destruction of unions

[pilotyip]

it wasn't the destruction of unions that has effed this industry, it was de-regulation, LCC's, and $29 fares to orlando that have.

in other words, it was the consumer of airline tickets who did it. The ones who prefer to ride Spirit with its $7.00 fares and no frills.

Life was good for a few pilots under regulation. There are probably 4-5 times as many pilot’s jobs now as there was in 1977. Back in reg time it was about 90% military that went to the majors. Dereg opened up a lot of airline job to non-military pilots. To return to regulation would raise ticket prices, reduce the number of passengers, and therefore reduce the number of pilots needed.

It is still a great way to make a living, pilots are not doctor's, if you want to be treated like a doctor finish med school, pilots are not wall street CEO's, if you want to be a wall street CEO, get into one the top 10 MBA's school. You are pilot you fly airplanes, if you like doing that you are probably happy. If not you are in the wrong line of work.

 

[zonker]

Or if you "wanna-be" really happy...you could be a management "wanna-be" working for a sh**bag cargo outfit, posting anti union garbage on the internet all day.

 

[777forever]

in other words, it was the consumer of airline tickets who did it. The ones who prefer to ride Spirit with its $7.00 fares and no frills.

Life was good for a few pilots under regulation. There are probably 4-5 times as many pilot’s jobs now as there was in 1977. Back in reg time it was about 90% military that went to the majors. Dereg opened up a lot of airline job to non-military pilots. To return to regulation would raise ticket prices, reduce the number of passengers, and therefore reduce the number of pilots needed.

It is still a great way to make a living, pilots are not doctor's, if you want to be treated like a doctor finish med school, pilots are not wall street CEO's, if you want to be a wall street CEO, get into one the top 10 MBA's school. You are pilot you fly airplanes, if you like doing that you are probably happy. If not you are in the wrong line of work.

Very well said. Going back to regulation would cut at least 50% of pilot jobs but at least their would be more openings at Amtrak!

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[pilotyip]

Or if you "wanna-be" really happy...you could be a management "wanna-be" working for a sh**bag cargo outfit, posting anti union garbage on the internet all day.

Ah! FI such a wonderful place. You are so funny, don't like something call people names, it is so liberal. I am happy you appear not to be

Been there done that, unions are limited in what they can deliver. One thing they can not deliver is job security. I was ALPA at TransAmerican (L-188/DC-8), 1978-79, owner decided he could make more money selling airplanes than flying them, going backward in seniority, airline ended up in 1982 with C-130's in Angola Africa and New Guinea. Folded in 1984, I bailed to the corp. world in 1979. Handwriting was on the wall and there was nothing a union could do to protect my job. Zantop Teamsters (L-188) in 1996, union got in by one vote, first pay raise on contract due 3-26-1997, owner shut the company down on 3-25-1997. Jimmy Zantop figured why risk my $35M, Nothing a union could do to protect my job. But indirectly, enlightened management knows you have to match industry standards to be competitive in retaining and attracting employees. Therefore employees at those non-union companies benefit from the union company work rules without having to pay dues. BTW Unions are in the business of selling dues. If the Teamsters were as enlightened as many of the higher quality managers, they would understand you just lost your job and needed every nickel to feed yourself and not take that $100 out of your last paycheck, which included credit for earned vacation days.

Very well said. Going back to regulation would cut at least 50% of pilot jobs but at least their would be more openings at Amtrak!

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

Nice touch of reality in the fantasy world of FI.

 

[777forever]

here is what is happening to the middle class

www.hoover.org/news/daily-report/106421

January 26, 2012 | Wall Street Journal
news » hoover daily report
Lessons From the Great Expansion
by Henry R. Nau (W. Glenn Campbell and Rita Ricardo-Campbell National Fellow, 2011–12)

In his State of the Union address this week, President Obama said we shouldn't "settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by."

No one would argue with that. But is it an accurate description of our economy? The production of wealth is not a zero-sum game here at home or in the global economy—never has been.

Between 1980 and 2007, the world economy experienced what I call a "Great Expansion" due largely to the free-market polices that President Obama blames for the last recession. Over those three decades, world GDP grew by about 145%, or roughly 3.4% a year, a rate comparable to the 3.5% per year growth during the golden era of 1950-1973.

Even if we include the downturn of the so-called Great Recession, real world growth, after slipping to 2.9% in 2008 and then declining by 0.5% in 2009, rebounded by 5.0% in 2010. And according to this week's International Monetary Fund forecast, it is expected to grow by more than 4.4% in 2011 and 4.5% in 2012.

None of this global growth came at the expense of growth in the U.S. Taking into account two mild recessions in 1990-91 and 2000-01, the U.S. grew by more than 3% per year from 1980-2007 and created more than 50 million new jobs, massively expanding a middle class of working women, African-Americans and legal as well as illegal immigrants.

Per capita income increased by 65%, and household income went up substantially in all income categories.

Yes, "the middle class has shrunk," as Mr. Obama said while campaigning last month. But not because it's getting poorer, rather because it's getting richer.

According to Stephen Rose of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, fewer people live today in middle-class households with incomes between $35,000 and $105,000, while the percentage of households making less than $35,000 has remained the same. Where did the missing households go? They became richer. In the past three decades, the percentage of households making more than $105,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars doubled to 24% from 11%.

Even more importantly, the global surge in growth spread wealth from the rich to the poor countries, creating greater equality in global markets than ever before. Throughout this period, developing countries grew two and even three times faster than developed countries. As a result, the share of world GDP held by emerging markets increased to 22% from 13%, while the U.S. share remained steady at approximately 26%. The "Great Expansion" created a global middle class of some 600 million-800 million people in China, India, Brazil and other developing countries.

What were the policy trends that produced this Great Expansion? Precisely the free-market policies of deregulation and lower marginal income-tax rates that Mr. Obama decries.

President Ronald Reagan's decision to reverse the high-tax, loose-money, and interventionist government policies of the 1970s brought an end to the painful "stagflation" of that decade. Privatization world-wide reversed the growth of government, and new trade rounds were launched to open global markets and roll back protectionism. The Uruguay Round and later the North American Free Trade Agreement liberalized trade in agriculture and services and brought fast-growing emerging markets into the global system. This was combined with the liberalization of private financial markets, creating the global banking system that mobilized massive savings in emerging markets to fuel the industrial engines of the Great Expansion.

Global financial markets could have been better regulated, but President Obama's policies go far beyond any reforms that would bring an end to "too big to fail." His policies shift the emphasis back to public-sector growth while squeezing private-sector initiatives. He raises federal spending to 25% of GDP, favors higher taxes to keep it there, and touts government investment in clean energy and infrastructure to spur economic growth.

Meanwhile, he imposes health-care, regulatory and other costs on the private sector, restricts credit by trashing "fat cat" bankers, and discourages imports by pandering to labor's fears of globalization. Sadly, his policies resemble those that brought on the stagflation of the '70s, not those that ignited the Great Expansion.

Mr. Nau, a Hoover Institution fellow, teaches political science and international affairs at George Washington University.


check it out

This cannot continue to happen. History has shown that eventually the poor will revolt. Lots of movies coming out recently even depict this like the Hunger Games and the Dark Knight Rises

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[pilotyip]

This cannot continue to happen. History has shown that eventually the poor will revolt. Lots of movies coming out recently even depict this like the Hunger Games and the Dark Knight Rises

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

What upward mobility has stopped?

 

[Twisted Mind]

yip now we are seeing or are going to see a lot of "shrink" in the industy. Removing a lot of pilot jobs.

 

[EngineThunder]

Lets see how long it takes pilotyip to post his work history again on FI. Counting down in 3,2,1.......

 

[GogglesPisano]

What upward mobility has stopped?

Not stopped. But it is now clearly behind "socialist Europe."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all

 

[livin'thesim]

Europe is imploding from decades of socialist policies, and burdensome red tape.

If we want to create more middle class jobs, we need a job friendly environment. Not more government intervention. High taxes and excess regulation decrease employment.

The empirical proof of the failure of Europe is visible to anyone willing to see it.