Dilligas
Veteran
I'd say you're treading on mighty thin ice with language like this. Not very smart.USA320Pilot said:
From A Mec Rep
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
EyeInTheSky
Veteran
Brookman and Freshwater are good guys. Dilligas what you're seeing here by USA320pilot is kind of like Swift Boat Veterans against Kerry. All "theory" no substance. Nothing surprises me anymore on how low people will stoop.
EyeInTheSky
Veteran
PITbull, there is nothing more honorable than that is there. I just find the sniveling tactics by disgruntled pilots most dishonorable, morally wrong, and self-serving at best.PITbull said:
NeedForSpeedNFS
Veteran
- Mar 12, 2004
- 517
- 0
Hey Eye....Swift Boat Veterans??? That's kind of a strange analogy.... Men that were actually there???? Just curious....Are you involved with the negotiations personally, in other words, are you there? Not taking sides, just curious as to your analogy... Doesn't seem to fit our "situation" <_<EyeInTheSky said:
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
Chip,
You are really stretching things here. First of all there is no conflict of interest. Your reps can easily perform there elected duties without affecting a seperate law suit. IF they sent a t/a out for a vote, this doesn't mean they condone or agree with the elimination of the DB plan. They could still personally vote no on any t/a put to the membership. Therefore, your claim that it would ruin their multi-million dollar lawsuit is false and mis-leading.
Second, their actions do not increase USAirways chances of filing for CH11. That chance remains around 99% regardless of any t/a's.
Thirdly, your claim that they are blocking the membership from voting is also false and misleading. It implies that they are using unfair or tactics, when in reality they are using their powers allowed by ALPA's structure and by-laws. You see, they are the elcted officials, not you. If you want to have their powers, why didn't you run for office? Oh, wait... You did, didn't you? And I believe you lost. Probably good reason for that.
The RC4 that you constantly bash, happen to represent a majority of the USAirways pilots. A fact that you can't stand because they disagree with your view point.
You are really stretching things here. First of all there is no conflict of interest. Your reps can easily perform there elected duties without affecting a seperate law suit. IF they sent a t/a out for a vote, this doesn't mean they condone or agree with the elimination of the DB plan. They could still personally vote no on any t/a put to the membership. Therefore, your claim that it would ruin their multi-million dollar lawsuit is false and mis-leading.
Second, their actions do not increase USAirways chances of filing for CH11. That chance remains around 99% regardless of any t/a's.
Thirdly, your claim that they are blocking the membership from voting is also false and misleading. It implies that they are using unfair or tactics, when in reality they are using their powers allowed by ALPA's structure and by-laws. You see, they are the elcted officials, not you. If you want to have their powers, why didn't you run for office? Oh, wait... You did, didn't you? And I believe you lost. Probably good reason for that.
The RC4 that you constantly bash, happen to represent a majority of the USAirways pilots. A fact that you can't stand because they disagree with your view point.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
USA320Pilot said:
Wake up, [deleted]!!!
Freshwater and VonBargen were not voting on giving anything away. They voted on whether to allow the pilots to vote on giving things away.
There is no conflict of interest no matter how many times you say that there is.
And just because a lawyer says there is a conflict of interest does not make it so. If that were the case, ALPA would be countersuing Freshwater and VonBargen. In light of the fact that they are not, Abrams comments are self-serving hogwash. Just because you fell for them doesn't mean the rest of us don't see them for the lies that they are.
