Former ModerAAtor said:
Oh, the irony in that statement.... That's pretty much been your reaction since 1999 whenever someone else proposed an option and stated an opinion different from yours.
If what happened in 1984 isn't relevent, then I guess there's also no point complaining about whatever happened in contract negotions in 1980-something or 1990-something....
Spin-off is certainly an option, but first you have to prove that the model works before people will be willing to invest in it.
And for the record.... the profits from the Sabre sell-off are what helped pay down the remaining debt we had from the early 90's. The rest went out in profit sharing checks to the employees. Including y'all who were here at the time.
[post="253807"][/post]
Please feel free to show everyone any anti-worker, anti-union statement I have made in response to someone making a proposal or stating an opinion. I think you are nothing more than a common liar, trying to flame the board. Unless it is your opinion that trying to get rid of the most docile union in the industy is anti-worker, or anti-union. Then I beg to differ with you that this has ever been my reaction to others opinions or proposed options. I stand firm in my opinions and they are not reactions. Regardless of industry profits, or changes in business travel culture, the TWU still stands true to concession after concession after concession.
And I also never said what happened in 1984 is "irrelevent:. Why don't you stop putting words in my mouth and stick to posting your own opinions?
What I said was "There are many things happening today that are much different than 1984." That is a far cry from claiming 1984 was irrelevent, wouldn't you admit? One thing that isn't different from 1984, is that the TWU is still in bed with the company and the workers are being sold out!
And for the record, Sabre was built and funded on the backs of the B-Scale workers, so don't act as though any profit sharing check offset that TWU Industry Leading Concession.
BTW, the citizens of Tulsa voted to give $20+ Million via Vision 2025 to the current business model at the Tulsa base without proof of change. Why does the spin-off require a different approach? Just have your industry leading con-artist go sell the idea without any proof like they have to the Federal and State Governments for corporate welfare handouts. That seems to work pretty well. Who is investing in TIMCO, AAR, SASCO, and the others already operating MRO's? If MRO's are our competition, isn't it only fair that we become one, to compete on the same playing field, and rules? I think it is unfair to ask us to compete against an MRO head-to-head when they do not have to fund 37 levels of management overhead, un-hedged fuel, more room throughout coach errors, and the albatross finance department that steals any profits we make, and considers us a burden to their bottom line.
Is it all about saving jobs or making profits?
