Hey Move.....don't PM me. I always have a great day!! Just another day..week...month...year....without NIC.
NICDOA
NPJB
US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
Hey Move.....don't PM me. I always have a great day!! Just another day..week...month...year....without NIC.
NICDOA
NPJB
Move2CLT
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,048
- Reaction score
- 8,631
cactusboy53
Veteran
- Joined
- May 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,649
- Reaction score
- 7,407
Nope. If right officers elected, a very quick change to show nic as start of seniority. Rearrange committees, and off you go.
Yes, 2012 is here, and nothing has changed for the eastern group or the western. And it won't for the rest of the year either. Dig in, it is a long long wait.
Move2CLT
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,048
- Reaction score
- 8,631
Move2CLT
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,048
- Reaction score
- 8,631
Oooff.
There is no such thing as quick change. And you will always have a contingent trying to slow your progress.
Your moxie is admirable but, unfortunately, wasted on the east.
Pain is their only motivator and they have to inflict it upon themselves to force any change.
Move2CLT
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,048
- Reaction score
- 8,631
Mike Cleary - USAPA Presidente Por Vida!!
From: http://www.unbiasedfacts.org/Collelo-Letter.pdf
I’m writing this letter as a response to the resignation letter (from the NAC) sent to you by Captains Day
and Lopez. I believe they are misrepresenting the facts and I would like to give you my impressions of
how I see things on the committee. To begin, I don’t see myself as someone who gets involved in the
political process, that unfortunately seems to run the Association. As anyone can attest to I don’t call BPR
members to influence decisions nor do I attempt to manipulate things behind the scenes. I do not post on
webboards and I don’t make calls on behalf of others. I have not endorsed anyone who was seeking office
in USAPA nor have I campaigned against anyone. I do the job I was asked to do to the best of my ability
and will continue to do so.
Having said that I was very disappointed with the manner in which Pat and Manny decided to leave the
committee and I can’t sit on the sidelines while they make statements that are not true. I will not speculate
on their reasons for doing what they did but I would like to give you my views so that you may make an
informed decision based on the ‘FACTS’ and not on advancing some agenda. To begin with they stated
“We were not wanted or utilized effectively by the Chairman” That is not a true statement. I think the
truth is that they were not allowed to do what they wanted to and that is the problem. From day one, with
the concurrence of President Cleary, one of them was asked to assume the duties of note taker. In spite of
being on full flight pay loss for 6 months very few notes have been produced. Even after numerous
requests and many empty promises, notes for only 2 of the 15 sessions have been produced. The other
member was asked to produce the update after each negotiating session. The updates were not properly
done and needed to be almost entirely rewritten by other committee members. When the revised updates
were sent to all committee members for review these two individuals were noticeably absent in providing
any input for the update. So who is not being ‘effective’ here? There have been many times when their
input was requested and it was either not given or very little thought was put into a response. It seemed
that one member spent an inordinate amount of time online or worrying about internal union politics
rather than the tasks at hand.
This ties into the work ethic since joining the committee. It appears that they were more concerned about
the stipend, FPL, the next flight they could catch or why we were working past 5PM – many times
starting to pack up before work was complete. One of them even stated to members of another committee
“I just sit back with my feet up on the desk since I’m on AFB” or claiming that being on the NAC gets
him out of flying the double redeye to RIO. So how does that fit in with their statement “The best
committee members are those that do not “need” the position”? If they don’t ‘need’ the position why are
they waiting until Jan 1 to resign – what do they expect to change between now and then? Why not resign
immediately or do they ‘need’ the position or stipend for the next few weeks?
Let’s get to some of the comments in their letter. They stated “little communication with its members, the
BPR, or the Officers”. The officers receive a weekly update from the chairman, the pilots receive an
update after each session and the BPR received a complete briefing at nearly every BPR meeting. The
committee members are kept abreast of what days to plan for meetings and when they should fly. What
lack of communication are they referring to?
“Despite the Chairman’s opposition, we were able to bring about USAPA’s comprehensive proposal and
have the first union financial analysis of the Company conducted by our own analyst” If they want to pat
themselves on the back for this that’s their decision but it’s misguided. Both our professional negotiator,
who we pay for such advice, and the federal mediator advised against a comprehensive proposal at this time. They said it was not the right time to do it and it would not help the process. That sentiment was
conveyed to the officers and some BPR members but we were still directed to produce a comprehensive
proposal. So in spite of being advised not to, the committee produced a comprehensive proposal with the
expected results. On the topic of the financial analysis we were waiting for the Company to provide their
analysis first so that we could respond. I doubt that these two members of the committee were able to
influence the timing of the Company’s presentation so how are they taking credit for that.
