|
|
Good article in AvWeek about fuel and fleet plans. Anderson is quoted as saying we have not altered our fleet plan for the lower cost of fuel. The article also refutes some of the wildely inaccurate estimates on fuel costs and yearly savings for Delta posted here. Our cost per gallon is going to come in at 2.45 to 2.50 a gallon in the first quarter. It was 2.62 4q last year.
|
Originally Posted by LeineLodge
(Post 1822073)
^^^This is a good example of the biggest reason (excuse???) I hear guys give as to why they won't support the PAC. I have to believe it too, because I can't believe there are any Delts pilots out there that can't afford to shell out a cup of coffee twice a month - especially when 1/2 of all Mesa pilots contribute to the PAC, and we all know how underpaid they are...
Back to GG's point...I'm not asking anyone to sacrifice their personal beliefs/politics. I'm certainly not willing to do so. However, it's naive (not direct at GG) to believe than ANY politician is aligned with all of one's principles. Once you can accept that, it becomes a matter of recognizing that it takes money (and the threat of not being re-elected) to have any influence in DC. That is where the term pilot partisan comes in - Carl's conspiracy theory notwithstanding. The PAC's entire purpose is to provide us with a voice. No voice = the opposing viewpoint goes uncontested. Like it or not, we sometimes/frequently have to engage with politicians that we may personally disagree with, yet that wield enormous power over issues that will directly affect our industry/careers. They WILL sell us out if we don't lobby for our interests. When I donate to the PAC I do so to support the Government Affairs pilots that are lobbying on my behalf. I am not doing so to support the "far left" or the "communists." I'm merely purchasing access. Whether you like that or not, it is the way the game is played. I still have a (hopefully) long career ahead, and can't sit idly by and watch our own government sell away our industry/careers. If you're under 55, your career will be negatively affected by politicians that will sell your job if we don't constantly push back. $5 a month does not make you a communist :D The link again, since we're on a new page: https://www.alpa.org/AlpaLogin/tabid...2fDefault.aspx |
Let's take it to the extreme. If the legislator was a Muslim extremist but did everything he could for pilots, would the PAC contribute to him?
|
Originally Posted by GunshipGuy
(Post 1822088)
But back to the hypothetical. If the PAC supported a communist, would you donate knowing you're efforts supported that candidate/incumbent?
If not, then that's your limit and a line you won't cross. For me, it's not as flexible. If you're still willing to donate even if they support a communist then your principals are different from mine and I just can't bring myself to understanding yours, and you not understanding mine. Are you using the term to generalize the left? Only those on the left you strongly disagree with? As I said above, I view it as purchasing access. Without access we will get steamrolled. It is repulsive, but it is the way the game is rigged. I want to be clear though. I 100% understand where you are coming from and support your right to hold the line on your beliefs. I just happen to view it as more grey than black & white. I don't think its possible to get anything done in Washington unless one is willing to flex, at least a little bit, and work with those that we may disagree with - especially if they hold the hammer (and sickle :p ). IMO this is DC is so f-ed up. Everyone is too entrenched and views any opposition as the enemy. YMMV. -LeineLodge, the Red ;) |
Originally Posted by GunshipGuy
(Post 1822060)
Here's a question for ALPA PAC supporters who say don't think about the actual politicians who get PAC money, think about the fact that they're said to be pro-labor, and therefore pro-pilot. Is the argument that no matter how much we may personally disagree with the politicians' positions on all other matters, we should be OK with that to the point that we put all those other concerns out of our mind because we're told they're the politicians who are supposedly more likely to be in our corner? So hypothetical: What if the pro-labor, pro-pilot politician was a communist? Is that something you as an ALPA PAC contributor are willing to accept because you think concerns about your individual job override all other issues facing our country?
|
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1822113)
Let's take it to the extreme. If the legislator was a Muslim extremist but did everything he could for pilots, would the PAC contribute to him?
|
Originally Posted by DALMD88FO
(Post 1818000)
I do believe SWA has profit sharing.
A couple of points 1. Its in the corporate by laws not their contract. They get it whether they like it or not. Current management holds it over their heads. To paraphrase one of my several "A" friends there: We demand a pay raise, management counters by implying profit sharing makes up for less in pay rates. 2. Its capped to IRS limits. I'll never make enough for this to matter but for many of them 9.8% (this year) puts a number of their A's into the cap and they get cutoff. We're all about to get a very big check. The question we should be asking ourselves is why is it in managements interest to pay us a Valentines Day bonus and not a bi-monthly check?? |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1822113)
Let's take it to the extreme. If the legislator was a Muslim extremist but did everything he could for pilots, would the PAC contribute to him?
|
I guess it's blatantly obvious now that the company wants to change our sick policy back to what it was during the bankruptcy contracts.
|
We're still fighting commies?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:36 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands