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

[mar]

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.

 

[46Driver]

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.

 

[VFR on Top]

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.

 

[Rvrrat]

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.

 

[Caveman]

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?

 

[Dieterly]

Bush is moral, doesn't lie

Now, that's funny

 

[chawbein]

When did he lie to you?

 

[Timebuilder]

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.

 

[HawkerF/O]

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.

 

[hyper]

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

 

[Timebuilder]

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?

1) I don't think for a New York Minute (usually under three seconds) that this has ANYTHING to do with Saddam trying to killl George's dad. Maybe Woody Harrelson thinks so, but I don't.

2 ) There is nothing wrong with flying an F4 around stateside He had the same likelihood of a forward deployment as anyone else did. In contrast to the previous president, GW did not protest against the policies of the United States while on foreign soil, which to me carries a very unsavory component. GW was serving in an approved manner, like so many others. Some say this is not fair. Time has shown that life cannot be made "fair", and so we must accept some substitute for that quality.

3) People who work for GW have said that he is a great guy, and that he is sincere in looking out for you and me. From the quality of these individuals, I am inclined to take them at their word. If he were permitted to fly on my aircraft, I'd have a good handle on GW from a personal viewpoint, but he is the only person in the White House who is not permitted to ride on a private jet like the one I fly. If I am invited to meet him, I will report back on that meeting.


Gunfyter:

But the problem with Republicans is there is a strain of them who never worked for a living. Country Club Republicans.

People are not THROWAWAYS. Country club republicans don't understand this and that is why they are anti-union.

This sounds dangerously like the old "class warfare" argument used by democrats. It's funny, when you think about it. There are just as many wealthy dems as there are republicans, and most have never "worked" for a living. Never mind the management of a large fortune, such at the Kennedys', is very much like managing a large corporation.

So, whether you are talking about dems, republicans, the head of the red cross, greenpeace, the sierra club, or whomever, you will find many people who have never done pipefitting, auto mechanics, or any number of jobs that are commonly associated with the word "work". While you may find some republicans who are anti-union, you can find many people who are not associated with the republcan party who are also anti-union. It is a mistake to paint the entire republican party with such a broad brush.

If you think that the dems are pro-union, I have a new insight for you: they are pro-union-MONEY. Many forget that the democrat leaders sit on corporate boards as members of MANAGEMENT.

Capitalism is simply the most efficient economic system. The MACHINE of the economy works best under ruthless free trade capitalism.

That's probably correct, but it has never been tried.

The Problem is that the MACHINE of the Economy has component parts called HUMAN BEINGS. It may be cost efficient to run airplanes or factories 24/7 without rest and replace worn parts with new parts and just discard the old.

Actually, we are the machine, the company, the corporation. The very best of these companies view their employees as assets and not liabilities. While a mechanical machine can be worked 24/7, it must receive periodic maintenance, just as a human employee needs sleep and recreation.

I'm not sure why we are addressing this issue in this thread. Are you referring to FAA duty times, the way the regulations are interpreted, or are you saying that people are just forced to work too hard, and for too long?

 

[Timebuilder]

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.

- Yesterday, in the Jack Welch interview on PBS, this question came up (Of course it came up. The news area of PBS is just as liberal as the programming) and was ably addressed.

Jack pointed out that if you want to hire a new CEO for a UAL or an Enron, you are asking someone who already has a good job somewhere else to leave that job and step into a spotlight in a high stress environment where they will be watched with a microscope by both friends and foes. In order to get people to do this, which is a choice they have to make both personally and professionally, you have to offer some really good compensation.

Let's say that you don't hire a well know, successful CEO, or in this case a vice president of Chevron, and instead happen to hire an accountant from a middle management background, and offer him $300,000? What happens? People see the inexperienced, unknown CEO and jump ship, break contracts, refuse financing....any number of things that would virtually guarantee the failure of the company, instead of its recovery.

While you and I see this level of compensation as exorbitant, it is the cost associated with hiring a CEO for a troubled company. Just as anything that gets attached to an airplane costs ten times what it would cost if it was attached to a car, it costs a lot of money to have the proper individual, as judged by the business community, attached to you company.

 

[hyper]

OK, fair enough. But it still seems exorbitant.

 

[cocknbull]

President Bush is very concerned with the amount of taxes the US citizen pays. It is a shame that the average american family must have both parents working in order to pay the bills. This means more time at work and less time parenting. President Bush is not about to back a failed business model with taxpayers money. Its bad business plain and simple. I feel horible about what has happened to United and I don't want to see any of their pilots suffer. However the industry needs a cleaning. I am sick and tired of people blamming Reagan, Bush, and Bush for the stink in the industry. They did not allow Lorenzo and those fools do what they did. The laws did and writing laws is not the presidents job. If airlines can't function in capitalism then neither should McDonalds, Wal Mart, etc.... Yes I do want to be an airline pilot, but do I want to strike every five years, and ask the government to help. No. Since the airlines have been in exsistance they have made 7 billion in profit, 5 billion of that is bail outs. The airlines can work and can function, but investing in the old system is a waste of money. I think the long term future for United is solid. In fact I think we will see alot of steps in the near future that will return United to profitability in the future. I don't think every pilot group is going to love the changes, but you can't please everyone all the time. As United starts to improve its product then Bush will encourage asistance to them.

PS Does anyone no if CAL got loan guaruntees when it went BK

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: The middle of the road

Typhoon--I follow your posts. You're a smart kid.