Now lets’ get to the most egregious of their accusations. “…..we were appalled when members of this
committee were willing to sacrifice wages, jobs and working conditions in Section 10 solely to prevent
being “parked” by the National Mediation Board (NMB)”. We have been discussing Section 10 since
June 2008 – if we were going to ‘sacrifice wages, jobs and working conditions in Section 10’ why have
we spent so much time discussing this section? Should we have thrown the Check Airmen under the bus
early so we could close out another section? Did we do that? No! We have devoted numerous sessions
discussing Section 10 and hours and hours of prep time analyzing Company data to protect the interests of
our Check Airmen. We have passed proposals on this section no less than 25 times!! I would defy anyone
to prove to me that we were going to ‘sacrifice wages, jobs and working conditions’ for these pilots. Since
these two members were not on the committee when much of this work was being accomplished I might
give them the benefit of the doubt but to make such statements with the limited history they have on this
section is disingenuous at best.
Let me expand on their comment a little and put it in context. The last proposal we made to the Company
included a base of 16 events for CKAM and the Company could ask for volunteers to 17 or 18 events
prior to assigning anyone to 17. The only way a CKAM could go to 18 events would be to volunteer. The
Company responded by wanting the ability to assign up to 18 events after asking for volunteers and allow
a pilot to volunteer only to 19. We were well aware of the notion that the NMB was considering parking
us, which only benefits the Company by the way, so yes that was a concern. Now rather than just pass
back our previous proposal and give ammunition to those wanting to park us we were considering a
change that would allow the Company to ask for volunteers up to 19. This would be keeping with our
previous proposal of not allowing any assignment above 17 but if there were those who wanted to
volunteer up to 19 they could. We were also going to include a provision that the department must be
staffed based on 16 events so that the Company wouldn’t have to rely on volunteers for normal training
needs. It was felt, with the concurrence of the professional negotiator, that this would meet their needs
without affecting the working conditions of the covered pilots. So does this change deserve the accusation
that we were going to ‘sacrifice wages, jobs and working conditions’? I guess you need to be the judge of
that but in my mind it does not. I believe it was a good trade for keeping from being parked – should we
sacrifice the needs of ALL the pilots for a small change that does not materially affect the working
conditions of a few? It’s also interesting that they would pick this section as their rallying cry. I would
understand on one hand because one of the letter writers has some very close friends in the training
department but the other has expressed his disdain for CKAM numerous times by referring to them as
“scabs in the making”. So now all of a sudden he has seen the light and wants to use this issue to bash the
Chairman.
They seem to question the leadership skills of the Chairman. There are many different styles of leadership
and while they may not agree with Paul’s style that is no reason to go behind his back in an attempt to
stage a coup. I may not agree with everything that Paul does and we have had disagreements in the past but we discussed the issues and worked out solutions. You need to communicate your concerns and not
work with others behind someone’s back.
When Pat and Manny were appointed to the committee I was surprised that the vacancy on the committee
would be filled by appointment. I was expecting it would be filled, as all others were, after interviews and
approval by the BPR. I had hoped to have the opportunity to explain to the BPR why I would like to be
moved from the note taker position to a full member of the committee and I felt my experience on the
committee would justify that. I wanted to speak to Mike Cleary about this and informed Paul that I was
going to do that so he wouldn’t be surprised. After speaking to Mike he concurred that it was a good idea
and said that the chairman could manage his committee the way he wanted and if he wanted to appoint
someone else as the note taker that was his right. I guess that’s when things started going downhill with
the committee. The point I’m trying to make is that if someone possesses any leadership skills, as I
believe Pat and Manny do, you don’t go behind someone’s back if you have a problem.
Two weeks ago Pat and Manny had a meeting with Mike to discuss their perceived problems with the
committee. I was told they received a text to attend this meeting – for whatever reason I was not included
in this meeting. After hearing about the meeting I informed Mike that I would be more than happy to
discuss the issues if he wanted to hear from another committee member but I was never contacted so I
could give my input. Due to a problem with Paul’s USAPA email he was notified about the meeting after
the fact but still attempted to discuss the issues with Pat and Manny. We had a committee conference call
a couple days later and when asked about the meeting topics Pat said it was better to discuss them on a
face to face basis. Upon arrival in Phoenix for negotiations we were at dinner and again Paul attempted to
address the issues. They were very reluctant to discuss the issues and said it was water under the bridge
and it was time to move on. So much for the face to face discussions. Now it appears the water under the
bridge has turned into a torrent and threatens the entire negotiating process. Is that what the pilots want?
Where is the leadership here? They don’t want to discuss the issues and then send out a letter without
having the common courtesy to even inform the committee chairman first.
I’m sorry this is so long but I feel that I need to set the record straight and I am writing this because I want
to and not because I was asked to. Pat, Manny and I all share a military background and we have been
schooled in leadership techniques but I don’t recall learning about the methods they are using here. It
seems like something more out of the playbook of a South American dictator rather than what should be
coming from an ‘officer and a gentleman’. Both Manny and Pat have praised Paul for his work ethic and
his prowess at the negotiating table but for whatever reason they now feels it’s time for a change. I can’t
say that I agree with them. I would rather that all this had not come out since the pilots need better than
this but as I said I cannot stand by and let their statements go unanswered.
I’m proud of the work this committee has done over the last few years and it’s a shame that it is being
overshadowed by these baseless accusations. Of course I would like to have seen different results but I
don’t think you can lay the blame at the feet of the Chairman. We have followed the direction of the
Board and this committee has worked tirelessly in an attempt to bring a quality contract to the pilot group.
If a substandard contract is what you want anyone can get that for you. The fact of the matter is that if the
Company doesn’t want a deal it doesn’t really matter to them who sits across the table or who the
representative is. How do Pat and Manny propose to change this? They admit that “there will be progress
only by inordinate movement by us to the Company’s positions”. How do any of their recommendations address this? Other than pay rates what does the loss of the LOA 93 arbitration have to do with an
‘analysis of new proposals’? Do they think that the committee is unaware of the significance of our scope
protection? Who will “actively monitor the committee’s activities”? Isn’t that why the BPR appoints a
chairman – isn’t it your job to delegate authority? Do we now need an overseer to monitor the
committees?
Needless to say it’s your choice how you staff the committee but any change should be for the right
reasons and not for some other agenda. I am more than willing to speak to any and all of you if you have
any questions about what I have written.
Thank you,
Dean Colello
From: http://www.unbiasedfacts.org/Collelo-Letter.pdf
I’m writing this letter as a response to the resignation letter (from the NAC) sent to you by Captains Day
and Lopez. I believe they are misrepresenting the facts and I would like to give you my impressions of
how I see things on the committee. To begin, I don’t see myself as someone who gets involved in the
political process, that unfortunately seems to run the Association. As anyone can attest to I don’t call BPR
members to influence decisions nor do I attempt to manipulate things behind the scenes. I do not post on
webboards and I don’t make calls on behalf of others. I have not endorsed anyone who was seeking office
in USAPA nor have I campaigned against anyone. I do the job I was asked to do to the best of my ability
and will continue to do so.
Having said that I was very disappointed with the manner in which Pat and Manny decided to leave the
committee and I can’t sit on the sidelines while they make statements that are not true. I will not speculate
on their reasons for doing what they did but I would like to give you my views so that you may make an
informed decision based on the ‘FACTS’ and not on advancing some agenda. To begin with they stated
“We were not wanted or utilized effectively by the Chairman” That is not a true statement. I think the
truth is that they were not allowed to do what they wanted to and that is the problem. From day one, with
the concurrence of President Cleary, one of them was asked to assume the duties of note taker. In spite of
being on full flight pay loss for 6 months very few notes have been produced. Even after numerous
requests and many empty promises, notes for only 2 of the 15 sessions have been produced. The other
member was asked to produce the update after each negotiating session. The updates were not properly
done and needed to be almost entirely rewritten by other committee members. When the revised updates
were sent to all committee members for review these two individuals were noticeably absent in providing
any input for the update. So who is not being ‘effective’ here? There have been many times when their
input was requested and it was either not given or very little thought was put into a response. It seemed
that one member spent an inordinate amount of time online or worrying about internal union politics
rather than the tasks at hand.
