I'm no Newk, or a lawyer, but I do believe they are trained to talk without saying anything. They're trained not to get tripped up by a reporter requiring a follow up interview to clarify. Because if I tell a reporter something, then you get mad and ask for clarification and I tell you something else, now all of a sudden it sounds like I am telling them what they want to hear and telling you what you want to hear.

All of this could be avoided. Say very little about contracts. You just tout that the airlines are collectively making billions in profit every quarter flying airplanes around, you represent the pilots, pilots are working hard and proud to be a part of the process, drop a couple of "paradigm shifts", and then when asked specifically about contracts:

"Each contract is unique..."
"Each union has it's own negotiating committee..."
"We provide resources..."
"We are here to help them..."
"We're not going to discuss that right now..."
"We don't discuss those things..."
"It's not an appropriate time..."
"It's not for me to say..."
"You'd have to contact the individual unions..."

Also I am sure it's in a 101 class somewhere that you don't get emotional "I almost can't stand it, it's so good." How about something that RA and EB would say in a conference call: "we are excited."

By the way, did Moak tell the reporter that he was in NY as a part of a quick tour to assure Wall Street analysts that ALPA’s contract demands won’t prove onerous to airlines? Define onerous?

It's T u for Texas.

Having finally read the article with the offending quotes, I have these observations (Caution!! Glass-is-half-full perspective ahead!!!):

“This is really a good story,” ALPA President Lee Moak said Tuesday during a visit to Bloomberg Businessweek in New York, part of a quick tour to assure Wall Street analysts that ALPA’s contract demands won’t prove onerous to airlines. "I almost can’t stand it, it’s so good."

The subject of the article is soaring airline profits. Moak says that he's so happy about profits these days that he "almost can't stand it." Given those profits' potential effects on our negotiating leverage, I find it hard to disagree.

Thanks to the profits, pilots now see themselves as collaborators with management—they increasingly lobby alongside airline executives in Washington. That, says Moak, deepens the working relationships. “All of a sudden, you find yourself on the same side of 95 percent of the issues,” he says.

I'm not sure I agree that we are on the same side of 95% of the issues, but we've certainly been lobbying Washington on some of the same subjects recently. To the extent that this makes us look more valuable in the eyes of management, I have to think that it can only help us at the table.

Delta says it paid nearly $92 million last year in similar (performance-based) incentives. “The employees are now coupled to the airlines,” says Moak, a Delta captain who is stepping down at year’s end after four years as president.

Presumably referring to profit sharing and our monthly goals payouts. The better the Company does, the better we do.

Moak contends that ALPA pilots at the larger carriers enjoy what he calls “mature, good contracts” already. Radical overhauls aren’t in the cards, he says.

I assume, although I do not know, that he is referring to the overall construct of our contract. There are many aspects of our contract that probably don't need much tweaking, leaving our NC able to focus more on simply raising value, e.g., pay rates, vacation pay, retirement, per diem, etc.

Most of the contract talks are likely to center on basic compensation—hourly pay rates and how much carriers pay into pilots’ retirement plans. “There will be a business discussion of pay as it relates to revenue,” Moak says. “You can argue about $2 or $2.05, and that matters to the crew member,” but “you’re working on the margins” on the new contracts, he says.

No idea what the "$2 or $2.05" refers to. An earlier poster suggested that it may be our pilot CASM, which was 1.36 cents in 2013. (If that's the case, why the dollar sign in front of the number?)

With a 4% increase in 2014 (pay + 401(k)) and another 3% in 2015, that will take us to 1.46 cents. Taking that up to 2.05 cents would mean an increase of some 40% which, according to Jerry's calculation, would cost around $800M.

Given a projected profit this year of $4B, I would agree that this could be characterized as "working on the margins."

Again, this is my ever-optimistic possible interpretation of what I read in the article. YMMV...

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And the color in Austin is all wrong anyway. PMS 151 is the official Pantone color.

Standing by for "PMS" jokes...:rolleyes:

The problem with your spin, Alan (and it is most certainly spin) is that Moak himself apparently claims he was "misrepresented" in the article. Not even he has the chutzpah to spin those remarks as positive for pilots.

He's walking them back.

Yet you are doubling down on them. Why is that?

So 2.00-2.05 would be how much of a raise? Sure isn't some pithy little raise is it?

The points now seem to be made along pilot cost per seat mile, or per seat per hour.

I also am guessing business week did not know what Lee was referring to with 2.00-2.05 so they put a dollar sign in front of it.

My reps did the same thing Alan did. :eek:

"Misrepresented" my @ss. He once again revealed himself and now he's doing damage control, plain and simple.

Remember this oldie but goodie? "The January 1 pay rate increase represents an increase of roughly $75 million in value for the Delta pilots. It also marks somewhat of a milestone in that the New Year pay rates will be above those that were in place when Delta filed for bankruptcy protection in 2005." - Lee Moak, Chairman's Letter, September 2010

This guy has been very consistent, and every now and then he reveals what he really thinks but knows he can't just come out and say. Bankruptcy was a reset and we can only expect what would normally be considered "reasonable" improvements from that new baseline. "Proactive engagement" trumps restoring our profession and our careers.

"Lee" could clarify that and put the speculation on it to bed. I'm just sayin'...

I read that part as a 5 cent per diem raise would be a win in his eyes and well within the margins.

According to those at the SLC Fish Fry where we was in attendance, he said he was going to do just that.