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?

Just to clarify, "less training" in this discussion means less full initial training for aircraft changes. The topic is potentially allowing longer freezes and/or pay banding to de-incentivise people voluntarily choosing to change planes chasing small raises. That would reduce required manning if successful though, so some have suggested increasing vacation or something else in proportion to make it staffing neutral.

No one is suggesting reducing the time or quality of the actual initial or currency training in exchange for something else.

You're deflecting now Alan. Here is how this began:

That is unquestionably correct by any standard or measure. Yet you decided to respond with this snark:

Lee's taxable compensation was 1.3 million. It's not arguable. Don't ask me, ask the IRS.

Carl

Because it became a (massive) hammer with the implimentation of 117. The (previous) language plus 117 meant you had to have 10 hours rest after you manually acknowledged in icrew/phone. That, coupled with the 9 hours prior language, meant either 19 hours or, if strictly interpreted, unlimited un-usability. That may or may not have been overturned in a grievance, but the 9+10 was a very safe bet because the language there was very clear.

I was actually thinking we'd split the difference and settle for 16 or so. But instead we settled for 13. Then have the extra hour up and went back to 12. With voicemail notification. The last truly big "hammer" we may ever have is now gone.

Another huge concession was day one going from noon to 10am. Noon was the company's best case unilateral fatasy they felt they could even maybe stand a chance with in arbitration under the old language. They knew they stood no chance for anything earlier. Yet we willingly gave them 10am, which is the FAR bare bones minimum now. And we called that a huge win from the previous 5am, which was a dead in the water relic from a bygone era anyway.

"Limited" upside? Are you kidding me? Tbe ADG (applicable to reserves and dh-only duty periods, both firsts in the history of our airline) is probably one of the best two or three contractual improvements EVER, and guys like you are just "meh."

Unbelievable. I don't care if it took a few months to program the company computers. All changes have an implementation schedule, including changes in the company's favor.

(Ask an old guy about getting rid of partial month moveups for reserves in C2K; those were a great scheduling deal that we voluntarily negotiated away in C2K; it was a big "win" for the company but it still took a year to get them programmed out of the company computers--see, it goes both ways.)

The ADG is now in our contract forever. Within a year the entire seniority list will be wondering how we ever allowed the pilot group NOT to have it--you know, kind of like how back in the pre-117 and pre-121/Whitlow days you could be on perpetual short call 24/7. It was accepted as "part of the job" back in the good ol' days, but is inconceivable now.

Your groupthink Moak and ALPA hatefest on this thread is leading you to dismiss significant changes. After all, if you actually acknowledge the huge gain the ADG represents, that interferes with the "ALPA sucks" mindset that let's face it, is kind of fun to embrace.

Excuse me, I've got to go barf.

First of all the reserve concessions we gave up were very significant for both long call and all day one assignments for both reserve QOL and manning. We paid a steep price in work rules we'll never get back for that ADG.

Second, I don't say very much if anything about Moak, other than criticizing him for his obviously fake "I have no intention to run for office at this time" 10 minutes before he ran, and his potential offering up of the DAL pilot seniority list in any possible merger with a young/start up/low longevity airline to estoll the virtues of universal ALPA membership. As well as him signing the unprecidented Pinnacle agreement and secret "vault letter" nonsense that for the first time gave another pilot group the legal ability to negotiate with DL management to "own" DL flying. That is entirely unacceptable.

Other than that, I'm not "anti-Moak" (5 figure oil paintings notwithstanding) critic nor have I advocated the other potential union. I actually think he does a fairly good job on "the hill" with many issues, which is a good thing. And his hair always looks fantastic. Besides he's going away anyway soon regardless. Nor have I condemned the other potential union, though they have their issues as well to be sure. I'm very much in favor of change within up until the moment we actually, legally have another union, if ever, and do not have a card in for the other guys either. Yet.

I have concerns with ALPA, as I would have concerns with any union. But ALPA is what we have.

The ADG increase was a gain for sure. We paid a lot for it though.

5 more weeks to go I guess. :rolleyes:

Tomato tamahto...

I believe what ALPA reported to the IRS. You don't?

I never mentioned anything about salary, Alan. You did, in your obvious attempt to add your spin. I said Moak's 2012 compensation was close to $1.3m. I was actually wrong, it was only $1,278,848. But hey, what's $21,152. That's almost enough to get an oil portrait made.:eek:

RA "only got" $652,083 in salary during that same timeframe (2012). I don't know how he got by. Sounds kinda meager, huh. Until you consider his TOTAL COMPENSATION which included $2.7m in CASH (not salary, but money nonetheless), $7m in stock, plus another $2m in stock options. Total package almost $12.6m, up a staggering 42% from the year prior where he "only made" $8.9m.

That's hysterical Alan. Yeah, probably a very close call. Comparing compensation packages between Moak and the average line pilot are just oh so close. Sailing is probably right, Moak just took the job so no one else would have to.