This ties into the work ethic since joining the committee. It appears that they were more concerned about
the stipend, FPL, the next flight they could catch or why we were working past 5PM – many times
starting to pack up before work was complete. One of them even stated to members of another committee
“I just sit back with my feet up on the desk since I’m on AFB” or claiming that being on the NAC gets
him out of flying the double redeye to RIO. So how does that fit in with their statement “The best
committee members are those that do not “need” the position”? If they don’t ‘need’ the position why are
they waiting until Jan 1 to resign – what do they expect to change between now and then? Why not resign
immediately or do they ‘need’ the position or stipend for the next few weeks?
Let’s get to some of the comments in their letter. They stated “little communication with its members, the
BPR, or the Officers”. The officers receive a weekly update from the chairman, the pilots receive an
update after each session and the BPR received a complete briefing at nearly every BPR meeting. The
committee members are kept abreast of what days to plan for meetings and when they should fly. What
lack of communication are they referring to?
“Despite the Chairman’s opposition, we were able to bring about USAPA’s comprehensive proposal and
have the first union financial analysis of the Company conducted by our own analyst” If they want to pat
themselves on the back for this that’s their decision but it’s misguided. Both our professional negotiator,
who we pay for such advice, and the federal mediator advised against a comprehensive proposal at this time. They said it was not the right time to do it and it would not help the process. That sentiment was
conveyed to the officers and some BPR members but we were still directed to produce a comprehensive
proposal. So in spite of being advised not to, the committee produced a comprehensive proposal with the
expected results. On the topic of the financial analysis we were waiting for the Company to provide their
analysis first so that we could respond. I doubt that these two members of the committee were able to
influence the timing of the Company’s presentation so how are they taking credit for that.
Now lets’ get to the most egregious of their accusations. “…..we were appalled when members of this
committee were willing to sacrifice wages, jobs and working conditions in Section 10 solely to prevent
being “parked” by the National Mediation Board (NMB)”. We have been discussing Section 10 since
June 2008 – if we were going to ‘sacrifice wages, jobs and working conditions in Section 10’ why have
we spent so much time discussing this section? Should we have thrown the Check Airmen under the bus
early so we could close out another section? Did we do that? No! We have devoted numerous sessions
discussing Section 10 and hours and hours of prep time analyzing Company data to protect the interests of
our Check Airmen. We have passed proposals on this section no less than 25 times!! I would defy anyone
to prove to me that we were going to ‘sacrifice wages, jobs and working conditions’ for these pilots. Since
these two members were not on the committee when much of this work was being accomplished I might
give them the benefit of the doubt but to make such statements with the limited history they have on this
section is disingenuous at best.
Let me expand on their comment a little and put it in context. The last proposal we made to the Company
included a base of 16 events for CKAM and the Company could ask for volunteers to 17 or 18 events
prior to assigning anyone to 17. The only way a CKAM could go to 18 events would be to volunteer. The
Company responded by wanting the ability to assign up to 18 events after asking for volunteers and allow
a pilot to volunteer only to 19. We were well aware of the notion that the NMB was considering parking
us, which only benefits the Company by the way, so yes that was a concern. Now rather than just pass
back our previous proposal and give ammunition to those wanting to park us we were considering a
change that would allow the Company to ask for volunteers up to 19. This would be keeping with our
previous proposal of not allowing any assignment above 17 but if there were those who wanted to
volunteer up to 19 they could. We were also going to include a provision that the department must be
staffed based on 16 events so that the Company wouldn’t have to rely on volunteers for normal training
needs. It was felt, with the concurrence of the professional negotiator, that this would meet their needs
without affecting the working conditions of the covered pilots. So does this change deserve the accusation
that we were going to ‘sacrifice wages, jobs and working conditions’? I guess you need to be the judge of
that but in my mind it does not. I believe it was a good trade for keeping from being parked – should we
sacrifice the needs of ALL the pilots for a small change that does not materially affect the working
conditions of a few? It’s also interesting that they would pick this section as their rallying cry. I would
understand on one hand because one of the letter writers has some very close friends in the training
department but the other has expressed his disdain for CKAM numerous times by referring to them as
“scabs in the making”. So now all of a sudden he has seen the light and wants to use this issue to bash the
Chairman.
They seem to question the leadership skills of the Chairman. There are many different styles of leadership
and while they may not agree with Paul’s style that is no reason to go behind his back in an attempt to
stage a coup. I may not agree with everything that Paul does and we have had disagreements in the past but we discussed the issues and worked out solutions. You need to communicate your concerns and not
work with others behind someone’s back.
