Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
03-02-2011 | 07:34 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Yeah Doc, you see, my parents never fought. My dad was a Navy Chaplain and preacher, my mom an elementary school teacher so I just wasn't ready for when it happened, it being, Buzz and Ferd fighting. It just brought up these feelings I had never experienced...
03-02-2011 | 07:35 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,457
Likes: 0
From: LAX ERA
sent via PM
03-02-2011 | 07:35 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
What if our airline (which, by the way was a virtual monopoly) was owned by the taxpayer, but the taxpayer wasn't in charge of determining our payrates. Instead, people who were greatly concerned with getting our monetary contributions if they gave us what we wanted were those who determined what pay increases and benefits were allowed? That sure would work out well for all involved wouldn't it? Well, excpet the taxpayer who has to pay both us and those negotiating our pay.
I swear I have read that like 5 times and can't figure out what you are trying to say. Can you re-phrase it, please?
03-02-2011 | 07:57 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Alright, Wisconsin. ALPA's there. So there is your aviation tie in.
But given that we're talking about teachers, public sector unions, education system, government, government budgets, elections, national media, political parties and so on, I just don't see this going anywhere productive for us as a group.
AND I'D LOVE TO TALK ABOUT IT! But if someone can find a good and free newspaper blog we can go to please let us know. I've spent months defending Cam Newton on the ajc.com and espn, I'm kind of good at this now.
fwiw, I find it interesting ALPA is in WI because something tells me if we ever hit that picket line demanding higher wages there won't be a soul throwing in their support for us overpaid, under worked and oversexed airline pilots.
Especially Clark Howard.
So let's all just agree to hate Clark Howard.
But given that we're talking about teachers, public sector unions, education system, government, government budgets, elections, national media, political parties and so on, I just don't see this going anywhere productive for us as a group.
AND I'D LOVE TO TALK ABOUT IT! But if someone can find a good and free newspaper blog we can go to please let us know. I've spent months defending Cam Newton on the ajc.com and espn, I'm kind of good at this now.
fwiw, I find it interesting ALPA is in WI because something tells me if we ever hit that picket line demanding higher wages there won't be a soul throwing in their support for us overpaid, under worked and oversexed airline pilots.
Especially Clark Howard.
So let's all just agree to hate Clark Howard.
03-02-2011 | 08:04 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Howard, a consumer advocate and host of his own radio program on AM 750 and now 95.5FM News/Talk WSB says that Southwest’s move into Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport is a huge bonus for local passengers.
“I am just ecstatic,” Howard said. “It’s like my birthday and my wedding day, the whole thing at once. This is really big. Southwest is the most important player in the airline industry and Atlanta is the biggest airport operation in the country. It’s been so weird that Southwest flies to LaGuardia, but not Atlanta.”
“I am just ecstatic,” Howard said. “It’s like my birthday and my wedding day, the whole thing at once. This is really big. Southwest is the most important player in the airline industry and Atlanta is the biggest airport operation in the country. It’s been so weird that Southwest flies to LaGuardia, but not Atlanta.”
03-02-2011 | 08:13 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
Actually Ferd, he's the duly elected governor of his state charged with the responsibility of balancing his state's budget. I'll save you the Fox talking points if you'll spare me MSNBC's talking points. Never took you for an Ed Schulz or Rachel Maddow kind of guy.
In any event, this entire thread tangent began when a poster compared what is happening in Wisconsin to our plight as airline pilots. I said it then, and I'll say it again, apples and oranges. If we hitch our wagon to the NEA and SEIU, we'll lose in the court of public opinion again, and again, and again. I'm not paying my money or banking my future on actual "thugs" like that. I'll walk away first.
In any event, this entire thread tangent began when a poster compared what is happening in Wisconsin to our plight as airline pilots. I said it then, and I'll say it again, apples and oranges. If we hitch our wagon to the NEA and SEIU, we'll lose in the court of public opinion again, and again, and again. I'm not paying my money or banking my future on actual "thugs" like that. I'll walk away first.
That is, unless we can do better....
I'm up to "engage in an honest give and take" on any subject anytime.
But, name-calling is the first indication that you have run out of arguments.
I'll leave it at that.
03-02-2011 | 08:27 PM
Banned
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 793
Likes: 0
What if our airline (which, by the way was a virtual monopoly) was owned by the taxpayer, but the taxpayer wasn't in charge of determining our payrates. Instead, people who were greatly concerned with getting our monetary contributions if they gave us what we wanted were those who determined what pay increases and benefits were allowed? That sure would work out well for all involved wouldn't it? Well, except the taxpayer who has to pay both us and those negotiating our pay.
Put another way, for the comparision to work commerical airline travel would have to be run by the government, say part of the Dept of Transportation and when we negotiated for our pay and benefits the recepients of our PAC money and union dues were the ones who approved the final agreement. Well, we'd have some pretty good top cover with that situation. We and our famalies would be very grateful for a contract we liked so much. Grateful enough to re-elect those who gave it to us. And if the contract was part of the reason for a deficit we wouldn't want anything to change when it came to our situation; afterall, everybody spends more than they make and racks up debt, right? Granted there are a lot of differences between public and private sector unions, but that's why the two aren't a fair and reasonable comparison.
Doing so neglects to consider: 1) Private sector unions negotiate with the company for pay and benefits. Those negotiating on behalf of the company are not beholden to the union for being re-elected to their positions and are not being given monetary contributions from those across the negotiating table (not the case in the public sector). 2) Public sector unions have in most cases a virtual monopoly in their profession. 3) Those negotiating on behalf of a company have a vested interest in the outcome of the agreement; when public sector workers negotiate increased pay and benefits the negotiators on the other side are not as vested as it often benefits them by garnering union support. Those negotiating on behalf of government are not as responsible for the costs incurred from the agreed contract (the taxpayer is).
03-02-2011 | 08:49 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
Sure, thanks for asking. It's an analogy of trying to compare a union in the private sector to one in the public sector.
Put another way, for the comparision to work commerical airline travel would have to be run by the government, say part of the Dept of Transportation and when we negotiated for our pay and benefits the recepients of our PAC money and union dues were the ones who approved the final agreement. Well, we'd have some pretty good top cover with that situation. We and our famalies would be very grateful for a contract we liked so much. Grateful enough to re-elect those who gave it to us. And if the contract was part of the reason for a deficit we wouldn't want anything to change when it came to our situation; afterall, everybody spends more than they make and racks up debt, right? Granted there are a lot of differences between public and private sector unions, but that's why the two aren't a fair and reasonable comparison.
Doing so neglects to consider: 1) Private sector unions negotiate with the company for pay and benefits. Those negotiating on behalf of the company are not beholden to the union for being re-elected to their positions and are not being given monetary contributions from those across the negotiating table (not the case in the public sector). 2) Public sector unions have in most cases a virtual monopoly in their profession. 3) Those negotiating on behalf of a company have a vested interest in the outcome of the agreement; when public sector workers negotiate increased pay and benefits the negotiators on the other side are not as vested as it often benefits them by garnering union support. Those negotiating on behalf of government are not as responsible for the costs incurred from the agreed contract (the taxpayer is).
Put another way, for the comparision to work commerical airline travel would have to be run by the government, say part of the Dept of Transportation and when we negotiated for our pay and benefits the recepients of our PAC money and union dues were the ones who approved the final agreement. Well, we'd have some pretty good top cover with that situation. We and our famalies would be very grateful for a contract we liked so much. Grateful enough to re-elect those who gave it to us. And if the contract was part of the reason for a deficit we wouldn't want anything to change when it came to our situation; afterall, everybody spends more than they make and racks up debt, right? Granted there are a lot of differences between public and private sector unions, but that's why the two aren't a fair and reasonable comparison.
Doing so neglects to consider: 1) Private sector unions negotiate with the company for pay and benefits. Those negotiating on behalf of the company are not beholden to the union for being re-elected to their positions and are not being given monetary contributions from those across the negotiating table (not the case in the public sector). 2) Public sector unions have in most cases a virtual monopoly in their profession. 3) Those negotiating on behalf of a company have a vested interest in the outcome of the agreement; when public sector workers negotiate increased pay and benefits the negotiators on the other side are not as vested as it often benefits them by garnering union support. Those negotiating on behalf of government are not as responsible for the costs incurred from the agreed contract (the taxpayer is).
1.) My parent went on strike in Chicago two or three times when I was a kid.
2.) Richard J. Daley was the mayor when they went on strike.
3.) Because Chicago always elects a Democrat as mayor, I'm fairly sure the union supported him.
4.) See points 1 & 2.
It doesn't work that way, or at least it doesn't have to.
Can I ask you a few more questions? Why do you say that public sector unions have a monopoly in their profession? Can they be fired when they go out on strike?
Do we, as pilots, have a monopoly in our profession?
03-02-2011 | 09:07 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,070
Likes: 1
From: Urban chicken rancher.
Since we seem to be at the point where we are calling people and their union, "thugs," it seems like this is a good time to take it to the PM world, or the ALPA website.
That is, unless we can do better....
I'm up to "engage in an honest give and take" on any subject anytime.
But, name-calling is the first indication that you have run out of arguments.
I'll leave it at that.
That is, unless we can do better....
I'm up to "engage in an honest give and take" on any subject anytime.
But, name-calling is the first indication that you have run out of arguments.
I'll leave it at that.
And, as long as we're being honest and all, when have I resorted to "name calling?" I'm receptive and I'm trainable, or at least Delta thinks I am. So, school me New.
I've got lots of arguments. Seems to me that some of the guys trying to defend the indefensible are the ones calling out the names. I love my fellow bros, most definitely you and Ferd. I'm attempting to take on this discussion above the fray. Seems I keep getting pulled back into it. Can you show me where I've called anybody names or run out of cogent arguments? If so, I'll gladly apologize.
03-02-2011 | 09:19 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,070
Likes: 1
From: Urban chicken rancher.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
