|
|
Originally Posted by TOGA LK
(Post 1707783)
Starting to suck?! Just wait till the first TA rolls in.
I won't be here when negotiations roll around. Especially if Carl ever puts his money where his big fat mouth is. The maturity level is waning on a seemingly hourly basis. |
|
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1707790)
I keep saying "enhance" "enhance" but it still looks like a dog to me. |
Originally Posted by Rogue24
(Post 1707405)
Maybe he's gonna do just that.
Then again, maybe he meant exactly what he said. Since the 4 ATL reps completely agree with what Moak said, maybe Moak realizes he doesn't have to walk anything back as long as he has the solid support of the 4 ATL reps.
Originally Posted by Rogue24
(Post 1707405)
A print publisher has never misused or misquoted anyone eh?
Carl |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1707495)
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? Carl |
Originally Posted by Rogue24
(Post 1707525)
So 2.00-2.05 would be how much of a raise?
Originally Posted by Rogue24
(Post 1707525)
Sure isn't some pithy little raise is it?
Originally Posted by Rogue24
(Post 1707525)
The points now seem to be made along pilot cost per seat mile, or per seat per hour.
-------------------------- 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. -------------------------- See where the context is about basic compensation, hourly rates, and payments into retirements? The $2.00-$2.05 figure was given in the context of compensation...because that matters to us crew members.
Originally Posted by Rogue24
(Post 1707525)
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.
Carl |
Originally Posted by firstmob
(Post 1707739)
On another note, with the changes in our industry and current world conditions the upcoming wide body aircraft order, IMHO will not only shock us but also amaze us in it's :)size.
Let's hope so! |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1707541)
Carl, I've never called Tim a "liar" that I recall. I have repeatedly written that he has failed to consider all the facts, he has reached erroneous conclusions, which he then uses as a foundation to base incorrect fixes.
I do not know who runs the DPA's web site, but I thought it was someone other than Tim, in which case the change logs should have already told the DPA all it needed to know. As for ALPA's "Special Committee" they have P2P. It is central to Pilot to Pilot's mission to counter incorrect information and find answers for pilots to request assistance. I am happy to help a DPA "member" and perhaps even more so, since it is an opportunity to humbly serve. As with their lawsuit, the DPA is intentionally provocative. Regarding the "Special Committee", are you claiming that committee is part of P2P? Carl |
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1707545)
If that's what he meant, then I would agree with the outrage.
I've wanted to believe that you were a dispassionate analyst of fact here, but this latest full-throated defense of what Moak has stated shows me that you're just another ALPA no matter what spokesperson. Very similar to the 4 ATL reps. Very disappointing. Carl |
Originally Posted by Razor
(Post 1707549)
That's funny. Don't get involved with DPA, the group trying to throw out ALPA, until you get off probation and are enjoying the protections provided by ALPA. :rolleyes:
Carl |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:52 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands