|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1734382)
After his direct compensation of $535K, there was "other compensation" totaling $742K. The IRS considers it ALL to be taxable compensation because it is actually money in his pocket. Mr. Moak CHOSE to keep DC as his secondary residence. That means he's CHOSEN to be a commuter. But unlike the rest of us, Moak gets fully reimbursed for his second residence, cars and meals. Since Moak is so reimbursed, the IRS correctly considers it ALL taxable compensation. Furthermore, Moak is not under a plan whereby he only gets reimbursed for actual receipted costs. He gets a block grant of money to handle what ALPA thinks a second residence, cars and food will cost.
Some amount of this is considered taxable income by the IRS, although I have no idea how much. That's not the same thing as saying that it's spendable income, any more than the hotel, transportation, and per diem that Delta provides us on a layover or while in training. |
Originally Posted by index
(Post 1734344)
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.
Originally Posted by index
(Post 1734344)
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.
|
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1734463)
No spin intended, other than to clarify that taxable compensation in the eyes of the IRS and spendable income are two entirely different things.
Please Alan. Take a seat. Your going to pass out from spinning so much.
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1734463)
Not particularly close, unless you are in one of the highest paying categories at one of the highest paying ALPA carriers. In that event, your spendable income can certainly rival that of the ALPA President's, provided you are willing to be contactable 24/7 and work (fly, in this case) whenever and wherever the GSs take you.
|
Alan. Your ham-handed obfuscation is making you look silly. Index is crushing your spin. Please cease the disingenuous nonsense.
|
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1734285)
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. Your voicemail issue still confuses me, though. I don't see the difference between where we were last year and where we are now. In both cases, the long call has at least 12 hours from first attempted notification to report for a trip (and now short call, too). How is it different?
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1734285)
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.
|
Originally Posted by index
(Post 1734468)
If your employer pays for your car, your home, your utilities, your travel, your meals, etc...guess what? You have a HELL of a LOT of spendable income. The line pilot gets no such deal. Try again.
I think I'll try again. :p As a line pilot, I get transportation, hotel (including utilities), per diem, free passports and visas, etc. Should I consider all of that spendable income? |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1734470)
Please cease the disingenuous nonsense.
|
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1734274)
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. They got a usable reserve system back, and we got back what we had before -- the ability for a long call pilot to turn his phone off for any length of time up to 12 hours, so long as he would then be in a position to report 12 hours after he turned the phone off. The latter is what I see both sides having gotten out of the reserve piece. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1734099)
I definitely preferred our system. I had over 2,200 hours of sick time banked and never once flew when sick. I considered it my primary long term disability benefit.
Carl Second point, if we go into bankruptcy again, is there anything to stop the Company from cancelling your 2,200 hour bank? My guess is the judge will sign that little account away in a heartbeat. Because of this, I think that you are wrong about using your sick leave as short term or long term disability plan. DALPA spent a considerable amount of negotiating capital in the bankruptcy process to protect and secure the D&S plan from corporate raiding. I just don't think sick leave banks are protected in bankruptcy. Now someone reading this might say, we won't go into bankruptcy, we're making record profits. Where have I heard that one before? I think the current system is not perfect but it's a lot better than it was previously. I learned something from this discussion. I won't voluntarily bid reserve in April and May. Everyone seems to be calling in sick to use up their 100 hours. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1734080)
Wow. You actually took the time to sit down with a calculator and derive that? :eek:
Carl Nah. I did it in my head. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:16 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands