Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

SWA to speed up Airtran integration.....article

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
I'll say 717capt because you seem that immature and childish. You really do not present yourself well maxblast72. This is not the second grade. I can see you must have been a key component in the total disfunction of the AirTran Mec and MC.
What's next? Are you going to take your ball and go home? This could be an chance to have a professional yet productive discussion on the issue. But then again this is FI. What was I thinking? :)
 
Max provides a window into the dysfunction that was the AAI MEC. Unbelievable. Send these guys off to negotiate with minimal guidance and throw a sh!t when they come back with a negotiated deal. This lawsuit could get interesting. The first deal should have been voted on, plain and simple.
 
redflyer65 said:
Max provides a window into the dysfunction that was the AAI MEC. Unbelievable. Send these guys off to negotiate with minimal guidance and throw a sh!t when they come back with a negotiated deal. This lawsuit could get interesting. The first deal should have been voted on, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

He has also proven that he enjoys a good game of "I've got a secret" and likes to be the center of attention. Maybe he can find a sewing circle to join or something.
 
PCL_128 said:
Yes. You can read the details straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.unbiasedfacts.org/InsideTheRingOfFire.pdf
Click to expand...

I like Tim. I gave him and his mustache a ride to ATL when he was a new hire. Luckily we had two jumpseats. He's a good guy. However, I do not consider him, nor ALPAs ananlysts to be the horses mouth.

In recent years I've found that the the exact opposite direction of ALPAs guidance turns out to be correct.
 
maxblast72 said:
Good history lesson. But why let the numbers get in the way of making a point? :)
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that you may have lost a little credibility when it comes to 'numbers' Max :) What we can agee on; is the fact that a large one became much smaller.
 
redflyer65 said:
Max provides a window into the dysfunction that was the AAI MEC. Unbelievable. Send these guys off to negotiate with minimal guidance and throw a sh!t when they come back with a negotiated deal. This lawsuit could get interesting. The first deal should have been voted on, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

SWA should have not threatened AT pilots, plain and simple.
 
redflyer65 said:
I said, ad nauseum, that SW might pull the non-integration card. No one believed me. NO ONE. The line pilots should have voted their own destiny, not the Magnificent Seven.
Click to expand...


I'm not following. Was there not a 4 party agreement signed laying a path to arbitration? Did you believe their threats to be true, but their word on the 4 party agreement to be false? And if you believe there was a non intergration possibility wouldnt SWA have to let every unionized group go as well? Otherwise mccaskil/bond definately apply then if they took just one group? You should have let it go to arbitration after your MEC said it was not good enough. Honestly could the list have been much worse?
 
Kenney G said:
I'm not following. Was there not a 4 party agreement signed laying a path to arbitration? Did you believe their threats to be true, but their word on the 4 party agreement to be false? And if you believe there was a non intergration possibility wouldnt SWA have to let every unionized group go as well? Otherwise mccaskil/bond definately apply then if they took just one group? You should have let it go to arbitration after your MEC said it was not good enough. Honestly could the list have been much worse?
Click to expand...

Wow, where were you when we were trying to decide what to do? The way you put it all together brings everything into perspective. So simple and concise! You actually used the word "definately" spelled wrong and cite mccaskil/bond so I am sure you are a lawyer or something. Thank you.
 
Secret Squirrel said:
Wow, where were you when we were trying to decide what to do? The way you put it all together brings everything into perspective. So simple and concise! You actually used the word "definately" spelled wrong and cite mccaskil/bond so I am sure you are a lawyer or something. Thank you.
Click to expand...


Oh no! I can't spell! Dang iPhones. What. An easy way to not answer a question. If I was there or not has nothing to do with the question I asked. If I was there or if I was not I would have made the same choice. I would have said no thank you, let's go to arbitration as laid out in the 4 party agreement. Where did you go to law school Secret Squirrel? According to you if you did not go to law school your opinion also means nothing. Maybe you could answer my question then.
 
Kenney G said:
I'm not following. Was there not a 4 party agreement signed laying a path to arbitration? Did you believe their threats to be true, but their word on the 4 party agreement to be false? And if you believe there was a non intergration possibility wouldnt SWA have to let every unionized group go as well? Otherwise mccaskil/bond definately apply then if they took just one group? You should have let it go to arbitration after your MEC said it was not good enough. Honestly could the list have been much worse?
Click to expand...

It never was going to B-M, that's my point. The MEC thought they could force it, but it backfired in their face. An unbelievable outcome for the line guys. Very sad.
 
