Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Captain Moak's Nov. 8 letter...

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Dear Fellow Pilots,
This has been an exciting year for ALPA in DC with many accomplishments and many challenges ahead of us. In February, both the House and the Senate passed legislation making it illegal to point a laser into the cockpit of an airplane, a long time safety priority. Over the summer, we successfully fought back amendments which would have weakened the proposed new flight and duty time regulations; we drove the point home by organizing more than 100 Members of Congress – Republicans and Democrats - to send a letter to the President asking him to follow the law and immediately implement these rules. Over the past three months alone we’ve had more than 300 meetings on Capitol Hill with ALPA pilots in uniform talking to Members of Congress and their staffs.
We are implementing a new, more aggressive strategy in DC and it’s already showing results. Part of that strategy requires us to have a strong, active PAC fully backed by our members. I know some of you have expressed concerns about how we use the PAC and how we choose issues on which to lobby Congress. I wanted to speak to those concerns personally.
ALPA-PAC’s mission is to achieve and maintain pro-pilot majorities in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. Our only concern is whether a candidate effectively supports pro-pilot legislation or not. While I acknowledge ALPA members disagree on the many social and economic issues that face our country, it is not ALPA-PAC’s mission to exert influence on these issues; rather, we only engage on the issues of common importance to our members. ALPA-PAC is the 3rd most bipartisan labor PAC in the country and that status has allowed us, through the PAC, to open doors and to effectively communicate our concerns to both Republicans and Democrats. We have not always done a good job of communicating that fact to our members, but that is going to change starting now. Make no mistake, other PACs bring a great deal of influence to the issues, some in direct conflict with our best interest. Without ALPA-PAC, we are on the sidelines while others determine our future; that is unacceptable!
In keeping with our mission, our focus has been and will continue to be on the legislative branch. We must spend our energies and our funds where they will have the deepest impact and right now that is in the U.S. House and Senate.
Two issues have come up repeatedly as we’ve begun to grow the PAC: Age 65 Retirement and a perceived rift between our legacy carriers and our regional carriers.
Regarding Age 65: in 2007, an internal, national survey of ALPA members found that a majority of the membership supported raising the mandatory retirement age to mirror the ICAO standard. Like it or not, the FAA mandatory retirement age was going to change, but ALPA’s influence ensured that the new rule protected our members to the greatest extent possible. I realize some of our members remain frustrated by this change; however, the past is the past. We must now move forward together to keep ours the best career there is.
ALPA represents professional pilots – Captains and Co-Pilots, narrow body and wide body, international and domestic, those who commute to work and those who do not, regional and main-line. Where some see conflicts of interest between the regional and legacy carriers, I see common ground, common purpose, and agreement. We all want science-based flight and duty time limits. We all want prosperous careers, our carriers to be successful, and for the U.S. aviation industry to remain a cornerstone of the U.S. economy. We all want American commercial aviation to be owned by American companies and piloted by American pilots. As we counter threats from abroad to our independence and our standards, we must stand together with one voice and as one union. We should not be fighting each other, but instead uniting to fight a growing foreign threat that is rapidly encroaching on our market share.
With that in mind, I am asking for your vote of confidence. Will you join me in making a contribution to ALPA-PAC today? We are fighting for the future of our industry and our profession. With your help and support, we will win the day.

Sincerely,

Captain Donald Lee Moak
President, Air Line Pilots Association
 
Two issues have come up repeatedly as we’ve begun to grow the PAC: Age 65 Retirement and a perceived rift between our legacy carriers and our regional carriers.
Regarding Age 65: in 2007, an internal, national survey of ALPA members found that a majority of the membership supported raising the mandatory retirement age to mirror the ICAO standard. Like it or not, the FAA mandatory retirement age was going to change, but ALPA’s influence ensured that the new rule protected our members to the greatest extent possible. I realize some of our members remain frustrated by this change; however, the past is the past. We must now move forward together to keep ours the best career there is.

How's that for revisionist history?

Oh, and btw: ours is the best career there is....
 
Wow. This is definitely a battered wife syndrome issue. Sorry I beat you down so much, but if you love me I promise it will get better together. And the beatings continue.

Much like the beaten wives the members will go along with the abuser because they view him as the best thing for them and they are afraid to leave. From the inside it seems crazy to leave. From the outside it looks like shear lunacy to stay.
 
Facts are stubborn things, Capt. Moak.
Age60-1.jpg


Its pretty clear that in 2007 a majority of ALPA members did NOT favor changing the Age 60 rule, by an 11% margin of those polled to be exact.

Age60-2.jpg


ALPA National writes a leading question, combines "Drop Opposition" and "Modify Policy" answers and *poof* there's their "...majority of the membership supported raising the mandatory retirement age to mirror the ICAO standard."

And you've gotta love this part:

Moak said:
Like it or not, the FAA mandatory retirement age was going to change, but ALPA’s influence ensured that the new rule protected our members to the greatest extent possible. I realize some of our members remain frustrated by this change; however, the past is the past. We must now move forward together to keep ours the best career there is.

So...forget you farked (again) by senior pilots, this time out of 5 years of career progression due to Age 60 retirements that the senior pilots got to enjoy. Get over it, it won't change, the past is the past. But please, don't forget about 'taking it back' or donating to ALPA-PAC.

If ALPA really wanted to "protect their members to the greatest extent possible" they would have allowed over 60 pilots to return to their rightful seniority. Sure it would have caused even more backward movement, but at least it would have ensured those at the top who benefited most from the change to 65 would also get a healthy bite the sh!t sandwich everybody else was served.
 
Last edited:
Moak is just another in a long line of people in his position widely out of touch. His first article in ALPA's magazine spoke of how pilots negotiate the best contracts and he hasn't gotten any better. I wouldn't donate one nickle to ALPA PAC and the people they think they should support. Were no better now then we were a year ago under that dufous Prater.
 
ALPA represents professional pilots – Captains and Co-Pilots, narrow body and wide body, international and domestic, those who commute to work and those who do not, regional and main-line. Where some see conflicts of interest between the regional and legacy carriers, I see common ground, common purpose, and agreement.

Start acting like it, Capt Moak.
 
Moak is just another in a long line of people in his position widely out of touch. His first article in ALPA's magazine spoke of how pilots negotiate the best contracts and he hasn't gotten any better. I wouldn't donate one nickle to ALPA PAC and the people they think they should support. Were no better now then we were a year ago under that dufous Prater.

I'm mad that I didn't save the e-mail from ALPA-PAC last summer. I wish that I had it to reply with every time they hit me up for money. It detailed how the successful direct lobbying of the AFL-CIO to exempt health benefits negotiated by collective bargaining agreements from being taxed was not a payback to big labor. So basically, they wanted to take credit and deny it at the same time. Yep, you guys aren't getting a dime of my money - ever. The fact that they overwhelmingly support candidates who think that this type of logic makes sense. "It's a great idea for everyone, as long as someone else is paying for it."
 
Does this mean you guys will be selecting the Direct Relationship that we JetBlue pilots get to enjoy everyday?....:p
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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....
 
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.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top