I'm going to stick to my guns on this one and I'll break it down in further detail.
True, sort of. Most companies are created with the goal of making money, a very important part of continuing operation. It is often times, however, not the only goal. If this is the case, the company will surely experience failure due to the narrow-minded decisions that will be made.
False, mostly. This is completely unsubstantiated. Prophesying to the world about what someone else thinks or what another group thinks is a very weak argument. I could just as logically say, "Pilots have no interest in the success of their airline, all they care about is their next paycheck."
False, mostly. Again, unsubstantiated. "Pilots don't care about the security of their family because they risked it all just to fly for a buck." This statement has as much ground as the original.

 

Here, I'v produced the condensed version of sarcasticspasti posts plus what he thinks, but doesn't say

Blaya, blaya, blaya, blaya, blaya.......... never join a union.... blaya, blaya, blaya, blaya blaya.... I'm too cheap to pay union dues.... blaya, blaya, blaya.........

 

I appreciate your point of view and empathize with your desire to be even-handed and stick to facts. Perhaps some of what I said was hyperbole. However, I stick to the basic premises of my arguments. A review of airline history vis a vis ALPA safety efforts clearly demonstrates that the industry has, historically, been extremely reluctant to spend money for safety enhancement. We would never have had such safety measures as crew duty limits, rest requirements, GPWS, TCAS, and too many others to name if it were only up to the airlines. It is only the hard work of ALPA lobbying our pathetic government oversight agency that has garnerned us the significant safety improvements we've gotten over the years and now take for granted.
And, while I'll admit that there may be one or two airlines out there who have some sense of equity and fairness towards their employees, those companies are the exception. I realize that companies have to be profitable in order to compete and succeed. I submit that most of them could be more generous to their crews in terms of salaries and benefits and still be competative and succeed. I know that at my former company, Independence Air, the airline's management absolutely despised the pilot group and took pleasure in whatever they could do to hurt the pilots. That's just my opinion, but I stand by it. Airline management can not be dependend upon to act equitably with their pilots. A union is the only way to ensure that we are fairly compensated. Some pilot groups are able to skate by without a union because of the sacrifices and hard work of their unionized peers, and some unions go too far when they have the clout, but by and large pilots need unions to keep flying safe and worthwhile.

 

Stick to your guns that's fine. I'll stick to mine too. I've seen safety comprimised more than once. This is a public forum so I won't go into what I've seen and heard.

 

Okay, I'll bite. That was a much more pleasent post with the same point expressed. While I may or may not have yet formed opinions on all of the ideas, this sort of reply makes me much more interested in what you have to say. Of course this is a public forum, we can say whatever we want.

 

I don't doubt that you have seen and heard a lot of evidence but I wasn't debating the substance of the post. I was just trying to show that we all must be careful of over-generalizing in our replies. When we to, the text looses credibility. I'm sure you could find examples of myself making the same mistake.