No kidding. I don't care who he is, but his behavior certainly doesn't seem like either a new hire or a line pilot.

 

👍👊👏🍻+777-300er

 

Sure. Back before C2012, RAH Holdings was blatantly abusing our scope language that was absolutely clear. ALPA came out and said that the abuse was indeed there, but the language was too weak to defend in a grievance. DALPA "fixed" it by allowing the RAH scope abuse to be continued forever (only in the case of RAH) by inserting it into the scope language of C2012.

Second, we used to have iron clad scope language that required a minimum number of departures out of Tokyo Narita in order for the company to continue code share. The company announced they would no longer be meeting the minimum departure requirements out of NRT, but would be continuing the code share. DALPA didn't grieve it. Instead, DALPA negotiated the language away for other protections.

Third, our European joint venture required Delta pilots to fly a minimum percentage of the traffic in the joint venture. The company has been out of compliance for three years now, and we are now in what's called a cure period for the company to make it right. The company is actually making it worse during the cure period. Prediction: DALPA will again not file a grievance because they'll claim the language was too squishy. They will instead negotiate our minimum percentage away for some new "iron clad" protection...and this time we'll mean it!

Bottom line is that DALPA has quite a history of allowing contract language to be ignored and either refuse to grieve it, or negotiate it away for new and different protections. My hope is that as you new guys take over this pretend union of ours, you'll remake it into a real union.

Carl

 

Or the kind of union busting ALPA does when they tried to break the union of their own internal clerical employees. A company trying to break unions is sadly nothing new. A union trying to break another union...is.

Carl

 

Shiznit! What took you so long dude! Moak's been under scrutiny for a day now and you're just getting here? Better late than never I guess.

Reporting requirements are different but accounting requirements are not. We don't get to write off commuting expenses. If our company paid for commuting expenses, the IRS would correctly classify it as income. Moak's income was $1.3 million dollars because Moak's company pays for his commuting expenses.

Somebody here needs to counter you Moak disciples trying to muddy the waters and desperately trying to make believe that Moak's income from ALPA wasn't $1.3 million dollars.

We only get that while we're traveling during our work. Not for commuting to our work. If we got that, the IRS would correctly consider it income. Moak gets that, thus it's income.

If that's true, then yes that's a difference. We'll take it down to $1.2 million in annual compensation for proper comparison.

Has nothing to do with what is classified as income, but you knew that. Nice attempt at trying to sneak one through. Besides, we have junior domestic guys that work more days than that.

Our 401k's are also considered income. It's just not taxed until retirement. Same as Moak's 401K.

Except it's not paying $450,000 per year, it's paying $1.3 million per year. The job may well deserve more than $1.3 million per year, but lets start from an accurate baseline.

Carl

 

Hmmm...you think he's the reincarnation of Lumberg?

+717

Carl

 

[QUOTE=Carl Spackler;1734799]Sure. Back before C2012, RAH Holdings was blatantly abusing our scope language that was absolutely clear. ALPA came out and said that the abuse was indeed there, but the language was too weak to defend in a grievance. DALPA "fixed" it by allowing the RAH scope abuse to be continued forever (only in the case of RAH) by inserting it into the scope language of C2012.

He is talking about Frontier airlines. RAH structured it such that winning a grievance was very unlikely.

Second, we used to have iron clad scope language that required a minimum number of departures out of Tokyo Narita in order for the company to continue code share. The company announced they would no longer be meeting the minimum departure requirements out of NRT, but would be continuing the code share. DALPA didn't grieve it. Instead, DALPA negotiated the language away for other protections.

Carl should tell what the code share was that made things so iron clad. It was a very small code share that generated less then 500,000 a year in total revenue. The company never stated they intended to simply ignore the contract and continue the code share. They came to us in advance and stated they would be out of compliance. They could have simply dropped this one small code share which was a penny or two for the company and we would have had zero protections in the Pacific anywhere. We were able to negotiate a new scope agreement for the entire Pacific with virtually no leverage.

Third, our European joint venture required Delta pilots to fly a minimum percentage of the traffic in the joint venture. The company has been out of compliance for three years now, and we are now in what's called a cure period for the company to make it right. The company is actually making it worse during the cure period. Prediction: DALPA will again not file a grievance because they'll claim the language was too squishy. They will instead negotiate our minimum percentage away for some new "iron clad" protection...and this time we'll mean it!

DALPA has made it clear that they intend to file a grievance when the company is in violation of the contract. That will be 1 APR next year. The company has not made it worse in the cure period. All the numbers are available on the DALPA web site.

 

Agreed. I expect his next post to be requesting info on crash pads near Herndon.

 

I'm sure Moak's pad has a spare bedroom or three...

 

Thank you.

Should I read anything into the fact that all three examples you cite were about scope protection (lack thereof)? Is that simply the most vulnerable point, in your opinion, or just the first three that popped into your head, or...?