When Pat and Manny were appointed to the committee I was surprised that the vacancy on the committee
would be filled by appointment. I was expecting it would be filled, as all others were, after interviews and
approval by the BPR. I had hoped to have the opportunity to explain to the BPR why I would like to be
moved from the note taker position to a full member of the committee and I felt my experience on the
committee would justify that. I wanted to speak to Mike Cleary about this and informed Paul that I was
going to do that so he wouldn’t be surprised. After speaking to Mike he concurred that it was a good idea
and said that the chairman could manage his committee the way he wanted and if he wanted to appoint
someone else as the note taker that was his right. I guess that’s when things started going downhill with
the committee. The point I’m trying to make is that if someone possesses any leadership skills, as I
believe Pat and Manny do, you don’t go behind someone’s back if you have a problem.
Two weeks ago Pat and Manny had a meeting with Mike to discuss their perceived problems with the
committee. I was told they received a text to attend this meeting – for whatever reason I was not included
in this meeting. After hearing about the meeting I informed Mike that I would be more than happy to
discuss the issues if he wanted to hear from another committee member but I was never contacted so I
could give my input. Due to a problem with Paul’s USAPA email he was notified about the meeting after
the fact but still attempted to discuss the issues with Pat and Manny. We had a committee conference call
a couple days later and when asked about the meeting topics Pat said it was better to discuss them on a
face to face basis. Upon arrival in Phoenix for negotiations we were at dinner and again Paul attempted to
address the issues. They were very reluctant to discuss the issues and said it was water under the bridge
and it was time to move on. So much for the face to face discussions. Now it appears the water under the
bridge has turned into a torrent and threatens the entire negotiating process. Is that what the pilots want?
Where is the leadership here? They don’t want to discuss the issues and then send out a letter without
having the common courtesy to even inform the committee chairman first.
I’m sorry this is so long but I feel that I need to set the record straight and I am writing this because I want
to and not because I was asked to. Pat, Manny and I all share a military background and we have been
schooled in leadership techniques but I don’t recall learning about the methods they are using here. It
seems like something more out of the playbook of a South American dictator rather than what should be
coming from an ‘officer and a gentleman’. Both Manny and Pat have praised Paul for his work ethic and
his prowess at the negotiating table but for whatever reason they now feels it’s time for a change. I can’t
say that I agree with them. I would rather that all this had not come out since the pilots need better than
this but as I said I cannot stand by and let their statements go unanswered.
I’m proud of the work this committee has done over the last few years and it’s a shame that it is being
overshadowed by these baseless accusations. Of course I would like to have seen different results but I
don’t think you can lay the blame at the feet of the Chairman. We have followed the direction of the
Board and this committee has worked tirelessly in an attempt to bring a quality contract to the pilot group.
If a substandard contract is what you want anyone can get that for you. The fact of the matter is that if the
Company doesn’t want a deal it doesn’t really matter to them who sits across the table or who the
representative is. How do Pat and Manny propose to change this? They admit that “there will be progress
only by inordinate movement by us to the Company’s positions”. How do any of their recommendations address this? Other than pay rates what does the loss of the LOA 93 arbitration have to do with an
‘analysis of new proposals’? Do they think that the committee is unaware of the significance of our scope
protection? Who will “actively monitor the committee’s activities”? Isn’t that why the BPR appoints a
chairman – isn’t it your job to delegate authority? Do we now need an overseer to monitor the
committees?
Needless to say it’s your choice how you staff the committee but any change should be for the right
reasons and not for some other agenda. I am more than willing to speak to any and all of you if you have
any questions about what I have written.
Thank you,
Dean Colello
Metroyet
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 5,664
You can stop right there. The "IF" is likely insurmountable...for now at least as these guys are mostly lost causes. They'd rather operate outside the law in fantasy land than deal with the reality of their situation. As a group, they've proven themselves to be just too gullible to change directions in any substantive manner. The East candidates will still be beating the DOH drum, the factions out East will crystallize and degrade the situation over there to depths prior to, unknown. The West? What is there to do? Hope they change their minds?
Right. Sure.
It's their mess. They can sleep in it until they decide to clean it up. That's all there is to it.
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
Update for 02 Jan 2012: NAC Member Dean Colello Responds to Manny Lopez and Patrick Day's NAC resignation letter
Dear Subscriber,
Back of The Trip Sheet Update for January 2, 2012: NAC member Dean Colello wrote a letter in response to NAC member Manny Lopez and Patrick Day's NAC resignation letter. Will this type of committee communication and work help US Airways' pilots obtain a new contract?
Back of the Trip Sheet Update
Recent Back of the Trip Sheet Updates
Site
Fraternally,
webadmin@unbiasedfacts.org
Unbiased Facts is pleased to announce our move to Wordpress.com where every Unbiased Facts publication, past and present, can be found. Find us at: http://unbiasedfacts.wordpress.com We hope you enjoy the new layout and fresh presentation.
Share The Facts! We encourage you to forward this email to friends who want to know what's really going on with USAPA.
To subscribe, send a reply message with subscribe in the subject line.
To unsubscribe send a reply message with unsubscribe.
Dear Subscriber,
Back of The Trip Sheet Update for January 2, 2012: NAC member Dean Colello wrote a letter in response to NAC member Manny Lopez and Patrick Day's NAC resignation letter. Will this type of committee communication and work help US Airways' pilots obtain a new contract?
Back of the Trip Sheet Update
Recent Back of the Trip Sheet Updates
Site
Fraternally,
webadmin@unbiasedfacts.org
Unbiased Facts is pleased to announce our move to Wordpress.com where every Unbiased Facts publication, past and present, can be found. Find us at: http://unbiasedfacts.wordpress.com We hope you enjoy the new layout and fresh presentation.
Share The Facts! We encourage you to forward this email to friends who want to know what's really going on with USAPA.
To subscribe, send a reply message with subscribe in the subject line.
To unsubscribe send a reply message with unsubscribe.
Move2CLT
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,048
- Reaction score
- 8,631
Another one that truly gets it.You can stop right there. The "IF" is likely insurmountable...for now at least as these guys are mostly lost causes. They'd rather operate outside the law in fantasy land than deal with the reality of their situation. As a group, they've proven themselves to be just too gullible to change directions in any substantive manner. The East candidates will still be beating the DOH drum, the factions out East will crystallize and degrade the situation over there to depths prior to, unknown. The West? What is there to do? Hope they change their minds?
Right. Sure.
It's their mess. They can sleep in it until they decide to clean it up. That's all there is to it.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
Nothing changes, accept seniority progression, as has been the case for decades (now that all the concessions have been stopped).
The only sure way to a pay raise or better quality of life is through seniority progression and that has been true for decades even under the largest union in the airline industry. (Sadly that once great national union has miraculously transformed itself into the leader of regionals, despite the fact that the great union was "needed" to increase salaries and wages through the surefire method of pattern bargaining. Bah. They patterned themselves into poverty.)
Members still stuck in that panacea can only hope that their seniority progression outpaces the onslaught of concessions as the self-proclaimed leaders of the piloting profession clamor that everyone should give concession today in order to live to fight another day.
Seniority progression... its the only pay raise and QOL improvement.
Oh, don't get me wrong. They had their occasional shining moments despite the fact that the average professional pilot wage and work rules have plummeted (and that before you even take into account real dollars adjusted for inflation). But their moments of glory are like roses mixed in with manure in a pig sty, or lipstick on their snouts... my sincere apology to pigs.
Now we have a few projectile spewers on the boards of late who claim an alliance with the likes of the caped marauder and all of a sudden they think they can persuade everyone that seniority isn't the issue. It's all about moving forward. Better wages. Better QOL. We need it now! Heave! Hoe! Funny...
Do they realize how they sound just like the once great major union that chased concessions until it was no more?
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2009
- Messages
- 7,824
- Reaction score
- 2,707
Hey Clacky, Where's your Homie apollo?
What you just described is the modern day version of Trench Warfare. How productive, How Insanely stupid. Some of you guys are about as sharp as a bowling ball. Dumb de Dumb Dumb DUMB!
Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
Stupid is the one who sees two dogs fighting and takes it upon himself to separate them by grasping their ears.
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2009
- Messages
- 7,824
- Reaction score
- 2,707
Yeah, how about we just shoot them instead? Plan works for me. Lot's of RJ pilots would love to have the "Slave Wages" paid by US Mainline.
Move2CLT
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,048
- Reaction score
- 8,631
Sparrow, you did such a great job staying off this thread. Let's keep it up.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
