JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[WeAAsles]

You haven't read the documents and you rely on others telling you what may or may not be happening.

I read the documents and researched the subject in detail. It's done. There is no viable argument to make and win.

Do you have one? I'll give you time to call someone, involved in high level discussions, so you can get the answers you need.

Sorry buddy unlike you I don't prefer to negotiate in public blog sites. Go rewatch the second MIA Town Hall and you'll know my position on the issue (Argued to the Arbitrator too BTW)

Have a nice evening.

 

[AANOTOK]

Sorry buddy unlike you I don't prefer to negotiate in public blog sites. Go rewatch the second MIA Town Hall and you'll know my position on the issue (Argued to the Arbitrator too BTW)

Have a nice evening.

Don't go W, I'm enjoying this conversation.

 

[WeAAsles]

Don't go W, I'm enjoying this conversation.

NOTOK it ends up being a ridiculous argument after awhile man. This guy winds up doing his asinine "absolutes" Crystal ball routine again and I start going where the F is this Crystal ball of yours (That's been wrong a few times on different things BTW)

It's really F'n nuts. And I really mean it when I say I think it's a little mentally disturbed.

Could it be eventually over and we don't see squat more on the issue? Sure, absolutely. But we're NOT at that point YET.

 

[NYer]

NOTOK it ends up being a ridiculous argument after awhile man. This guy winds up doing his asinine "absolutes" Crystal ball routine again and I start going where the F is this Crystal ball of yours (That's been wrong a few times on different things BTW)

It's really F'n nuts. And I really mean it when I say I think it's a little mentally disturbed.

Could it be eventually over and we don't see squat more on the issue? Sure, absolutely. But we're NOT at that point YET.

"...we're NOT at that point YET," seems to be an absolute.

And you hate those. Awkward.

 

[WeAAsles]

"...we're NOT at that point YET," seems to be an absolute.

And you hate those. Awkward.

I said have a nice evening to you already. Now have a nice evening.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Weez, what is your beef with NYer? I mean, without going into personal rants, he seems to be very active and doing a good job by all accounts. I have heard you attack him personally or maybe his style but, cripes, I can't come on this site without you attacking NYer on every single page. What's the fuss?

Basically, the only reason why I come on this site anymore is to read CB's comments. Unlike almost all other AGC's, at least he keeps his boots to the ground still and does NOT talk down to anyone.

 

[WeAAsles]

Weez, what is your beef with NYer? I mean, without going into personal rants, he seems to be very active and doing a good job by all accounts. I have heard you attack him personally or maybe his style but, cripes, I can't come on this site without you attacking NYer on every single page. What's the fuss?

Basically, the only reason why I come on this site anymore is to read CB's comments. Unlike almost all other AGC's, at least he keeps his boots to the ground still and does NOT talk down to anyone.

Tim although the Prefunding Match issue is not your concern I'll give you an answer.

NYer here is partially responsible for accepting language in BK that cost TWU Members around 120 Million Dollars that didn't need to be accepted (My take in that was $6500.00) and NOW that individual comes on here and in other places urging the new leaders trying to correct the issue to give up and that there is no chance of winning.

Simple question Tim. How would you feel if some idiot cost you $6500.00? Would you want to be friends with that guy?

And when my Union TWU Lawyers say it's over then I'll back off. Not because some castaway says so.

 

[NYer]

Well, as anyone can read there was never a post to not pursue the issue simply stated there isn't an avenue to be successful in such a pursuit.

If the leaders want to pursue, waste dues money in order to make a show, then they're welcomed to it. The outcome will be the same.

As has been stated many times before to Weas, if he can show an alternate manner in which this issue could have been addressed them please, by all means, share.

Of course, in his role of Monday Morning Quaterback, he doesn't have the knowledge to offer an alternative that would have satisfied the legalities of the issue.he can just complain and point fingers.

As always, I'm available to debate the points and Weas can show his superiority in tackling this subject as well as show off his grasp of the topic.

Go!

 

[WeAAsles]

Well, as anyone can read there was never a post to not pursue the issue simply stated there isn't an avenue to be successful in such a pursuit.

If the leaders want to pursue, waste dues money in order to make a show, then they're welcomed to it. The outcome will be the same.

As has been stated many times before to Weas, if he can show an alternate manner in which this issue could have been addressed them please, by all means, share.

Of course, in his role of Monday Morning Quaterback, he doesn't have the knowledge to offer an alternative that would have satisfied the legalities of the issue.he can just complain and point fingers.

As always, I'm available to debate the points and Weas can show his superiority in tackling this subject as well as show off his grasp of the topic.

Go!

I wrote once for you off the top of my head and it took only a short period of time to devise language that would have been sufficient for a contingency where the Company was not "successful" in discontinuing the Retiree Medical program.

My "frustration" is how you summarily IGNORED that writing as it didn't fit your narrative. And again the reason why I really don't want to engage with you on this issue. All you want is to argue your point and try and chalk up a win against me. It's the sign of someone who lacks self confidence that sometimes it's ok to be wrong. The phrase you've never used "I was wrong"

Again you and I are BOTH only HIGH SCHOOL graduates. We are not educated enough to ultimately solve this issue and I'll leave it to the educated professionals to handle.

Lawyers NYer, Lawyers.

 

[WeAAsles]

For those interested. It's NOT about compensating us with any monies inside the Trust. No that can't happen as it goes against the language that the Trust was built on. It's a violation of the Trust agreement.

It's about reinsertion into the Trust or a viable alternative for retire Medical that satisfies the "value" lost to us from the Company NOT going forward to even attempt to end the Trust through the Adversarial Proceeding process.

It's called finding a "Negotiated" agreed "Compromise"

 

[737823]

I wrote once for you off the top of my head and it took only a short period of time to devise language that would have been sufficient for a contingency where the Company was not "successful" in discontinuing the Retiree Medical program.

My "frustration" is how you summarily IGNORED that writing as it didn't fit your narrative. And again the reason why I really don't want to engage with you on this issue. All you want is to argue your point and try and chalk up a win against me. It's the sign of someone who lacks self confidence that sometimes it's ok to be wrong. The phrase you've never used "I was wrong"

Again you and I are BOTH only HIGH SCHOOL graduates. We are not educated enough to ultimately solve this issue and I'll leave it to the educated professionals to handle.

Lawyers NYer, Lawyers.

View attachment 12009

And towards the very end of your career at T.O.S. undergraduates starting their careers in investment banking, management consulting, "data science", and engineering make more.

Josh

 

[WeAAsles]

And towards the very end of your career at T.O.S. undergraduates starting their careers in investment banking, management consulting, "data science", and engineering make more.

Josh

As well they should. They put in the time, effort and student loan debt to earn those advanced degrees didn't they.

 

[NYer]

I wrote once for you off the top of my head and it took only a short period of time to devise language that would have been sufficient for a contingency where the Company was not "successful" in discontinuing the Retiree Medical program.

My "frustration" is how you summarily IGNORED that writing as it didn't fit your narrative. And again the reason why I really don't want to engage with you on this issue. All you want is to argue your point and try and chalk up a win against me. It's the sign of someone who lacks self confidence that sometimes it's ok to be wrong. The phrase you've never used "I was wrong"

Again you and I are BOTH only HIGH SCHOOL graduates. We are not educated enough to ultimately solve this issue and I'll leave it to the educated professionals to handle.

Lawyers NYer, Lawyers.

View attachment 12009

Can't have a contingency that dealt with the money in the Trust (Match money) if they were unsuccessful in discontinuing the Plan because that money is protected and unavailable unless the Trust is discontinued. So no, that wasn't a viable alternative.

As far as your "frustration," you engaged me in this conversation. As you can see, I can hold a conversation as long as it remains on topic, you, however, when losing the argument will inevitably turn to ridiculing whomever you're engaged with.

The fact that someone is a "just" a high school graduate doesn't mean they are not intelligent. That's a pretty disrespectful thing to say when more of the Members in Fleet fall into that category. It's a shame you seem to always have to lower yourself to insults and juvenile ridicule.

Anyway, any other ideas how the Match could have been saved since the LAWYERS that crafted the language seemed to have failed in your opinion.

 

[NYer]

For those interested. It's NOT about compensating us with any monies inside the Trust. No that can't happen as it goes against the language that the Trust was built on. It's a violation of the Trust agreement.

It's about reinsertion into the Trust or a viable alternative for retire Medical that satisfies the "value" lost to us from the Company NOT going forward to even attempt to end the Trust through the Adversarial Proceeding process.

It's called finding a "Negotiated" agreed "Compromise"

Ah. So you are in agreement that the current situation with the Match is over and another negotiated outcome is the path to pursue.

Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[WeAAsles]

Ah. So you are in agreement that the current situation with the Match is over and another negotiated outcome is the path to pursue.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Holy crap bro. Post the decision of the Arbitrator please while I head to work and we'll pick this up again later if we must.

What was the word the Arbitrator used? "Premature" or something along those lines?