SWA today like the airline in the book, "Nuts!"?

[Ty Webb]

I know you wanted DOH-Rel Sen, "your seat" and our contract...I think that crappy hotel argument would have worked for ya...50 737 orders ain't gonna cut it...more like 100

Ty, I understand you wanting to f over the SWA pilots, all is fair in negotiations, what I don't get is why you so strongly support taking money out of the pockets of your fellow AAI pilots, ego is an amazing drag on common sense...

Uh, Oh. . . . Every one stand back, Wacky Jack's off his meds again. :nuts:

I don't want to "F over" anyone, SWA or otherwise. Don't just make up crap, you tiller-yanking, seat-stealing HUD cripple.

:laugh:


,

 

[madjack]

That is funny right there...

 

[scoreboardII]

Why are we disparaging HUDs?

 

[400ADude]

Why are we disparaging HUDs?

When you have nothing left to disparage or having a weak argument you end up like that. Angry, despondent and excuse filled.

 

[madjack]

HUDS is a 4 letter word...we r lucky to have the AAI folks, they have all been great...

 

[humveedriver]

HUDS is a 4 letter word...we r lucky to have the AAI folks, they have all been great...

The HUD is pretty cool. I like how when you spot the tops of a cumulus clouds or a thunder storm, the Captain lowers the HUD like a periscope and surveys the target. It's very Das Boot.

 

[scoreboardII]

get an app called cloud topper, you can best them by telling them exactly how hi or low the clouds are, with radar range.

 

[Ty Webb]

When you have nothing left to disparage or having a weak argument you end up like that. Angry, despondent and excuse filled.

Actually, that was meant as a joke. MJ got it.

I haven't used the HUD, so I really don't have an opinion on it. Autoland has wind limitations, don't know about HUDS.

I'm certainly not angry or despondent, far from it. This has been a great year for me, I've been enjoying it.... it's my thirteenth year here, and likely last year as an AirTran skipper, so I'm enjoying it for what it is. I'll worry about 2015 when it gets here... As much as things have been changing wrt to transition, why worry about it now? I do feel for the senior FOs here who are stuck while watching junior FOs transition ahead of them, tho.

 

[maxblast72]

The same S/T who wasn't even allowed by the MEC to go to the Dallas meeting?

You aren't exactly using good sources, here. But that's typical of you.

Furthermore, I don't know if these emails have even been submitted as exhibits in the depositions.

Ok, you didn't like or trust the MEC Secretary/Treasurer. I will give you a quote from our former Communications Chair who I know you think is a smart guy (who later became the ATN MEC Chair). The email I am quoting is in response to the August 1, 2011 LEC blast that you ghost wrote for the LEC Chair. This email was part of Plaintiffs Exhibit #12 introduced during the Merger Committee Chair's deposition:

"Okay.. since we haven’t gotten a response, I’ll go ahead and try to help.

Bxxxxxx (ATN Contract Administrator) doesn’t approve LEC messages, so technically, he didn’t approve this one either. Did he, however, say you should remove the quote. Yes or no? If yes, why?

This isn’t a question as to whether you [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]believe [/FONT][/FONT]or [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]feel [/FONT][/FONT]or [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]think [/FONT][/FONT]that Kelly is bluffing. This is a question of whether you are willing to bend the facts Kelly’s full statement) to support that belief, and whether you’re willing to mislead the pilot group by postulating your [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]belief, feeling or thought [/FONT][/FONT]as fact. That is essentially what you have done.

To put it more plainly, it is one thing to say that you [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]believe [/FONT][/FONT]that Kelly was bluffing during the meeting ; it is another to deny the bluff happened altogether, and to bend Kelly’s words to support that statement.

Furthermore, as we all know, Gary Kelly repeated dozens of times in front of dozens of people that all bets are off in arbitration. You may recall that at 09:56am Gary Kelly said, "I don’t have to integrate these carriers." I remember that moment vividly because it is when you chose to stand behind your chair. You didn’t share that with the pilots; in fact, you told them in blanket fashion that no such statements were made at all. Some day they may wonder why.

Finally, in the interest of full disclosure, Anthony did try calling me immediately after I sent my last message. I did not answer the phone because I believe everyone needs to be a part of this conversation"

 

[PCL_128]

Ok, you didn't like or trust the MEC Secretary/Treasurer.

Actually, I both like and trust him. I just don't believe he was in any position to be making such a determination, since the emails and phone calls weren't going to him, they were going to the reps.

I will give you a quote from our former Communications Chair who I know you think is a smart guy (who later became the ATN MEC Chair)

Yep, he's a very smart guy. He has no bargaining experience, though (just like you), so he was in no position to be determining what was a threat and what was posturing. His email focuses upon the key dispute during that time: were there real threats, or weren't there? He believes there were, and "slick," as someone called him earlier, still doesn't believe that there were. That doesn't make it a lie. It makes it a difference of opinion. Personally, I agree with "slick." But I have actual bargaining experience, so what do I know.