Maybe a reson to vote Dem.

[Soverytired]

It is all about being represented...

The current laws, policy and culture in this country favor corporate America. The intent is to have your voice heard. Is that unamerican? Give those who have all the power and wealth....more just seems unreasonable...

Fuel prices out of control..... who should pay for it? Your CEO thinks pilots and the rest of labor should. Why should he work harder at being a CEO when he can use fear and force pilots to give up their pay...when it won't matter... the point....

The laws, policies and culture in our country help and allow him to do so.....

I want representation in Congress and from POTUS that doesn't allow my CEO to do so....

I understand your frustration with the revolving door of CEO's who's compensation is not tied to performance and seems much, much to high. I'll even go so far as to say that I share it. I'm not sure what you're hoping the federal government should do about it.

You DO have your voice heard at any publicly traded company if you own a piece of it. It's called proxy votes by the shareholders. Although rare, it's not unheard of for corporations to be shaken-up from within when the stockholders revolt. There is no reason that pilots couldn't devote, say, 10% of their paycheck to buying company stock and over time directing their union to use their proxy votes to shape the company.

Would you trust your union to manage your personal wealth this way? And to have long term effect, that stock would have to be locked up for a long time. Not to mention the fact that airlines are terrible investments.


Do you think your congressman should regulate how much CEO's earn at a private company? This seems heavy handed, grotesque, and un-American. And for those "re-regulate the airlines" pilots out there, remember this: if your congressman can tell your CEO what he can earn, he can do the same to you. If the US taxpayer is subsidizing your job, they're not going to put up with $150k salaries for you either, particularly since from their end the cost of air travel will almost certainly double if not triple.

"Pilots pay the cost of fuel" . . . you gotta be kidding! There's lots of things Congress can do about this, but the democrats have made it very clear that their hands are tied by their numerous 'nutter constituencies. The worst part is that most of the solutions would take at least a decade to have real impact anyway, so no matter who's in power, energy is going to be a real problem for the next few decades.

 

[Smarta$$]

If your position is that the entire airline industry needs massive federal subsidizes and re-regulation, then I agree . .the Dems are probably the party most likely to favor this route.

I personally think this would lead to very high prices for the consumer, a loss of between 1/3 and 1/2 of all pilot jobs, and the elimination and/or shrinkage of quite a few carriers. However, for those lucky pilots who are "in" and survive the shakeout, it would probably lead to greater job security.

That said, two elected officials offhandedly mentioning maybe having hearings in the sometime-future to totally upset the apple cart by massive federal intervention in the private market isn't something I'd hang my vote on. For me, there are more important issues and certainly much better ways to deal with the airline economy that are both far less intrusive and much cheaper for the taxpayer and the flying public.

Nor am I impressed with the "ALPA behind the scenes" train of thought. This means they can claim credit for everything . . . while never being held accountable for anything. ALPA has an official regulatory agenda, and that is what they must be judged on. Their record of accomplishments in the past decade has been less than impressive (duty time, lost on the age 65 rule, etc.) I know it's been a tough environment for them, but they should be judged on results, not empty promises.

However . . . if your #1 voting criteria is airline re-regulation to "save" the airlines, then I agree you're choosing the correct party.

You missed my point entirely. I am not of the belief that either party can magically save the airline industry. The industry is only in trouble now because of out of control fuel prices. Oil prices may go down, they may not. Personally, I think they will not go down meaningfully until a viable replacement is found.

The point is, if these companies turn the corner for the good, as they often have in the past and even the recent past, I want to have a seat at the table. The executives should not be the only pepple being compensated during good economic times.

And when times do go bad, the employees should not be the only ones taking meaningful reductions in compensation.

My contract is 9 years old, 3+ years expired at a very profitable company. Yet I take a 4-10% pay cut every year because of inflation. A very politacally motivated NMB is what is protecting my CEO and reducing my families earning power.

 

[Soverytired]

You missed my point entirely. I am not of the belief that either party can magically save the airline industry. The industry is only in trouble now because of out of control fuel prices. Oil prices may go down, they may not. Personally, I think they will not go down meaningfully until a viable replacement is found.

The point is, if these companies turn the corner for the good, as they often have in the past and even the recent past, I want to have a seat at the table. The executives should not be the only pepple being compensated during good economic times.

And when times do go bad, the employees should not be the only ones taking meaningful reductions in compensation.
.

Yet there are scores of things Congress can do to encourage a strong airline economy. Ask yourself which party would be willing to do something meaningful to help airlines into profitability.

(I confess . . . I don't think either party will do much . . . but I do think the republicans MIGHT do some things better)

The best way to negotiate a good contract is to work for a consistently profitable carrier and have a union that is smart, nimble, and above all, not greedy. Southwest probably is the exemplar of this.

"I hope the airlines get better, then I hope Congress will let me strike" isn't much of a strategy. It's almost infantile. Should unions be allowed to strike after a reasonable period of time? Certainly. PERHAPS the pendulum has swung too far towards management in this regard, but the point is utterly moot and has been for years.

The fundamental and completely obvious problem is that airlines in the US are financial disasters and have been for at least a decade.

What you should be asking yourself is how European carriers can be profitable both domestically and internationally with unionized groups that are quite well compensated. It's complicated, but it's not because they can't strike (they can). It's not because their CEO's are underpaid (they aren't). Or their gas is cheaper.

One last thought . . . . Unions did not come into their heyday in the US many years ago because the government encouraged them. Quite the opposite, actually. Unions still have the ability to bring any airline to its knees, they just don't have the cojones.

 

[Herman Bloom]

I agree.....

As a kid, I used to wonder why my Grandparents disliked Jimmy Carter so much.... After watching that idiot buddy-up with every anti-U.S. dictator in the whole freaking world, I have come to better understand their concerns. This Curious-George-looking freakshow makes Carter look ultra-conservative. There is no telling the damage he would do to our economic freedoms and civil liberties.

I would much rather risk the short-term damage to my career that you all seem to be so afraid of than risk losing whatever if left I value of this country. There is more at stake than what the govt. can do to protect your career.

Personally, I would rather pay for my own healthcare than pay 86% taxes and get it for "free."

Do you have any idea how much Carter has contributed to the greater good since his presidency?

And you already do pay a "tax" for healthcare, it just ends up in the pockets of 1) Pfizer/etc. and 2) Insurance companies. What do you know about healthcare in the first place?

Just focus on keeping the blue side up and leave the serious stuff to the professionals.

 

[Abernathy]

Do you have any idea how much Carter has contributed to the greater good since his presidency?

And you already do pay a "tax" for healthcare, it just ends up in the pockets of 1) Pfizer/etc. and 2) Insurance companies. What do you know about healthcare in the first place?

Just focus on keeping the blue side up and leave the serious stuff to the professionals.

:beer:

 

[Soverytired]

Do you have any idea how much Carter has contributed to the greater good since his presidency?

And you already do pay a "tax" for healthcare, it just ends up in the pockets of 1) Pfizer/etc. and 2) Insurance companies. What do you know about healthcare in the first place?

Just focus on keeping the blue side up and leave the serious stuff to the professionals.

Probably nowhere near as much as GW Bush senior or WJ Clinton. They both have charity foundation endowments worth tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars.

Carter's work with "Habitat for Humanity" may be honorable work, but in terms of substance over style, there are far better examples.

Carter's an embarrassment because he still thinks he's a US diplomat and has a very bad habit of undercutting current US diplomatic efforts while giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the US and our allies. Even Clinton and the previous Bush have more class than this. (Of course, there was his utterly disastrous presidency, so I guess he has to try to redeem himself somehow)

Guess you'd have no problem if the current Bush spent his retired years publicly undercutting the efforts of the coming Obama presidency?

 

[Herman Bloom]

Ever heard of the Carter Center? How about the Nobel Peace Prize? The Schweitzer Prize?

"Giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the US"? You can't be serious. His efforts have always been directed towards giving "aid and comfort" to the victims of political/social/economic strife.

 

[DenverCrashpad]

If Iran gets nukes, it's all over for everyone. At least with the Soviets, we had mutually assured destruction. With these guys, they don't care. Hillary and Barrack wanna sit down with this guy while McCain wants to take action.

 

[PCL_128]

If Iran gets nukes, it's all over for everyone. At least with the Soviets, we had mutually assured destruction. With these guys, they don't care. Hillary and Barrack wanna sit down with this guy while McCain wants to take action.

McCain: the candidate of irrational fear.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

If Iran gets nukes, it's all over for everyone. At least with the Soviets, we had mutually assured destruction. With these guys, they don't care. Hillary and Barrack wanna sit down with this guy while McCain wants to take action.

McCain is selling fear like gift cards at the checkout line..... and people can't buy enough....