Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

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

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Timebuilder said:
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.
 
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.
 
Dieterly said:
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.
 
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.
 
skydiverdriver said:
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!
 
Last edited:
The middle of the road

Typhoon--I follow your posts. You're a smart kid. You have to ask yourself, "What kind of a world do I want to live in," then make your choice.

If you choose the middle of the road you'll get run-over.

Peace.
 
How do I belong to a union and vote Republican? My duties and obligations as an American citizen are far more important than any job. Florida absentee ballot for Bush 2000 - and 2004.....
Semper Fi.
 
Dieterly said:
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???

Dieterly, 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 re-read the post you are about to bash simply because you didn't quite comprehend it?

Timebuilder, it was a valid analogy; some of us DID get it.
 
It is said that prostitution is the oldest profession and that the second oldest profession is politics which closely resembles the first.

I surely hope those who take the time to bash individual policies or politicians exercised their duty to vote prior to exercising their typing fingers.
 
Clinton is (not was) immoral, a liar and bought and paid for by folks that want the government and labor to keep everybody equal and redistribute other people's wealth. Bush is moral, doesn't lie and is bought and paid for by folks that want the government to stay the heck out of their lives and businesses. I'll take choice number 2.

BTW, Timebuilder's nickname is Timebuilder not Timebuilder F/O. In the context it was used I also detected a certain demeaning tone. Since when is being an F/O a derogatory slur?
 
First of all, a couple of us have to develop a sense of humor. Sure, these are stressful times, but smile a little.

My jets for jobs question springs from just how little representation the thousands of so-called "regional" pilots say they have gotten for their union dollar. I speak from a background of having been a member of several unions, including a rail labor union. I explained in an earilier post about how the trade union movement had hithched their wagon to the democrat party a long time ago. During the time when unions were in their hayday, this association with the dems did indeed make a lot of sense.

As union membership continues to shrink, and the pilot unions see their lower ranks seemingly dissatisfied with the kind of representation they have received, party association becomes less important. In fact, the number of union members voting for republican candidates is growing every year. This is probably due to the many changes that are happening, both in the political parties themselves and also the nature of union members. The largest group of union members now is federal employees. Most know that they won't lose their jobs anytime soon. Most also understand, simply by looking at the other people in their offices, that the President needs to have the flexibility that he lobbied for in the homeland security dpartment. While the staunchest labor supporters may call this anti union, that representation is no more "fair" than it is to say that those who opposed the formation of this department are anti American.

Mentioning a president, and attempting to attach him to the demise of a carrier, whether it be Eastern or United, is an act of futility. These things happen because of a combination of ingredients, such as the free market, the union leadership, and the managment staff. To say that it must be a "family thing" smacks of the integrity of James Carville. Don't lower yourself to that level.

For Dieterly:

I'm sure some of those pilots were very happy about that deal. How do the other members of that union feel? Used? Abused? They are the ones who will be selling their union brothers the sheetrock for the new addition, right? Unions are not a panacea; not even close. The wholly owned pilots are the guys who are being treated like "girls" in the boy scouts. "Hey, thanks for your service, but you're on the street so your mismanaged company can kepp these other pilots working. Thanks so much for that dues money, too".

Sounds like the republicans may have picked up a bunch of new voters.

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!

Lets also ask the guys at CCAir, CoEx, or Allegheny. The Southwest bunch seems pretty happy with their work. The "truth" is a changing entity, and it is sometimes slippery. Your position would have been very valid in 1975. Today, the republican party is not anti union. If I'm on the "far right", then why do I support the controllers? Why don't I think that collective bargaining is an inherently bad thing? It's a new day, and a lot of things are changing.

I don't know...maybe they're mutually exclusive. Maybe you can't have heart and brains.

Okay I was wrong about 1975. Make that 1968.


I hadn't considered that the addition of the "F/O" to my screen name might have been intended as a slam of some sort. Maybe I should have picked up on that. Being older than all of my captains is something I'm not at all uncomfortable with, and my self-image as an adult was established before I returned to aviation. If I defined myself stricly by the flying position I hold, I'd be making a mistake. I have put a lot of things on hold in order to do what I love to do. They include an offer to return to talk radio on a station that carries the Rush Lmbaugh program in the fifth largest radio market in America, a full time job voicing commercials and narrations, and writing for an aviation advocacy group.

Right now, none of that sounds like it would be more satisfying than my current job. I'm getting a fair amount of stick time, and I got a nice little bonus, along with a note from the boss, recognizing my "hard work". I had to laugh at that.

Most days, the hardest part of my job is the drive to the airport.
 
Caveman,
You should pay closer attention before you hit the submit reply button. I am the one that used F/O when writing to Timebuilder. I thought it was part of his name, and after I sent the post, I realized that it was not. That is my fault, and I should have paid closer attention. If you look at my user name, you will see that I am an F/O as well, so easy there, Tex. I see you are a retired Marine, so you are probably flying with Captians a lot younger than you, so, instead of trying to start something here with these guys, you should go get your own issues resolved about being a F/O. How you got that was derogatory slur baffles me....Well, I take that back, after reading your post, and noticing your user name that fits you quite well, I see where it came from. There is no shame in being an F/O, and as soon as you realize that, things might be a little different for you.
Bill Clinton is certainly no angel, and neither is Bush, so get that out of your mind. Bush wants to send off of these kids over to Iraq because they tried to kill his dad, but where was he during the Vietnam war? Flying a F4 around stateside. Come on. I can appreciate this was on Terrorism, and indeed Iraq needs a new gov't, but lets not sit up here and say that Bush is some great guy looking out for you and me. Lets keep the Gov't out of Businesses, and let the Enrons and MCIs of the world do their own things, right? Caveman, is this the Jack Danials talking for you, or do you really believe that Bush does not lie? Put the drink down and think about what you are writing here.
 
99% of the politicians in this world are liars. So pointing fingers at a select one or two is redundant.

Getting back to the UAL topic: do I remember UAL hiring a new CEO with a $3mil signing bonus along with a $1mil salary plus options and a 100% bonus? Ah, I do. I wonder how all those employees taking pay cuts with the jobloss stress looming feel about that deal.

I'd prefer to see results first.Details
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom