FAA Reauthorization - RLA amendment` - Page 8 - Airline Pilot Central Forums

#71

Busboy , 06-18-2009 06:31 AM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airbum

Maxkts, isn't that a repeat of what Dan said?

The names have been changed, to protect the innocent.

(And, he left out the best place to work part, for UPS)

#72

Busdrivr , 06-18-2009 07:20 AM

Gets Weekends Off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whistlin' Dan

I know this will come as a shock to some, but I could probably live without FedEx. True, they provide a service, but their service is a convenience for most, not an absolute necessity.

For the few for whom overnight delivery is an absolute necessity, there's UPS, the Post Office, and countless other trucking companies. I believe at one time even Greyhound Bus Lines operated an overnight service (if you don't mind picking up your package at their station). New York to Los Angeles overnight on wheels? Probably not. But New York to Philly, Boston, D.C., or any of a hundred other cities within 6-700 miles? No problem whatsoever. Cheaper, too. No more so that if UPS or the Postal workers went on strike, and they're both heavily unionized.

I'm not knocking FedEx. They provide a good service at a fair price, and they're consistently rated as one of the best companies in the U.S. for whom to work. But FedEx isn't securing our borders, catching terrorists, fixing the economy, curing cancer, helping my kid with his math, or bringing back "The Soprano's." They deliver stuff, that's all. And the stuff I'd like to have tomorrow I could have ordered yesterday if I'd known it took 2 days instead of one to get here.

FedEx's survival may be essential to their employee's well-being, but they're not essential to my well-being, or to that of the economy-at-large. I can live without them.

Dan
What if that "stuff" you ordered was essential for you to keep your job (legal papers) or essential for the survival of a loved one (human tissue, Bio-hazard). Would 2, 3 or 4 days on Greyhound be OK with you?
What an idiot.

#73

FDXLAG , 06-18-2009 07:51 AM

Gets Weekends Off

Dearest Dan,

So tell your congressman. I could live without 3 out of 5 of the Majors. It would probably be good for the industry. But that is not the way the RLA works. If Delta baggage handlers decide to walk out, can they? After all the United, American, Continental Baggage Handlers are still working. If their luggage was absolutely essential they could FEDEX it. Why don't we let the baggage handler walk out?

#74

fedupbusdriver , 06-18-2009 08:13 AM

Gets Weekends Off

I could live without Whistlin Dan, but I wouldn't wish it true......

#75

MaxKts , 06-18-2009 11:02 AM

Part Time Employee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airbum

Maxkts, isn't that a repeat of what Dan said?

Just making a point. WD says he can live without FedEx because they are just a convenience to him. Replace FedEx in his posting with whatever package delivery company you choose (I choose UPS) and it shows you how posting something like that is just drivel. We can all live without many things. But, when you run the competition out of business we all know what comes next!

#76

Airbum , 06-18-2009 01:03 PM

Gets Weekends Off

ok thanks,

#77

SaltyDog , 06-18-2009 01:06 PM

Gets Weekends Off

As a Brown driver, I am indebted to the Fred business plan <g> or I would surmise UPS would not have an airline as soon as they did (and me without a good job).
Secondly, the competitive reality is good for me as a line pilot. Having business competition provides more benefits for all line pilots than negatives.
Having only one heavyweight would not play well IMO. Heres to wishing you Purple drivers all the best in your contract openers!

#78

AerisArmis , 06-18-2009 04:41 PM

Slainge Var'

Quote:

Originally Posted by captexpress

Dear Gear Jammer,

I just want to personally go on record to say that as a FedEx pilot and former union officer that I support you efforts 100% and I look forward to the possibility of a long future of mutual support. FedEx has gotten away with it’s double speak game for a long long time and now, but perhaps with a more fertile environment in Washington, change may be possible. Many of our pilots here have come from varied backgrounds, with many differing opinions and none, including mine should be considered our official union party line, but I like you, get frustrated when I hear people help the company do its dirty work. IMHO, buying into their false rhetoric, which you and I have already realized is just a weak cover in a long history of seeking to undermining unions, must make them sit back and laugh. Some of our employees have even called for support for political candidates with long track records of supporting anti union and more specifically anti pilot legislation, (remember baseball style arbitration) and worse. Smart? Not in my book, but certainly within their rights,……….but not what I understood the brotherhood to be about…but these are difficult times, the stress level is high and everyone is certainly entitled to express their opinions. In the end, the truth is always the truth and your efforts to improve and protect your profession and the livelihood of you family is a laudable goal, therefore, best of luck in your efforts and never ever give up the good fight. I never was one of those, “I got mine” types….and I remember vividly the struggle, so ignore the naysayers and push on.

You forgot to add, "But enough about me, let's talk about me"!

#79

captexpress , 06-18-2009 05:14 PM

Line Holder

Exactly the opposite

Missed the point big time. The meaning of the post is exactly the opposite, it is about "we".

#80

AerisArmis , 06-19-2009 07:47 AM

Slainge Var'

Quote:

Originally Posted by captexpress

Missed the point big time. The meaning of the post is exactly the opposite, it is about "we".

Not at all. I know exactly what your point is. "We" organized under the RLA and since "they" are unwilling to do so, "we" should change the rules so that "they" can organize at the local level vice the national level currently required. Sure Fred is willing to try underhanded stuff to keep "them" off the property. He tried that with "us". With the money and power of the Teamsters, I find it hard to believe that if the majority wanted "them" to represent "them", they couldn't get it done under the current rules. I've got no problem with every swinging richard on the property joining a union, if "they" want to, but I do have a problem with the idea that if you can't get a majority under the current rules, you change the rules. Oh yeah, when it comes to union stuff, "you" are "Mr. Wonderful". And I mean it.