Originally Posted by Josephus

Remove,

You are, of course, correct. Most pilots I know don't aggree witht he "nanny state." But suddenly when it comes to wages and pilot jobs, we want the government to step in and fix it... without realizing that the RLA is a big cause of why we are in the situation we are currently in. It created, along with airline regulation, the malinvestement of resources (money and pilot interest). It promised more than the career could deliver.

Government action (that is ALWAYS political) does not often have the impact that was intended. In fact, it is usually the opposite (try to reduce poverty-increases poverty). It would be no different in the airline industry.

The Government is not our savior... the evil free market is.

Originally Posted by pipe

I think you really miss the point here. Clearly you need to turn down your Fox News.

Most pilots want the govt to either quit being an impediment to us fixing the problem (RLA), or fix it themselves. As was said earlier -- govt all in, or all out -- enough of the half-a$$ stuff.

PIPE

Originally Posted by pipe

I think you really miss the point here. Clearly you need to turn down your Fox News.

Most pilots want the govt to either quit being an impediment to us fixing the problem (RLA), or fix it themselves. As was said earlier -- govt all in, or all out -- enough of the half-a$$ stuff.

PIPE

Originally Posted by Lab Rat

Unfortunately the government does put a hinder on the negotiating process when it adds restrictions and restraints to what a union can and cannot do - the biggest hinderance coming when a union threatens to strike. In a truly free market the union would have the opportunity to strike and thus have an important tool at its disposal when negotiating with management. Government involvement makes it very, very tough to do so. This is a very good reason why we should have less government involvement (for those who favor government-mandated pay scales) in the industry and not more.

As for the second part of your post regarding first year pay, that too is in large part to what the union votes for. That could be fixed very easily. However, it would come at the expense of smaller increases in pay for everyone else. i.e., the company presents a sum of money and part of the union's job in negotiations is to determine how that money is divvied up.

First year pay could be increased, but few people are going to sacrifice on the mid-to-top end of the pay scale for that to happen.