Kenney G said:
Oh no! I can't spell! Dang iPhones. What. An easy way to not answer a question. If I was there or not has nothing to do with the question I asked. If I was there or if I was not I would have made the same choice. I would have said no thank you, let's go to arbitration as laid out in the 4 party agreement. Where did you go to law school Secret Squirrel? According to you if you did not go to law school your opinion also means nothing. Maybe you could answer my question then.
Click to expand...

Don't even pretend to not be involved with Airtran somehow. Every one of your posts going back to 2007 is in Airtran threads. And most going back to the beginning. This is either an alternate screen name for you or/and you actually know what is going on and just here to stir up more ********************. I don't know how there is more ******************** to stir up but I guess you are going to try. So I will not even try to waste my time trying to rehash 2 years worth of debate that will not be resolved with 100 years worth of debating.
 
funnyman12 said:
Oh...last guess. JM former ATN comm chairman and now the big man on campus Other than those 2 im clueless.
Click to expand...

Nah, I doubt that. JM is a great writer. Unless max just transcribed poorly, I can't imagine JM writing that poorly.

I remember reading the forum post, but can't remember who wrote it. But more to the point, I can't imagine why anyone should care what someone said on a message board or in an email when they weren't even involved on the MEC or a committee. Just more attention wh0ring from max.
 
PCL_128 said:
I remember reading the forum post, but can't remember who wrote it. But more to the point, I can't imagine why anyone should care what someone said on a message board or in an email when they weren't even involved on the MEC or a committee.
Click to expand...
What if the person who authored those quotes holds a key position in the ATN MEC today? What if the person who authored those quotes was possibly a key player behind the scenes in getting ATL MEC reps recalled in the fall of 2011? What if the person who authored the quotes was at the Gary Kelly meeting on July 14th, 2011? Is it important then?
 
maxblast72 said:
What if the person who authored those quotes holds a key position in the ATN MEC today? What if the person who authored those quotes was possibly a key player behind the scenes in getting ATL MEC reps recalled in the fall of 2011? What if the person who authored the quotes was at the Gary Kelly meeting on July 14th, 2011? Is it important then?
Click to expand...

Not really. Our massive ass raping is history. Why are forum posts and emails about it from 18 months ago important now?
 
I am not a lawyer but I would imagine quotes like those from people that were in the room on 7/14/11 might influence a jury. I think Haber should use Quote #1 as the opening statement in the jury trial.


Quote #1 from an email in September 2011:

"Another way of saying this, in aviation terms; the MEC chose to fly the MDW ILS 31C to a landing in a blizzard, with weather minimums below minimums and braking action "poor". They did it without asking the passengers if they'd like to risk the landing or proceed to the alternate, which was safe. Even worse, they told the passengers the weather was fine."

Quote #2 from the AirTran forum (August 2011):

"As for whether or the attorneys advised the MEC to send this out, I think you'd have to be friggin deaf to claim that they didn't. Did they say "you must send this out?" No. Attorney's wouldn't do that. Did they make it clear that not sending it out held significantly more risk than not sending it out? Yes. Were they more explicit than that? At times, yes. Was Todd on any of those calls? No. All three said the same thing, even Todd's beloved ALPA attorneys."
 
I am not a lawyer, but I would imagine that a case would have to actually get past the summary judgment phase before I would start worrying about what a jury might think.
 
PCL_128 said:
I am not a lawyer, but I would imagine that a case would have to actually get past the summary judgment phase before I would start worrying about what a jury might think.
Click to expand...


Of course your not a lawyer, you only have a HS diploma ....

You are missing a lot of years .
 
slaquer5 said:
Of course your not a lawyer, you only have a HS diploma ....

You are missing a lot of years .
Click to expand...

I may only have a HS diploma, but at least my high school did a better job of teaching basic grammar than your college did.

your - possessive pronoun
you're - contraction for "you are"

Maybe you should consider a few more college courses. It obviously didn't take the first go around.
 
Anyone have any guesses on who authored this one:

-----------------------------------------
Keith, it's not about scaring people; it's about giving people all of the facts rather than just letting the angry forum posters control the dialogue. There are tough decisions to be made here. Tough decisions were made at NMB headquarters the night that the TA was reached. People need to think things through logically rather than emotionally. If you think that putting the likely negative outcomes out there for consideration by the pilots is "fear mongering," then you're welcome to your opinion. I, on the other hand, believe that it would be grossly irresponsible of this union to not put that information out there. The pilots will make the ultimate decision, but they should do so with all of the facts and knowing all of the potential outcomes.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom