ACL65PILOT
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Posts
- 4,621
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's been highjacked almost worse than the "Latest and Greatest about Delta" thread on the other forum.What is this thread about again?
Flight attendants - Work the same schedules we do and start at about 18K a year, at most regionals top out in the mid 20K's a year. If they are trying to support a family thats poverty line.
Well.. we have established Delta isn't interviewing any more this fall, effectively crushing my hopes and dreams.
So why not use the thread to start my new career, internet muse. Come Oct 1 I will officially be furloughed so I should have LOT's of time for posting on FI..
cale
Thanks.. it is what it is. It's my first one, so I guess that is good, but I'm a little more freaked out about it I guess as well.
cale
I agree with your second point, that bringing the debt under control has to be the first and foremost issue for the federal government, in order to achieve long term stability, they must live within their means so to speak.
As to bigger government, if you go back to my first post you'll see that I do in fact support it. I'll attempt to lay out my arguement of why that is in fact the fiscally conservative approach. As pilots we often lose sight of the fact that we fall in the upper echelons in society. Even RJ captains end to be in the top 20% of wage earners and lots of guys make more than that, we also generally are in the top tier in terms of education and social status. So it is often hard to grasp even as our industry reams us how much we really do have.
With that in mind we have to understand that while if our tax rates go down you and I will spend more, save more, boost our retirement savings and so on. For 80% of the population though these things simply won't happen. Much of our society has no retirement savings other than social security, they will never have health insurance outside of their employers or Medicare/Medicaid. They need the government to provide basic services. You cut these things and they just fall to the next level of government service, welfare and walking into a hospital when they have any problems and just ignoring the bill.
There is only two solutions to this. First cut them off altogether. No hospital visits without insurance, repeal the hippocratic oath for all US doctors. Get rid of welfare. So when this happens people basically get too old and die because they have no money for basic services and can't work any longer. If your really ballsy enough to say let every individual who can't work and has no savings die on the streets, then you can really cut government spending. But for those of us who aren't the next cheapest option is a European style system that keeps people out of those situations. With single payer health care you always can see a doctor and don't tie up the ER. Many EU countries basically have government pensions for all of their workers, knowing that neither the employer or the employee will have the funds. Do these things result in more government spending. Sure they do. However I contend that it is still less government spending that the cobbled together approach we have. Go all or nothing, flat out support the bottom half of your population or let them die. Anything in between is inefficient and wasteful, yet it is exactly what we have.
So to Tweakers point as well, there is my arguement for more spending. It will actually lead to smaller, cheaper government down the road, we will have a few massive all encompassing programs rather than this half baked approach we currently have that is a drain on society.
cale
Michael, how can you look around you every day and really say that. I'm not talking about the folks that never go out and do anything, I'm talking about the fact that private industry has destroyed workers rights and compensation to a point where the government is forced to subsidize. These aren't "moochers" as you put it, they are people busting their humps doing the best they can.
Lets take the example of aviation alone.
Flight attendants - Work the same schedules we do and start at about 18K a year, at most regionals top out in the mid 20K's a year. If they are trying to support a family thats poverty line.
Gate Agents - Most make in the range of 10/hr and work 50 hr weeks. $500/wk, thats about $26,500 a year. Right on the poverty line.
Ramp - Probably makes 8/hr average. Figure a 50 hr week thats $20,800/yr. Definitely below the poverty line.
Catering - Probaby about 8/hr so $20,800 again, well below the poverty line.
Fueler- Little more responsibility, probably closer to 10/hr, back up to $26,500 year.
TSA - Probably the best job in aviation outside of pilot or ATC, they probably average $35K/yr. Above the poverty line, but not exactly a comfortable living.
So.. that is 85% of the people that make the aviation industry go round. They all work hard. But in your example they are just moochers, because I guarantee you at those kinds of wages they aren't saving for retirement, they aren't able to purchase health insurance if they lose their job. They have zero savings because it takes every dime to put food on the table so when they are out of a job they can't buy food.
Even if we take them all to be moochers and figure they all could "get off their asses" as you put it and get a college degree and get a good job, how do you propose we run an airline with no flight attendants, gate agents, rampers, caterers, or fuelers? Because I want to work for that company, they'll make money hand over fist.
The simple reality is your golden private sector has destroyed the average American worker and they are now forced to rely on government aid.
You lost me right there. In the top 10 problems in US aviation, career flight attendants. A position that was never meant to be a career or a job to raise a family.