Neo (again)

[buzz]

Hi Neo. You might recall I'm having problems adding to existing strings due to an SQL problem (the error dept at this forum is supposed to get back to me on that some time soon), so for everyone else, sorry I couldn't respond to neo's recent add ons directly.

You seem to want an answer to your reply to my post. First, you were right, you did only post the exCRA thing once. The bit about "examining the possibility of" as a disclaimer is a bit disingenuous, though.

As far as your comments on the exCAIL pilots getting the retirements they brought with them to the merger - you said it, not me. It is not impossible, unlike the CRA scenario. Since the only career expectation that you can take to the bank is that a guy will retire at a certain age, there is a certain elegance to that sort of adjustment, from my perspective.

Do I believe it to be an accurate assessment by you of what's included in the Keller award? I'll leave those gyrations to you.

By the way, I saw in the latest MEC message that there should be absolutely no linkage between the T/A and Keller, and that we should concern ourselves with keeping this company alive. I'll bet you figure that Rainer was forced to say that, right?

buzz

[Guest neo]

I do recall you mentioning that SQL thing buzz, and no problem at all. Sometimes it's good for a thread to get refreshed at the top of the stack, anyway. Thanks for your response.

I prompted you again for an answer because you made inaccurate statements about me and my posts, to which I responded truthfully and politely. In return, I asked only that you answer a question of my own. It seems like only common courtesy that you would respond. You have now, so that's all behind us, and again thanks for your comments.

Now let's cut through all the 'hu nao' and deal with your post directly. You believe that the Keller award could see all CAIL retirements go to CAIL pilots. I agree with you. You also feel that it's an elegant adjustment, and clearly approve of same. In this department I'm certainly willing to grant your career expectations as long as you're willing to preserve mine. But of course, that's the rub, isn't it?

Yes, I did see that the latest MEC message said that there should be no linkage between the Tentative Agreement and the Keller Award. No, I don't believe anyone forced the MEC to say that. Presumably they could have remained silent on the issue? But clearly, if they make any comment at all it would have to be along the lines of what Captain Bauer said. That's because under the CCAA, the MEC will be legally bound to further the acceptance of the Tentative Agreement. Anything they do or say which compromises that acceptance would put them and our union in jeopardy. Furthermore, the MEC is legally bound to protect the interests of each and every pilot in ACPA. They cannot favor one group at the expense of another without causing very big problems. So again, doing or saying anything which was detrimental to those interests would put the MEC and our union in jeopardy. Do you see things differently?

(By the way... and this you can take to the bank... I'll be the last person that the MEC ever calls for strategic advice, and I'm probably the ACPA pilot farthest away from anything that goes on at an MEC meeting.)

I appreciate your admission that you erred about my CRA comments in your original post. But I'd like to say something about your claim that my comments were "disingenuous". First off, I've never liked the word because try as I might, I can't pronounce it. Secondly, I choose my words carefully and try to be as accurate as possible when I post. All I can ask is that others do likewise if they comment on what I write. How people interpret what I say is influenced by my words, but is ultimately beyond my control. Post here long enough and you'll find that two intelligent people can respond with completely different interpretations of your words. What YOU find as disingenuous because you harbour suspicions about my motive, SOMEONE else without your emotional bias reads as straightforward comment. At some point, the responsibility is on the reader to set aside their own beliefs about the writer's perspective, which in any case could be completely wrong, and simply respond to the words AS THEY ARE WRITTEN.

And in my case, the only words I've written about this issue which contain ANY recommendation for others, is that they see the Keller Award prior to voting on the Tentative Agreement. The MEC's legal obligations notwithstanding, unless you would vote for the T.A. regardless of how bad its consequences might be, you would be foolish to vote for it without knowing what's in the Keller Award.

Would you not agree with that, buzz?

Best wishes,

Richard

[Guest neo]

I do recall you mentioning that SQL thing buzz, and no problem at all. Sometimes it's good for a thread to get refreshed at the top of the stack, anyway. Thanks for your response.

I prompted you again for an answer because you made inaccurate statements about me and my posts, to which I responded truthfully and politely. In return, I asked only that you answer a question of my own. It seems like only common courtesy that you would respond. You have now, so that's all behind us, and again thanks for your comments.

Now let's cut through all the 'hu nao' and deal with your post directly. You believe that the Keller award could see all CAIL retirements go to CAIL pilots. I agree with you. You also feel that it's an elegant adjustment, and clearly approve of same. In this department I'm certainly willing to grant your career expectations as long as you're willing to preserve mine. But of course, that's the rub, isn't it?

Yes, I did see that the latest MEC message said that there should be no linkage between the Tentative Agreement and the Keller Award. No, I don't believe anyone forced the MEC to say that. Presumably they could have remained silent on the issue? But clearly, if they make any comment at all it would have to be along the lines of what Captain Bauer said. That's because under the CCAA, the MEC will be legally bound to further the acceptance of the Tentative Agreement. Anything they do or say which compromises that acceptance would put them and our union in jeopardy. Furthermore, the MEC is legally bound to protect the interests of each and every pilot in ACPA. They cannot favor one group at the expense of another without causing very big problems. So again, doing or saying anything which was detrimental to those interests would put the MEC and our union in jeopardy. Do you see things differently?

(By the way... and this you can take to the bank... I'll be the last person that the MEC ever calls for strategic advice, and I'm probably the ACPA pilot farthest away from anything that goes on at an MEC meeting.)

I appreciate your admission that you erred about my CRA comments in your original post. But I'd like to say something about your claim that my comments were "disingenuous". First off, I've never liked the word because try as I might, I can't pronounce it. Secondly, I choose my words carefully and try to be as accurate as possible when I post. All I can ask is that others do likewise if they comment on what I write. How people interpret what I say is influenced by my words, but is ultimately beyond my control. Post here long enough and you'll find that two intelligent people can respond with completely different interpretations of your words. What YOU find as disingenuous because you harbour suspicions about my motive, SOMEONE else without your emotional bias reads as straightforward comment. At some point, the responsibility is on the reader to set aside their own beliefs about the writer's perspective, which in any case could be completely wrong, and simply respond to the words AS THEY ARE WRITTEN.

And in my case, the only words I've written about this issue which contain ANY recommendation for others, is that they see the Keller Award prior to voting on the Tentative Agreement. The MEC's legal obligations notwithstanding, unless you would vote for the T.A. regardless of how bad its consequences might be, you would be foolish to vote for it without knowing what's in the Keller Award.

Would you not agree with that, buzz?

Best wishes,

Richard