I'm honored, sir...although I haven't felt much like a "kid" since turning thirty.

You have to ask yourself, "What kind of a world do I want to live in," then make your choice.

If I thought either of the two major American political parties was capable of changing this world into one I want to live in, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's just like I said before, everyone shouts and points fingers, and nothing changes.

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

Now be careful. One of my least favorite characteristics of Republicans is that when they can't think of anything intelligent to say, they fall back on witty "sound bites" like this one. What's next? "Better dead than Red?" (No, calm down. I'm not a communist.)

You know, now that I think about it...and I'm serious now...before joining this forum a year ago, I would have said I was a staunch Democrat. I just can't get behind a party who places the greed of major corporations ahead of human decency. But after discussing this issue with so many of you...I can now see that, although the Democrats are closer to the mark, neither party represents what I truly want for the future of this nation!

(I'm sitting here in shock, guys and gals. No joke. My membership in this open forum has fundamentally changed my political views!)

So where does that leave me in the almighty, a-constitutional two-party system? I may have to actually vote for whoever I think is more suited for the office for which they're running!

On one point, however, I refuse to budge: regardless of what anyone thinks of either party, Republicans do not have a monopoly on morality! Look me in the eye and tell me Dick Nixon was more honest than Bill Clinton. Tell me Newt Gingrich is a prince of family values. Good grief!

Okay, I'm going to try to leave this alone. Right now, it's about United...

 

[Timebuilder]

Look me in the eye and tell me Dick Nixon was more honest than Bill Clinton. Tell me Newt Gingrich is a prince of family values. Good grief!

While I don't want to rewrite the books written on Watergate or the Clinton Presidency, Nixon had the brass to step down, and show some very real contrition about the wrongdoings of the watergate burglars. Clinton looked the American people in the eye and lied, several times.

Who was a better President? That would depend on establishing the standards used to measure a Presidency. Nixon is respected for his diplomatic dialogue with the Chinese, and for his ending of the Vietnam conflict left over from the Kennedy and Johnson years. Bill Clinton is known primarily for his ability to charm, obfuscate, and have multiple partners who are not his wife, and are closer in age to his daughter than himself.

Newt Gingrich was able to articulate many values that he was unable to live. A very human failing. Just as many leaders who have better ideas than lives, he failed to lead by example. Had he been the Presidnet, this would have been much worse, since we hold our Presidents to a higher standard than pilots or Speakers of the House.

I don't think anyone EVER called him the "prince of family values", though!

 

[Caveman]

Hawker F/O (no slur intended),

You do realize that your concern about Bush during Vietnam is ironic in that it was a Democrat that got us into that mess and and a Republican that got us out.

Why is it that when someone disagrees with you they must be drinking? Like most liberals you appear unable to proffer a rational debate without turning it into a personal attack. Hence the crack about drinking and the psychobabble about me being uncomfortable as an F/O.

The government has no business bailing out failing companies unless there is a compelling national interest. IMO one large airline going in the tank doesn't meet that criteria. Unfortunate, yes, but it isn't a national crisis.

 

[patq1]

patq1, you should think a little harded about who told those pilot's to get back to work.

I did think a little harder and I also looked it up. Here is part of the AP article from the time:

"Precedent set by Clinton eliminates strike fears

NEW YORK (AP) - The word ''strike'' doesn't conjure up such scary images to the flying public anymore.

That is the precedent set by President Clinton in ordering American Airlines pilots back to work within minutes after they declared a strike early Saturday, averting chaotic disruptions to hundreds of thousands of passengers.

If pilot negotiations at four other of the nation's biggest airlines get to the brink of a walkout, airline chiefs and passengers almost certainly will be looking to the White House to keep the planes in the air.

Clinton made a hugely popular decision by effectively removing the one potent negotiating weapon in the American pilot union's arsenal. "

I didn't think my memory was that bad but thanks for making me think!

pat

 

[cocknbull]

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.

Typhoon1244

If you're a US citizen who pays taxes and you voted for any Democrap, then you're incapable of making sound decisions.

If you care about your company and want it to do well and you voted for a Democrat, then you made a mistake.

If you voted for a Democrat for the soul purpose of furthering union views then you are selfish.

All of this corporate greed crap came about during Slick Willie's term. Bush is the one layin down the law.

If you're uneducated, on welfare, or a college teacher who smoked alot of weed in the sixties, then you're most likely a Democrat.

You act as if Bush could have saved Eastern. Eastern was doomed the day Lorenzo landed in Miami. Lorenzo is Harvard educated. Harvard is the most Liberal school in the country. Lorenzo's tactics were not Republican or Democrat they were just wrong....... Bush Jr. would have had Lorenzo in court for insider trading after the Pan Am-National deal.

If this were 1940, I'd be a Democrat. Times have changed and so has the role of government.

 

[Soupbone]

Well said Caveman and cocknbull!!

I don't think there was an American around, including Gore that wasn't extremely happy that Bush was the President after 9/11!
Does anyone really think that Clinton was responsible for the 90's boom? Remember we had a REPUBLICAN Congress!! The last 2 years we have had a Democrap Congress and look were that got us. I think the next few years will affirm why the Republican's won back Congress this year!!
The real reason Clinton and Gore do not even measure up to Bush...Bush has 2 things they never had/have...character and integrity!

Fire away,
Soup