You should know me well enough by now to expect that.

Disagreeing with is not the same as attacking. My apologies if I came across that way.

His salary from ALPA was around $347K. The rest of the $1.3M was housing, transportation, and other expense reimbursements. They were huge to be sure, but they did not take the form of money in his pocket at the end of the day.

There's a difference, Carl.

It's not a new tactic, my brother. You continue to assert that those words were used, and have drug out several quotes that do not use those words. Now that each of those have been debunked, you suddenly decide that it must have been in an article that was published 2.5 years ago, but that no one can find anymore. That's new.

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.

Carl, how do you explain the quarterly and annual reports showing pilot costs increasing at a higher rate the DALPA even predicted in the road shows.
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?

Fair question. But if you're going to include the value of Lee's DC housing, transportation, etc., wouldn't you then need to include the value of our housing while on the road (hotels), transportation (hotel vans), and per diem in our total compensation package?

That wouldn't come close to a DC apartment, I'd imagine, but I'm just sayin'.

OK, but that's not what you said earlier. Here's what you said:

You stated the words were actually "cost positive". The article you quote as the example does not use that phrase.

Carl

You are now 100% "notified" from the first attempted voicemail attempt. That is huge. Its something even the lowliest of regionals have been trying to get for a long time. We gave that up to provide relief for removal of the contractual icrew notification acknowledgement by the pilot. That IMO was our last "hammer" that was in reality far more powerful than the old 3b6 because it was useable by roughly 20% of the pilots all of the time, instead of just once in a blue moon when we get new equipment.

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).

It isn't meaningless when people like Alan Shore are claiming the phrase was never uttered tsquare. But thanks for another meaningful post.

Carl

Basic airline management computer science maybe.

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.

How was it of such value? If your on reserve you always had to be contactable in some manner so you could report for trips assigned per the contract. What exactly is the value lost?