GMAB, you know exactly what I am talking about. Rotation guarantee.
I want the same rules to apply. I'll even take a domicile layo to get it! 
I know what it is, and I am telling you what we should have.
I am not a single issues guy, its all of this layered together.
They value large ones more than we do.
What was the MEC direction to the NC again?
Agreed, but we are not in a place to need to trade one for another.
Really? I offer a counter point, and like this sort of debate needs to happen a lot more. A good back and forth leads us to a better position and more for all pilots. If you disagree you are deemed a threat. It should not be that way at all. Disagreements should be encouraged at every step of the process.
Well, I do not want to spend negotiating capital in three, four, five years on things we can fix today. We need to build a PWA and section 1 that plans for worst case, this TA does not.
Sounds great. What do you mean?
Sounds great. What do you mean?
In this agreement the ratios do not have a one way check valve allowing say a 3-4% swing in mainline domestic block hrs before DCI also takes the hit. The current set up/ratio versus the plan is 1.56-1 versus 1.76-1. That's a lot of slop in mainline flying, and may in fact be your capt job.
There is a one way check valve. It's called a hard limit on DCI of 450 aircraft. Above max utilization rate of those aircraft, it's all our flying. Are you suggesting that once it's all our flying, and after we grow, and then some reason causes the network to shrink, we shrink proportionally with DCI from what was 100% all our flying? Step me through the logic on that.
There is a one way check valve. It's called a hard limit on DCI of 450 aircraft. Above max utilization rate of those aircraft, it's all our flying. Are you suggesting that once it's all our flying, and after we grow, and then some reason causes the network to shrink, we shrink proportionally with DCI from what was 100% all our flying? Step me through the logic on that.
In this agreement, the JV protection is a great step. I wanted this very badly, but it gave us revenue sharing on top of profit loss. It does not define a pro rate or other type of revenue agreement that could be used under a JV.
I think it does. Proportion of revenue forces a proportion of Block Hours. Simple. Go back and read it again and I'll think you'll understand it.
I think it does. Proportion of revenue forces a proportion of Block Hours. Simple. Go back and read it again and I'll think you'll understand it.
The cutout is not tight enough. It needs to be very spelled out and its not.
Spell it out for us. I think it is very clear.
Spell it out for us. I think it is very clear.
Where is transnational merger protection?
It is in Section 1. Company agrees to oppose foreign ownership, and Section 1.C.1. the flying is performed under our PWA.
It is in Section 1. Company agrees to oppose foreign ownership, and Section 1.C.1. the flying is performed under our PWA.
We are allowing 70 more large rj's for a quid that I do not see as balanced.
Right...
At DCI:
Fewer Jets/Aircraft
Fewer ASMs/Block Hours
Fewer Pilots
Fewer Seats
And we get 88+ 717s, and 18% more domestic flying.
I agree, it is not balanced.
Right...
At DCI:
Fewer Jets/Aircraft
Fewer ASMs/Block Hours
Fewer Pilots
Fewer Seats
And we get 88+ 717s, and 18% more domestic flying.
I agree, it is not balanced.
Its that simple. I do not see a road map that gets us to where we want to be. I see us kicking the football and real fight down the road to another type of agreement that mirrors this for the remainder of the 50's and the 70's.
Rhetoric?
Rhetoric?
After that I see massive retirements and a situation where DAL will not be able to keep up with the international growth and domestic backfilling. This is where the 100 seat battle with happen. A sunset clause or disciplined pulldown of DCI does this, and its not there.
Disagree. Gradually increasing costs eliminate smaller aircraft. The 100 seat aircraft will be flown at mainline or not at all.
Disagree. Gradually increasing costs eliminate smaller aircraft. The 100 seat aircraft will be flown at mainline or not at all.
Looking at the Section 1 language, and the history of modifying this language right as we hit the scope limits; like we did with the furlough protections allowance of more RJ's, like we are doing now, I see us doing it again right at the 70th RJ is on property.
You see it continuing that way. Continuing to recapture Jets, ASMs, Seats, and pilot jobs, like in this agreement? If you have an emotional attachment to the number "76", then it may lead you to continued paralysis and an inability to reach any agreement ever, and forgo any scope gains at all.
You see it continuing that way. Continuing to recapture Jets, ASMs, Seats, and pilot jobs, like in this agreement? If you have an emotional attachment to the number "76", then it may lead you to continued paralysis and an inability to reach any agreement ever, and forgo any scope gains at all.
I disagree with the paralysis comment, but that's ok. Tighter MBH and non compliance language would have made me a much bigger proponent of this language.
Whether or not this language is a set up for an acquisition of an airline with large rj's or and outright purchase, a merger puts us even higher above these ratios and makes mainline block hrs that much more the initial accumulator. The news reports are stating that the Bombardier production line is closing down, if we are not going to get the RJ's from them, how are we going to renegotiate these CPA's?
Reference Section 1.C.1. Flying has to be done under our PWA. A merger will require negotiation. If an RJ production line is shut down, great. It could help get rid of more RJs. Maybe we won't need to renegotiate any CPAs. Furthermore, whacking 300 senior guys off the top via the early retirement package moves all of us up about one stove pipe position in a merger. That in itself is a reason to vote yes.
Reference Section 1.C.1. Flying has to be done under our PWA. A merger will require negotiation. If an RJ production line is shut down, great. It could help get rid of more RJs. Maybe we won't need to renegotiate any CPAs. Furthermore, whacking 300 senior guys off the top via the early retirement package moves all of us up about one stove pipe position in a merger. That in itself is a reason to vote yes.
On the retirement package, I sure hope we see 300. It would make the work rule changes livable, but there are no guarantees. A good guarantee would have been if only X took the pirp then this work rule did not take effect.
Section 1 needs to stand alone, and frankly it doesn't.
Writing it does not make it so. It is the best scope section out there.
Writing it does not make it so. It is the best scope section out there.
Moving to the rest of the agreement we all agree, pay is not where it needs to be, we are giving up headcount with a likely merger or acquisition that may or may not come with pilots in the next year or two, reroute was not covered, reserves still are not getting paid like line holders, nor are they getting rotation guarantee; which would nullify the reserve changes, the commuter clause was not made contractual, retirement contributions are not enough, the sick leave policy though improved has some clearing up on release of medical records, and many more.
Paralysis by analysis, or it is so complicated I just can't make up my mind.
Paralysis by analysis, or it is so complicated I just can't make up my mind.
Of those:
I cannot figure out why we are giving up staffing going in to a likely period of further consolidation. That will effect many if not all pilots on the list. 3-4 seats in each category in each base, does add up. Its short sighted imo.
-300 on the ALV. +100 on factoring the known absences into the staffing formula, and a few small things like scheduling recency training like CQ, and maybe you need 1 less pilot per category. Maybe. All that in exchange for a reserve pilot getting 3-14% more pay, and all the other gains. Once again, if you were expecting the NC to go in and just demand things, we'd still be demanding in a few years.
I cannot figure out why we are giving up staffing going in to a likely period of further consolidation. That will effect many if not all pilots on the list. 3-4 seats in each category in each base, does add up. Its short sighted imo.
-300 on the ALV. +100 on factoring the known absences into the staffing formula, and a few small things like scheduling recency training like CQ, and maybe you need 1 less pilot per category. Maybe. All that in exchange for a reserve pilot getting 3-14% more pay, and all the other gains. Once again, if you were expecting the NC to go in and just demand things, we'd still be demanding in a few years.
What I expected was not to see a major small jet modification without significant small print protections. I did not expect to see major work rule changes that reduced staffing, especially when our Reps keep talking about more consolidation.
On the change to allow reserves to fly to ALV+15, it is now stated that this is for international categories. Well every category except the 9 flies internationally. Of course they mean ones with longer trips. My issue is if this was the idea, then make it for specific categories. The way its written, a reserve "may not fly" to 99 hrs but they will be on the hook for it.
Reserves are on the hook for reserve guarantee. If they go over, they are done. If a reserve flies every day available for 17 days out of the month and gets the average daily guarantee of 4.5 hours/day he's got 76.5. Tell me how he's going to get 99? Not going to happen unless it's that odd international 9 day trip that cannot be assigned to anyone else. The bucket system levels reserves out, and add on top of that going over the reserve guarantee costs the company extra money, and it is an incentive for the company to not do exactly what you think they will. You have it backwards.
Reserves are on the hook for reserve guarantee. If they go over, they are done. If a reserve flies every day available for 17 days out of the month and gets the average daily guarantee of 4.5 hours/day he's got 76.5. Tell me how he's going to get 99? Not going to happen unless it's that odd international 9 day trip that cannot be assigned to anyone else. The bucket system levels reserves out, and add on top of that going over the reserve guarantee costs the company extra money, and it is an incentive for the company to not do exactly what you think they will. You have it backwards.
That means sitting SC's that you may have not sat, more rotations broken up to keep this on reserves versus gs's etc. Saying it will not mean more work for a reserve from today or year past when we were correctly staffed is not accurate. Scheduling is getting really good at layering reserves. Add these new components to it, and its changes the game. We vote this in, and we will learn very quickly what these changes will do to your home qol, never mind a sli.
You are a reserve international pilot. You time on short call is actually reduced. 24x6=144 hours on short call max now. Under the TA, you'll be at 14x7=98. 46 less hours on short call, max. It is an improvement.
You are a reserve international pilot. You time on short call is actually reduced. 24x6=144 hours on short call max now. Under the TA, you'll be at 14x7=98. 46 less hours on short call, max. It is an improvement.
Are we still at a point in time where reserves should not have rotation guarantee? I do not think so.
I'm sure the company would go for the exact same guarantees for reserves and regular line holders. It would save them a ton of money. Think about it, all the guarantees are the same with these exceptions:
Regular line holders get DPA.
Reserve line holders get reserve guarantee.
So you want to go to the same guarantees, i.e. give up your 70 hour reserve guarantee/month in exchange for Duty Period Average? You and the rest of us 2000 guys on reserve would lose big time with that idea.
I'm sure the company would go for the exact same guarantees for reserves and regular line holders. It would save them a ton of money. Think about it, all the guarantees are the same with these exceptions:
Regular line holders get DPA.
Reserve line holders get reserve guarantee.
So you want to go to the same guarantees, i.e. give up your 70 hour reserve guarantee/month in exchange for Duty Period Average? You and the rest of us 2000 guys on reserve would lose big time with that idea.
I have been in reserve most of the last five years, and I can tell you that even when above ALV a reroute or cancellation costs you money. It has me. Rotation guarantee is very important.
See above. The average reserve pilot, even if they had DPA would not break the reserve guarantee. You want to give up a guaranteed 72-80 hours for DPA? Not smart.
See above. The average reserve pilot, even if they had DPA would not break the reserve guarantee. You want to give up a guaranteed 72-80 hours for DPA? Not smart.
The CDA of 4+30 basically does not force the company in to constructing more efficient trips. It means more of the same, with a few rotations getting a little more pay. The industry avg of 6 forces that.
What? Industry average of 6? What do you mean?
Furthermore, it should be a min day. If they want me to sit for 30 hrs in RIC and fly my tush off for the other three days, that's their call, we should make more money for that.
It is a calendar day with exceptions. I'd go back and read that section again.
What? Industry average of 6? What do you mean?
Furthermore, it should be a min day. If they want me to sit for 30 hrs in RIC and fly my tush off for the other three days, that's their call, we should make more money for that.
It is a calendar day with exceptions. I'd go back and read that section again.
How about vacation pay of time and a half. Other employee groups and airlines get it, and this would solve a huge issue with staffing over holidays.
Great reason to vote No? Come on. This is just forum fodder to stimulate some churn for the forumites that are emotionally addicted to this place.
Great reason to vote No? Come on. This is just forum fodder to stimulate some churn for the forumites that are emotionally addicted to this place.
Suffice to say, minimum things were omitted in this expedited process. It was a change to fix a lot and keep moving forward. Problem is there are a ton of quid in this agreement. In section 1 the quid are not worth what the pro quo is. It is apparent that the company values these RJ's a lot more than we do.
It is apparent that the company is willing to make concessions to get rid of these RJs. They do not value them.
It is apparent that the company is willing to make concessions to get rid of these RJs. They do not value them.
Its a mistake. In the rest of the agreement, we gave and got here and there, but its still a net negative.
Net negative? Hardly. From what I can tell it saves them a few $100 million over the term of the contract, and gives us $860 million. Net positive to pilots.
Net negative? Hardly. From what I can tell it saves them a few $100 million over the term of the contract, and gives us $860 million. Net positive to pilots.
I will not even discuss pay profit sharing or retirement expect to say that more DC is a great way for the company to compensate us more without paying all of the taxes they do on our wages.
Certain income is always better than at risk compensation.
Certain income is always better than at risk compensation.
I am willing to take however long it takes to get this better nailed down.
Voting for this guarantees negotiating capital will need to be used in the future to fix a bunch of it. I have looked at this agreement for the better part of the month to find a way to vote yes for it; I can't and will be casting a vote to reengage the company and fix the 20-30 items that need to be made right. If that takes three years(it will not) so be it.
So be it. Let me know how that works out for you.
Voting for this guarantees negotiating capital will need to be used in the future to fix a bunch of it. I have looked at this agreement for the better part of the month to find a way to vote yes for it; I can't and will be casting a vote to reengage the company and fix the 20-30 items that need to be made right. If that takes three years(it will not) so be it.
So be it. Let me know how that works out for you.
06-11-2012, 05:25 PM
#115
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I have no motives other than approving the industry leading contract and getting on with our lives. I have zero doubt that Mr Anderson will (to paraphrase Mullis) "say thank you and move on to plan B and prepare for a long section 6 in January" I do not believe there will be any kind of company capitulation in 48 hours or even 48 weeks. A no vote will cost lots of time and cost lots and lots of money in lost opportunity and value. We will lose in the end. 10 years of a bankruptcy contract is enough, and we need to move the ball now.. not later, and definitely not based on a bunch of what-ifs.
And you are right.. if these forums are any indication.. and I sincerely hope they are not, if it passes I for one will definitely breathe a sigh of relief.
And you are right.. if these forums are any indication.. and I sincerely hope they are not, if it passes I for one will definitely breathe a sigh of relief.
T;
It will more than likely pass. Many pilots that do not like the fine print are hoping we can fix it without costing us too much next time.......
I am very pragmatic, but what I see in this agreement is a lot of really good concepts, that have shortcomings that could be exploited. The work rule changes just plain concern me in any future SLI. At least we do not have LBP because then there would be no argument for our pilots keeping the WB's.
Serious T, I enjoy the debate, and will generally take a counter position here just to ferret out the facts. This place for some reason is largely civil and I enjoy that.
06-11-2012, 05:31 PM
#116
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: C130
Posts: 303
I would be fibbing if I said this whole debate didn't get me going from time to time. It's probably an important part of the process that I worry many aren't going to experience...as they could probably use the info. It's a shame really as there are great perspectives here. I hope we get the best outcome no matter what and we can get back to more "interesting" conversation.
06-11-2012, 05:35 PM
#117
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I would be fibbing if I said this whole debate didn't get me going from time to time. It's probably an important part of the process that I worry many aren't going to experience...as they could probably use the info. It's a shame really as there are great perspectives here. I hope we get the best outcome no matter what and we can get back to more "interesting" conversation.
I'll agree to that and the rumors of what we are buying from whom and if that 773 rumor is really true
DAL has a lot of plan going forward, they just need to deal with a few things to be able to do it. We are one of those things.
06-11-2012, 06:26 PM
#118
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
I would be fibbing if I said this whole debate didn't get me going from time to time. It's probably an important part of the process that I worry many aren't going to experience...as they could probably use the info. It's a shame really as there are great perspectives here. I hope we get the best outcome no matter what and we can get back to more "interesting" conversation.
I will TRY to shut up.. finding The Manager would make it very much easier. I would have thought you guys were taking up a collection to get him to take the bet just to shut me up.
06-11-2012, 07:16 PM
#119
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 93
I have posted this before.
How about posting it again. Just give me a quick summary.
Not for the business plan. Our ratio of 1.56-1 is well below that of the business plan. The intent was to make DCI an accumulator much like we were in the last round. If will be along side us, but before we go from 1.76-1 to 1.56 to 1 on MBH.
It seems from your explanation that you want to make DCI bear all the sacrifices that comes with their job loss, and transfer of flying to mainline, and then you want them to take on additional pain if after we expand and get 100% of the flying, to eat some more sacrifices on top of that in the event of contraction.
I just think you are adding insult to injury. We get 100% of the flying above their max utilization rate for their 450 aircraft, then if things shrink, they get to participate in the downside, when they were not allowed to participate in the upside. Nice (not really).
I understand fully, and I wanted the language better written. Not a deal breaker at all, but a concern.
Suggestion? or Equivocation?
We disagree. A clause that stated that DAL would be the only alliance carrier in the US would be a nice catch all.
That gets into corporate governance. You can ask all you want, but it'll never happen.
For DAL to appose a foreign carrier buying us. Oppose, but to what degree. Also it does not limit DAL from being the instigator or purchaser of a foreign carrier. The language is one sided.
More forum churn. No matter what is written, it will never be quite good enough will it? Always just one more tweak, one more fault, one more nitpick?
I see another deal like this one for the remainder of the 50's and 70's yes. and it happened this time shortly after we hit the 255 limit.
Maybe there will be another deal on the remaining aircraft. I hope so. Transfer another 18% of their flying to us and we'll be down to 300 DCI aircraft.
I disagree with the paralysis comment, but that's ok. Tighter MBH and non compliance language would have made me a much bigger proponent of this language.
I don't. Paralysis by over analysis, coupled with the idea that you can control corporate governance and direction. Not going to happen.
Yes it does, but if we acquire an airline that has this sublift and that sublift is being performed by a current carrier, well you catch my drift.
No I don't catch your drift. Just spell it out. What do you mean?
On the retirement package, I sure hope we see 300. It would make the work rule changes livable, but there are no guarantees. A good guarantee would have been if only X took the pirp then this work rule did not take effect.
We do our analysis, the company does theirs. What would our answer be if every time they got something they wanted, like a raise in the ALV, they added, "if we don't get the efficiencies we expect, you don't get your pay raise."? What's your answer? Ok, we'll give up the pay raise.
A matter of perspective. Most of the concepts are the best out there, bar none, its the fine print that has most people worried.
It doesn't have me worried.
So coy. Point is where are not at a point in time with our company where we should see these sort of things. You disagree, and that is fine.
Where? We're? Were? Not sure what you mean here.
Oh the number went up. I though it was 72 jobs at the road show. I still think that is very generous.
Didn't make a road show. Just doing my own inaccurate estimations, just like every other person here.
What I expected was not to see a major small jet modification without significant small print protections. I did not expect to see major work rule changes that reduced staffing, especially when our Reps keep talking about more consolidation.
I'd agree with the reps about consolidation. While this does not directly address the point above, a closed contract is what I want if a merger happens. It forces reopening the PWA, will give us future gains, will turn the 3%, 3%, into something larger. If you want to do it like United and Continental, both with open contracts, I don't think that is a good idea.
Again not just about flying to 99 but being on the hook for that a possible trip that takes you over guarantee. You could be one minute under and sit a few more SC's and never get that trip to get you over the hump.
Could be. Unlikely.
My time will be reduced by the FTDT. Overall its an improvement but layer it with the ALV+15 and I know how I would get creative to keep pilots on the hook.
GMAB, you know exactly what I am talking about. Rotation guarantee.
No, I won't give you a break. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want everything a regular line holder has, and reserve guarantee.
I am not a single issues guy, its all of this layered together.
Of course. More issues give us more to analyze. More time to debate as value slowly slips away.
What was the MEC direction to the NC again?
I would guess that the direction was to get more jobs and flying here. The NC did that. If you are talking about pay, from what I hear, they wanted industry leading rates on day one.
Agreed, but we are not in a place to need to trade one for another.
No, just make demands. That'll work.
Really? I offer a counter point, and like this sort of debate needs to happen a lot more. A good back and forth leads us to a better position and more for all pilots. If you disagree you are deemed a threat.
I'm not feeling the least bit threatened.
It should not be that way at all. Disagreements should be encouraged at every step of the process.
Disagreements should not be encouraged. Intellectual debate should be encouraged.
06-11-2012, 07:26 PM
#120
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Either way the vote goes, your argument is moot. They will be done with us either way. At least for another 3 years...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
