Captain Moak's Nov. 8 letter...

[jester757]

Moak is a joke... plain and simple. He was a tool here at DAL and now a larger tool at ALPA.

Three words - Delta Pilots Association - DAL pulls out of ALPA, 98% chance ALPA implodes and Mr. Moak will be the one who gets the credit for destroying ALPA. Lets see him talk his way out that... freaking jackass.

 

[vetrider]

Dalpo. Is he as bad as Prater? At least he isn't as fat.

 

[PCL_128]

How's that for revisionist history?

I'm certainly no Moak supporter, but his letter is absolutely accurate. I don't like it, but it's the truth.

 

[BoilerUP]

I'm certainly no Moak supporter, but his letter is absolutely accurate. I don't like it, but it's the truth.

No, it is not 'absolutely accurate'.

Look at the survey results I linked to up thread.

"Do you favor changing the Age 60 rule?" was a clear and resounding NO by membership.

Moak and ALPA National only gets to a "majority of the membership supported raising Age 60 to the ICAO standard" by combining "Drop Opposition" and "Modify Policy" answers to their second (leading) question. Which actually didn't mention the ICAO standard.

While 'truth' is written by the victors, Moak and ALPA National's version of the truth regarding the wishes of ALPA membership toward Age 60 is little more than facts spun and manipulated to meet their desires.

 

[Fins Up]

Does this mean you guys will be selecting the Direct Relationship that we JetBlue pilots get to enjoy everyday?....

That's what I was wondering?

 

[Flopgut]

I'm certainly no Moak supporter, but his letter is absolutely accurate. I don't like it, but it's the truth.

The "internal national survey" he is speaking to didn't conclude before Prater changed ALPA's policy. How can a survey find anything when it doesn't conclude? Especially when the first two surveys very clearly sent a mandate opposite what John acted on and they nearly overlapped...

The worst part is I think this letter will have the opposite effect and fewer dollars will go to PAC. I know that after I read how he characterized the age change I'm not going to send any money. And if something came across my desk for an independent union, I'd be more interested.

Additionally, what is this "the past is the past stuff"? Those are the words we all have to hear after some crappy mgt team has made a billion dollar error and your company has gone BK and the CEO doesn't wants to avoid the responsibility. You expect that out of CEOs. That phrase is basically an admission of guilt and almost a request (of sorts) that you accept being betrayed again....

 

[jynxyjericho]

I'm certainly no Moak supporter, but his letter is absolutely accurate. I don't like it, but it's the truth.

How do you respond to the links above then?

 

[Neubyfly]

I'm certainly no Moak supporter, but his letter is absolutely accurate. I don't like it, but it's the truth.

Didn't you pay for training and, just to sit in the right seat at Gulfstream???

That was some anti-union activity, no?

 

[PCL_128]

No, it is not 'absolutely accurate'.

Look at the survey results I linked to up thread.

"Do you favor changing the Age 60 rule?" was a clear and resounding NO by membership.

Moak and ALPA National only gets to a "majority of the membership supported raising Age 60 to the ICAO standard" by combining "Drop Opposition" and "Modify Policy" answers to their second (leading) question. Which actually didn't mention the ICAO standard.

While 'truth' is written by the victors, Moak and ALPA National's version of the truth regarding the wishes of ALPA membership toward Age 60 is little more than facts spun and manipulated to meet their desires.

I didn't like the modified question, but the results were pretty clear. The pilots who voted supported a change to policy in the event that it looked like the age was going to change anyway. And the truth is, the age was going to change anyway. We weren't going to be able to stop it. Someone with real political savvy like Captain Woerth probably could have held it off for another year or two, but it was coming eventually.

The worst part is I think this letter will have the opposite effect and fewer dollars will go to PAC.

I'm not sure if that's true, but I do think it probably would have been better to simply not discuss it at all in the letter. No reason to open old wounds.

I know that after I read how he characterized the age change I'm not going to send any money.

Yes, cut off your nose to spite your face. Sounds like a great idea.

Additionally, what is this "the past is the past stuff"? Those are the words we all have to hear after some crappy mgt team has made a billion dollar error and your company has gone BK and the CEO doesn't wants to avoid the responsibility. You expect that out of CEOs. That phrase is basically an admission of guilt and almost a request (of sorts) that you accept being betrayed again....

The past is the past, and frankly, there's nothing we can do to change it. Just like this crappy seniority deal that just got shoved down my throat at AirTran, there's nothing that can be done, so it doesn't do any good to keep complaining and being pissed off about it. All you can do is move on and try to make the best of it. You being angry about Age 65 isn't going to change it, and you not contributing to the PAC isn't going to change it or get back at Captain Prater. He'll be retiring in a few years, and whether you contribute a dime to the PAC or not, he won't be affected. Let it go.

 

[LeeRoyJenkins]

Didn't you pay for training and, just to sit in the right seat at Gulfstream???

That was some anti-union activity, no?

Bumped again to show how PCL_128 is a hypocritical d0uche.