![]() |
Originally Posted by index
(Post 1734187)
So Alan, you chose to ignore the rest of my post which was entirely about the outrageous insinuation that Lee never really wanted to be ALPA President (then why the hell did he run for it?) and that he only did so "out of a sense of duty"? YGBSM.
Originally Posted by index
(Post 1734187)
Whether the Donald made $1.3m or $1,278,848 is trivial. The point is he is FAR better off than any of the peons (us) he's supposed to represent.
Whether he is personally better off with his 24/7 job vs. flying the line and going home is something that only he can judge. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1734197)
Now you're just being stubborn Alan.
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1734197)
You were wrong to attack index...
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1734197)
Lee's taxable income from ALPA was 1.3 million.
There's a difference, Carl. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1734202)
Interesting new tactic here.
Regarding waiting 2.5 years, I only joined this board late last year, and have only heard about this article today. Sorry if I missed it's posting previously. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1734219)
There may have been articles that described the TA as cost positive for the company, I actually it's true that our contract actually cost them less. But I don't remember articles using a cost positive phrase. Only cost neutral. Gotta be fair here.
Carl If they supported your statements you would long ago posted them. |
Honest question, without taking sides: When comparing contracts, is total pilot compensation not the benchmark? If so, then isn't the total compensation of Lee Moak (or whomever) the point?
|
Originally Posted by RC51pilot
(Post 1734258)
When comparing contracts, is total pilot compensation not the benchmark? If so, then isn't the total compensation of Lee Moak (or whomever) the point?
That wouldn't come close to a DC apartment, I'd imagine, but I'm just sayin'. |
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 1734221)
The exact words from Ed Bastian:
" And I’d say the other thing, Kevin, there that we did not necessarily forecast or see coming as clearly is the opportunity we had with our pilots to do the contract early. It’s going to pay significant dividends over time as it will have a big cost return to it, not just in terms of improved productivity, but the ability to fairly substantially restructure the domestic fleet. But that those costs came in right away so that’s in our September guidance as well, and that was another big piece."
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 1734211)
Actually Carl, the words were "cost positive" for the company, not "cost neutral".
Carl |
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1730535)
What do you mean?
I really thought if we gave that up, long call would have increased a lot. Like at least 19 hours (the old/semi-current 9 hours prior plus 10 hours rest) but it only increased to 13. And then we gave that right back up, supposedly to pay the company for something they supposedly didn't care about in the first place (but we all know they did). |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1734225)
WhoGAS? It is meaningless except to the low information crowd.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1731393)
Your first statement is complete BS. Just basic computer science.
You want to talk about complete BS, then why, even if it were just a software issue that took time, was there no back pay provision once the programming was completed? They got their end immediately, and we got the biggest part of our limited upside delayed (because of software lol yeah right) with zero back pay. So I'm going to call this an agreement. We both agree it was complete BS. I hope we do at least. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:05 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands