|
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1733318)
Agreed.
Or something like that. Whether you or I take that to mean something similar to what RA said, the fact remains that LM has said nothing about labor risk, one way or the other, so let's please not put words in his mouth. We all have enough to be frustrated with already without adding imaginary or perceived fuel to the fire. |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1733332)
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.
To me, that is the exact same thing as "Labor risk is off the table." The question in my mind, and what I would have loved to have seen LM clarify, is what he means by "radical overhauls." Is he talking about major increases in pay and/or benefits, or is he talking about major changes to the basic structure of work rules, etc.? I sure hope it's the latter. I could live with keeping the basic structure of our contract so long as the individual numbers are ratcheted up -- a lot. |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1733322)
One more time, for emphasis:
"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." Alan, was that clear enough for you? So if that whole thing was a 'misquote', where's the retraction? I agree with his latest letter, about the real pilot shortage being a Pay shortage, but he stopped short at the RJ level. He could have also included US, and the massive losses in pilot pay/benefits/retirements at the MAJOR airlines as well! Why would anyone want to suffer years on an RJ only to come to a Major...and work for 1998 pay rates...in 2014? |
Originally Posted by Hillbilly
(Post 1732891)
I must have missed his post where he expressed wanting restoration. That's my fault. If he did that, I agree that would be inappropriate for someone who was at Comair at the the time. Sorry Timbo.
The "none of your business" snarkyness on a public anonymous message board though. Really? [emoji107] |
Originally Posted by tim123
(Post 1733342)
After this Bloomberg interview,didn't ALPA claim he was misquoted and that they were going to put out what he really ment?I might have missed it,but I do not remember any correction.
Moak meant what he said. It's completely in character with everything else he's said and done over the past 10 years. :mad: |
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1733336)
Crystal. Thanks for looking that up. I say again, though, that you asserted LM said labor risk is off the table when that was actually said by RA. Whether or not LM refuted it, he did not say it.
Oh, so Now I "ASSERTED" that? Where?? I strenuously Object! :D \ |
Originally Posted by tim123
(Post 1733342)
After this Bloomberg interview,didn't ALPA claim he was misquoted and that they were going to put out what he really ment?I might have missed it,but I do not remember any correction.
I also didn't see anything in writing that said he would correct his quote. |
Would someone please breakdown Moak's quotes in the Blomberg article and explain why we should be upset about them? I've seen a lot of people post the article and express outrage but the quotes in the article range from innocuous to unintelligible due to poor context by the author. I'm particularly interested in the "$2.00 or $2.05" quote. If you have a clue what that means I'm listening.
|
Originally Posted by Oberon
(Post 1733389)
Would someone please breakdown Moak's quotes in the Blomberg article and explain why we should be upset about them? I've seen a lot of people post the article and express outrage but the quotes in the article range from innocuous to unintelligible due to poor context by the author. I'm particularly interested in the "$2.00 or $2.05" quote. If you have a clue what that means I'm listening.
Re read the article, for comprehension this time, and describe to us how you come to the conclusion that the remarks are innocuous. Same with "unintelligible due to poor context of the author." |
Originally Posted by Oberon
(Post 1733343)
You didn't miss anything. I don't know if Timbo is confusing me for someone else or maybe my posts are not clear enough. The only thing I've said about restoration is that it isn't a good strategy to make contractual gains.
But why won't our MEC even publish that, as a GOAL?? If you have NO GOAL, how do you ever expect to achieve it? The strategy is simple, as I laid out a few pages back. All they have to do is pull out the same play book we used in 2000-2001 to achieve our C2K rates. They first show the math, the actual dollars the Delta/NW Pilots have "Invested" in returning Delta to the top of the industry since bankruptcy. Add to that our lost retirement dollars. You simply put Delta Pilot pay rates, (lost pay) from 2004, up through 2014, on a graph, right next to Delta's Record Earnings and plot Management's pay over the same 10 year period. I would have liked to have seen that graph in the Contract History book they just put out. :rolleyes: Where is OUR return on investment? We are still at 1998 pay rates. That's what I got out of that contract history. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:06 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands