Bush is teaching Labor a lesson!!!!!!!!!

[HawkerF/O]

Let me just start by using an old Ronald Reagan line, “Ask yourself, are you better off today than you were 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, years ago?” I can remember a time not too long ago when someone wrote in during the 2000 election and told all of you that Bush was no friend of labor or your concerns as pilots. He was lectured and flamed by several people (probably on the street right now) telling what a horrible guy Al Gore is and that Bush was going to do good things for aviation and hard working people like us. Well, on the same day that he reinstates cash bonuses for his friends, I mean his political apponties, the board tells UAL to fend for themselves!! As much money as the Federal Gov’t has made off of UAL’s revenues alone, they didn’t so much as seriously look at their proposal. Keep in mind that the board is made up of people that work for Bush. They were either directly or indirectly appointed by him. Now, I do understand that Bush did not make the decision personally, but he stands firmly behind it:

"The decision was made on the merits by the board based on the extensive financial information available to them and based on the criteria that were established in the law," Fleischer told reporters.

Well, Bush is teaching labor a lesson, and the ones reading this board are the beneficiaries. Pat yourselves on the back. As I tried to explain 2 years ago, Bush does not care about you, he cares about the one signing your paycheck. You are not one in the same. I am not saying Gore would have been the great aviaton hope, but I can tell you I bet you would not be scratching your heads wonding why UAL is about to file without Gov't help. You can write me back with your "facts" all you want, but the issue stays the same; "Are you better off today than.............." Let’s just see if you are going to be fool enough to vote for him again.

Bush standing behind the Board

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021205/pl_nm/airlines_united_bush_dc_1

Bush reinstating Cash Bonuses for Political Appointees

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021205/ap_on_go_pr_wh/political_bonuses_11

 

[chppr5]

WELL SAID.......TOO MANY AIRLINE PILOTS BELIEVE THEY ARE WHITE COLLAR...........WAKE UP FELLAS, YOUR COLLAR IS AS BLUE AS THE UAW.........CNBC STATED THAT THE WHITEHOUSE WAS QUESTIONING THE ATSB MEMBER WHO WANTED TO GIVE UAL MORE TIME.......REPUBLICANS ARE NO FRIEND OF LABOR...THE WHITEHOUSE WANTS UAL TO GO CH11 SO LABOR IS FORCED TO GIVE UP MORE THAN THE AGREED UPON 18% PILOTS, 7%MECH , 4%F/A....AND ONCE WE GIVE IT UP, WAIT FOR THE OTHERS TO FOLLOW.....WELCOME BACK TO THE B-SCALE, ONLY THIS TIME ITS FOR THE ENTIRE SENIORITY LIST!!!I'M NO BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL, BUT I'D RATHER PUT UP WITH THE DEMS BS ADGENDAS, THEN HAVE UNCLE GEORGE REACH INTO MY POCKETS..FUNNY HOW HE TELLS GOV EMPLOYEES THEY AREN'T GETTING THEIR RAISE BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMY, BUT HE IS GIVING HIS APPOINTEES THEIR BONUS!!!!

 

[Timebuilder]

Well, since you want to talk about it...

I think we might have lost the sight of the idea that people assigned to sit on a commission might be capable of independent thought and action. Perhaps this is due to what we saw coming out of Janet Reno's justice department, I'm not certain.

At any rate, the statement given with the decision makes sense, given the standards they used to measure the ability of the company to repay a government backed loan. I'm dissappointed, because I thought that UAL had worked hard to pare down and become a worthy recipient.

Strangely, I never saw their CEO on TV bringing the UAL case to the public. All I saw was Gordon Bethune on every business segment on cable, talking about how the company needs a major restructuring.

A shame. I'm sure it's no consolation that many companies are being turned down.

 

[HawkerF/O]

I had mentioned fools in my previous post, and low and behold, it appears that the 1st taker it Timebuilder F/O. Say what you want about Janet Reno, I really don't care. What I do know is that the CLINTON administration did away with the bonuses because of all of the "out the door" bonuses given on 1/20/1993 by Bush #1. Now, here they are again when a signifigant # of Americans are litterally bleeding cash. Do your homework Timebuilder F/O, and I will be here when you are ready to apoligize.

 

[Rush Limbaugh]

Apologize?? (that's the correct spelling)

I doubt Timebuilder will apologize to you and neither will I. I voted for Bush in 2000 and I will vote for him again in 2004 and there is nothing you can say to me to change that. Call me what you want but I for one AM much better off now than I was 4,5,6,7,8 years ago. Gee, I wonder why?

 

[ATCER]

I hear ya on this administration... they are friends to no one in aviation. Look at all the union busting that went on in this homeland security deal. Read something I pasted below... we are all at the mercy of this bunch. Our bags should be checked by federal workers but the entire airspace system should be controlled by the lowest bidder...

--------------------------------

December 4, 2002

FAA INTENDS TO DECLARE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
A “COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY”

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED, BUT NOT SURPRISED

WASHINGTON – The National Air Traffic Controllers Association has received notice that the Federal Aviation Administration intends to declare air traffic control a "commercial activity."

Under the FAIR Act of 1998, government agencies must declare their job functions to be either commercial or inherently governmental. Commercial activities are those subject to contracting out and privatization, while inherently governmental functions are those which are defined as, "so intimately related to the public interest as to mandate performance by federal employees." The law goes on to cite control of space and navigation as criteria for declaring a function to be inherently governmental.

"This move doesn't surprise me," NATCA President John Carr said. "This administration has already indicated on several occasions that it would consider privatization of our nation's air traffic control system. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the safety, security and efficiency of the greatest aviation system in the world is now threatened not by terrorists but by government policy towards privatization, which, in air traffic, has a proven record of failure worldwide."

Carr added, "This action makes no sense. The public demanded federalization of our nation's airport screeners by rightly recognizing their importance to public safety and yet air traffic control is on the list of activities we are willing to sell to commercial interests, possibly even foreign ones."

Interestingly, the FAA’s action in complying with Office of Management and Budget directives places air traffic control in a designation which contradicts the OMB’s own recent guidelines for what should remain in the hands of government. In a Nov. 14 document, under Section E, paragraph 1-C, OMB states that activities which “significantly affect the life, liberty or property of private persons” are inherently governmental. “I can’t think of too many activities which more directly or significantly affect the lives of people more than air traffic control,” Carr stated. “As for control of space and navigation, if you don't think we control it, try getting into O'Hare at five o'clock this afternoon without us."

According to Carr, there was a silver lining in the administration's decision. “With 10,000 air traffic controllers poised to retire in the next decade, I'm grateful that my generation of public servants won't have to be around to witness the dismantling of their pride and joy, the safest and greatest air traffic control system in the world."

 

[JayDub]

HawkerF/O,

You are the first person I have run into that was suprised United got turned down. From what I have heard on all of the financial channels, and reading the WSJ, United had no business plan. They made absolutely no plan, nor even a promise of a plan to improve anything for the consumers. Their entire model involved getting concessions from the various labor groups... that's it. Not exactly labor friendly of United, if you ask me.

I think it had a whole lot less to do with politics than you might believe. Exactly how would You plan on preparing the press statement saying you just shot down the nation's #2 carrier? That's the last thing I'd ever try to do, unless my hand was forced, no matter what party I belong to.

I read recently, but have since forgotten, who exactly this board is comprised of. I dare say, if any of us visiting this board had a smattering of their professional credentials in the financial field, we'd have a lot more important things to do than to ever visit this site again.

As I see it, all they did was make the inevitable happen now. Without a feasible business plan, they'd have to file Chp. 11 in a year any way with them burning through cash like they are. All this board did was save the tax payers $1.8 billion ... for now.

JayDub

 

[Timebuilder]

Mr. Hawkerfo:

I thought the main topic of your post was how anti-aviation Bush was, and about UAL not being granted their loan guarantee. I think that was adequately addressed. Perhaps not.

Cash bonuses? You have a problem with cash bonuses? I got one today, albeit a small one. As far as government appointees getting a bonus is concerned, I'm not all that bothered by that. I like the idea of a performance based bonus, just like mine was, instead of a large across the board increase of federal workers' pay. In addition, I'm not impressed that Clinton stopped giving out those bonuses. Do you think that they were not replaced by other monies and considerations? Perhaps just silence or a selective memory when Clinton called? Who knows, eh? The Associated Press, where some of my old friends still work, is far from being an "objective" reporting source, too. Bleeding cash? My pay works out to a little over five bucks an hour. You're going to lecture ME about cash? HA!

You can write me back with your "facts" all you want, but the issue stays the same; "Are you better off today than.............." Let’s just see if you are going to be fool enough to vote for him again.

Yes, I certainly am better off that I was 4, 5, 6, 7....years ago. For a little wage, dictated by a free market (no one held a gun to my head and told me I had to do this for a living), I am doing what I love to do: fly. I am satisfied to have a capable man at the helm in a grave crisis, although I am not always in agreement with him. Of course, his staff don't usually come up to the front of the plane and ask my opinion, either.

In this time of painful change, we must find a balance point in our crippled industry. Hard choices will be made, and have been made. Contrary to your characterization, I think this emminent panel of business and financial experts are the same people that would have been chosen for this distasteful task by any other administration. Perhaps you think that he should have appointed no one since you are at odds with him having "directly or indirectly" been involved with their presence on the panel. I think you would be irritated no matter how this might have been handled. Unlike what you believe, my opinion is that he cares deeply for the United States and it's future. The President can't just kiss it, make it all better, and sing Kum by ya.

So, I'm not scratching my head about why UAL didn't get the loan, and the fact that I expected them to be approved does not change that. A great deal of work went into the concessions, which may not have been seen as sufficient, the application process, and the review by the board members and a whole host of accountants and financial professionals. These are the same folks that are doing ALL of the reviews.

I see the fact that the big money is not being handed out willy-nilly is indicative of the careful review and scrutiny being applied equally to each carrier in turn. By your logic, a whole bunch of his "friends" that head these carriers are walking away, empty handed.

I am concerned at the possibility of the ATC system being privatized, though. I'm not surprised at the talk of this. So many towers were contracted out in the past ten years that it has fed the privatization fire. Will it happen in the near term? I doubt it. This is where we start to write our reps and senators, and AOPA.

 

[patq1]

Re: Bush is teaching Labor a lesson!!!!!

" Let’s just see if you are going to be fool enough to vote for him again.

Hawkerfo,

Speaking of fools, if the democrats would have been such a better choice and such a good friend of labor, how do you explain Clinton/Gore ordering the American pilots back to work during the last strike?

pat

 

[Brother Francis]

Hawker F/O-

Who is John Galt?

 

[waka]

patq1,

Speaking of fools, if the democrats would have been such a better choice and such a good friend of labor, how do you explain Clinton/Gore ordering the American pilots back to work during the last strike?

If I remember corectly, that was just a 60 day cooling off period. Given the times, even the most labor friendly president would have implemented that. 60 days is nothing compared to a labor contract.

 

[HawkerF/O]

patq1, you should think a little harded about who told those pilot's to get back to work. It was a "cooling off" period, and they got their house in order before a full strike was able to take place. During a sickout, a judge ordered them back to work, and then they didn't, so he said, "How much money do you have, and I will kindly take it all".
I was surprised that UAL did not get their loan guarentee. The reason I was surprised is because the company had asked them to wait until further concessions were voted on by the mechanics. Maybe it would not have made much difference, but the timing was horrible. The bottom line is that board wanted concessions from hard working people like you and me before any guarentee would be inacted. They were not asking for 1.8B, they were asking for 1.8B to be guarenteed. There is a difference there. As for bonuses, of course people should be giving performance based bonuses. Unfortunately, that is not the case here. These people that got thier bonuses were given them to put them on par with their counterparts in the business world. That not right. If these people did a lack luster job, they would still get their bonus. By using that same rational, Bush should get a Bonus of several hundread million dollars to put him on par with other CEO's, considering the amount of employees that Bush has working under him. It is no secret that you accept a political appointment because the President asks you to, not to prosper financially.
JayDub, if all these reporters and pundits on TV and in print know so much, why are they on TV and in print instead of running a great company. I could sit up there and do what they do. Those people are not held accountable if their predicitons are correct or not. How many times have you seen Jack Welch on TV giving predicitons. His time was better spent running GE, and the dividens for doing that are paying off handsomely for him. Sorry about any mispelled words, but i am in a hurry. I will be waiting to hear back from you all.

 

[Timebuilder]

But in a March 29, 2002, memo to Cabinet members and agency heads, Card reversed the Clinton policy by "clarifying" that "political appointees are eligible for performance-based awards."

Sure sounds like performance based awards. We will have to agree to disagree.

The bottom line is that board wanted concessions from hard working people like you and me before any guarentee would be inacted. They were not asking for 1.8B, they were asking for 1.8B to be guarenteed. There is a difference there.

Sure is. The difference is that if the loan payments could not be made, the government would have to make the payment. The possibility that the company might default on a guaranteed loan is the reason the guarantee was denied.

By using that same rational, Bush should get a Bonus of several hundread million dollars to put him on par with other CEO's, considering the amount of employees that Bush has working under him.

Actually, Jack Welch gave a good explanation of CEO pay earlier this evening on PBS. He did not tie the pay of a CEO to the number of employees, but instead to the equity of the company.

I hope we contine to hire or appoint any and all of the good people we can find, on an as-needed basis, and reward them well for their service. This is the nature of compensation of leaders. May they do well.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Bush I had Eastern. Bush II has United. Maybe it's some kind of family thing.

If you're a member of a labor union (ALPA, APA, IAM, AFA, etc.) and you voted for any Republican candidate, then you're capable of a level of cognitive dissonance that I find staggering.

 

[Timebuilder]

Considering the level of representation many pilot's have received for their paid dues, the fact that all pilots don't vote republican is staggering.

Jets for jobs, anyone?

 

[Typhoon1244]

Considering the level of representation many pilot's have received for their paid dues, the fact that all pilots don't vote republican is staggering.

Okay, you lost me. Are you saying that the presence of Democrats in Congress and the White House has watered-down ALPA's potency?

I mean really, why would you join a union, then vote for an anti-labor party? That's like a girl who wants to join the Boy Scouts. I don't understand it.

 

[Dieterly]

Time builder,

Sometimes it's better to keep the mouth shut, or in this case, stay away from the reply button. Maybe just take a second or two and read the crap you are about to post before you you hit "submit reply"?

What the fruck does JFJ have to do with the White House and the Congress???

Seems to me that the furloughed USAir pilots got a OK deal from it, heck it beats working at Home Depot, but that has nothing to do voting for either party.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Time builder, sometimes it's better to keep the mouth shut, or in this case, stay away from the reply button. Maybe just take a second or two and read the crap you are about to post before you you hit "submit reply." What the fruck does JFJ have to do with the White House and the Congress? ...that has nothing to do voting for either party.

Yeah, ditto. That's what I really wanted to say.

 

[skydiverdriver]

Hey Typhoon,
I vote Republican by choice. Joining a union, I didn't get a choice. However, I see no problem with choosing both. Just because the Democrats SAY they are for the working man doesn't make it so.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Just because the Democrats SAY they are for the working man doesn't make it so.

They don't really SAY it that often. They just demonstrate it in their policies.

I admit, neither party has an outstanding labor record, but if you had to choose the "lesser of two evils," the Democrats have been more labor friendly than the Republicans.

Here's my basic problem with both parties: my beliefs are split right down the middle. I'm a pro-big-military, pro-choice, pro-tough-on-crime, pro-labor, pro-small government, pro-civil-rights, pro-fiscal-responsibility "Republicrat." Too many people around me (including many of you on this board) are either far-left or far-right.

How I wish there was a party that represented the best ideas of both parties! I don't know...maybe they're mutually exclusive. Maybe you can't have heart and brains.

Do you really think you'd be better off as a pilot without a union? Ask the guys at Chataqua or Chicago Express what they think! Ask the guys at Southeast flying fifteen-day trips!