No deal for ual

[SWA Bubba]

I would say bubba, that was said from the framework of being at swa the last decade. The bush NMB flat out said - no strikes in my admin. not this one. Where do you get that opinion? What facts back that up?

This is not a conservative vs. liberal argument, Wave. It's stepping back and looking at reality. As Andy pointed out, it was Democratic presidents that used their powers to stop the last two attempted major airline strikes. And since then, with consolidation (USAir, United/Continental, Delta/Northwest), we're down to just a few majors controlling so much more each. A major airline strike would be exponentially more devestating to the economy and the nation in general. That's BEFORE you even consider the current fragile state of our economy. Do you really think President Obama would allow one, Wave? Really? That's a real question for you.


And even if they don't, there's been a lot more gains under this president than the last- why is that? If the NMB is just as willing to take leverage away from pilot groups?

I'm not saying take leverage away from pilot groups... I'm saying they don't especially CARE about pilot groups.

And don't get me started on Bush's ATSB picking winners and losers.
And the FAA, how long as the NTSB been screaming for a more scientific approach to rest rules. How long have they been screaming about the lack of experience in regional flight decks?- think that that was a coincidence both have been addressed within a couple years.

No, I don't think it was a coincidence. I think it happened only because of a specific crash (Colgan), not because of who was the president. As in a lot of tragedies, a lot of "fixes" are knee-jerk reactions. The way the majors handle crew rest had nothing to do with that particular crash. That accident happened essentially because the Captain was an incompetent idiot who had successfully managed to hide his incompetence, and the FO was too afraid to do anything about it. Revamping crew rest rules was politicians showing that they "were fixing the problem." After all, they'd look bad if they didn't do anything. As far as experience goes (part of the FO's problem), I agree that has some validity. But I maintain it has little to do with the flavor of the current administration. I think you're giving President Obama way too much credit. He just happened to be in charge when it happened, just like he was in charge when bin Laden was finally found. You're not really going to argue (as some have) that Obama worked harder, or wanted more, than Bush did to get bin Laden, are you?

There is a party that is much more pro-labor- its just most of us hate everything about labor unions except for ours.

Certainly I agree that the Democrats are more pro-labor. That's not the point. And while I can't speak for every other pilot, I'd say that -I- don't "hate everything about unions except for ours." I don't hate unions at all; I think they perform a vital function. However, there IS a balance, and it's not right to give unions too much power any more than it is to give management too much power.


As for most liberal president- that perception is based on fox and rush...funny how Obama's out of favor with most liberals bc he's NOT liberal enough- but hey- if fox news repeats it often and loud enough....

Here this is not based on Fox or Rush. It's based on a non-partisan ranking, based on things he said and did, and causes and positions he espoused as a senator. Just because a lot of liberals now think "he's not liberal enough," that is just the reality of the situation. As the President, he can't just snap his fingers and make the US as he sees fit, anymore than if a conservative president got elected, he could snap his fingers and outlaw abortion (or anything else he believed in). It takes a lot of time to get stuff done here, and it's never fast enough for the "true believers." This is especially true for a first-termer. I'd bet you anthing that if President Obama gets re-elected this year, you'll see him push considerably harder for liberal causes, especially for what non-Democrats believe are radical liberal changes.

That's the way -I- see it.

Bubba

 

[bpapaDC8]

http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Unions/Unions/Bush-Issues-Orders-to-Prevent-Airline-Strikes/

" According to the Times, Bush is the first president to issue a blanket statement that he would try to prevent strikes at all airlines. "

Surprised you forgot about this Andy. As for Clinton issuing the PEB for AA, there was way more involved than meets the eye.

 

[fam62c]

The fact is that nobody likes airline strikes, not democrats, not republicans, not the customers, not the communities and not politicians. The federal government can stop strikes from happening (or even pending) at large carriers and they have done this through the NMB. Prior to the largest carriers becoming as large as they are now PEB's were becoming the norm after being very rare previously.

Like it or not this is the way it is until we find a way around the RLA/NMB. The time will come where the pilot supply will be tight enough that there will be ways to have leverage. Maybe you can't go on strike but the law can't stop 12K pilots at a big airline from all resigning on the same day with two weeks warning. In a tight labor market the large carrier would be out of business quickly if everyone bailed out. There are ways to have leverage but you need 100% solidarity and no scabs.......a tall order in this industry. As it stands now the NMB and the bankruptcy process has essentially become a wage control mechanism in the airline industry, in essence a form of regulation.

 

[nwaf16dude]

http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Unions/Unions/Bush-Issues-Orders-to-Prevent-Airline-Strikes/

" According to the Times, Bush is the first president to issue a blanket statement that he would try to prevent strikes at all airlines. "

Surprised you forgot about this Andy. As for Clinton issuing the PEB for AA, there was way more involved than meets the eye.

Not provable, but it's likely that Clinton would not have stopped the AA strike if APA was AFL-CIO affiliated.

 

[waveflyer]

Not provable, but it's likely that Clinton would not have stopped the AA strike if APA was AFL-CIO affiliated.

Agreed.

Bubba- It won't matter and I never try to convince anyone- but it's my opinion that your philos on the matter is more influenced by culture than reality of the situation.
Believe me- I get frustrated with dems- I don't apologize for their faults -

 

[SWA Bubba]

Agreed.

Bubba- It won't matter and I never try to convince anyone- but it's my opinion that your philos on the matter is more influenced by culture than reality of the situation.
Believe me- I get frustrated with dems- I don't apologize for their faults -

Actually, my philosophy in general is influenced by my upbringing, and what I see happening around me (I guess you could call that culture), but my thoughts on the likelihood of President Obama allowing United/Continental to strike, are based on the totality of recent history and what logically seems to be the danger to the economy of a transportation mega-carrier work stoppage. I must say that I'm a little surprised that you think the President would allow such an action.

As far as President Clinton and the AA work action goes, I'm also a little surprised on this topic with you and NWAF16Dude. Are you really saying that President Clinton, considered a reliable and consistent (if not moderate) Democrat, only stopped the AA strike because a union that may have "bought him" (AFL-CIO) wasn't the sponsor? He only supported unions that give him money, and to hell with the rest of the unions? That seems not only unlikely, but I'm sure he would take it as an insult to his legacy, and probably also as an accusation of impropriety. It seems more likely to me that that line of thinking is merely a rationalization to explain why a Democrat would stop an action by organized labor: "he would have allowed it by a REAL union." Sorry; I'm not buying that.

Glad you admit that you get frustrated with Democrats--I get frustrated with ALL politicians. In my opinion, if there was one thing that could be done to improve our country's political system, it would be term limits. If you can't limit virtually unlimited political contributions by special interest groups, then cut their influence by brining in new blood every few years. The Republicans tried that with their 'Contract With America' a few years back, but they obviously didn't try very hard.

However, I still stand by my belief that even the staunchest Democrat in Washington couldn't give a rat's azz about airline pilots' unions. Hell, Wave, consider this: Every single Captain (and a good few of the FOs) at Southwest Airlines falls into President Obama's publically-stated definition of "millionaires and billionaires" (Single making over $200k and married making over $250k). You remember--the ones who aren't paying "their fair share." You really think he gives a crap about us? Other than to take more tax revenue?

This is probably why a good deal of airline pilots tend to vote for non-Democrats (what follows is my opinion). Whether they think about it or not, they reason that whatever possible "harm" to unionism could be caused by a right-wing guy in the White House is greatly outweighed by the near certainty of higher income taxes when a left-wing guy is in the office. Oh yeah, even if there IS a left-wing guy in the office, he doesn't give a crap about MY union or its politics, because we make so much more money than Joe Average American.

Finally, and on a lighter note, I find it amusingly ironic that you said "I never try to convince anyone." I'd bet that every Delta pilot on this board would disagree with that particular statement! :laugh:

Bubba

 

[Indy319FA]

The bush NMB flat out said - no strikes in my admin.

Yep glad he prevented that Comair strike with a PEB in 2001.

 

[RJ Bum]

Just the facts....
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03652.pdf

 

[mesaba13]

Look no further than the Walker recall in Wisconsin to decide if Obama would back pilots. He was SILENT on a huge attack on the teachers union in Wisconsin.

 

[Andy]

http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Unions/Unions/Bush-Issues-Orders-to-Prevent-Airline-Strikes/

" According to the Times, Bush is the first president to issue a blanket statement that he would try to prevent strikes at all airlines. "

Surprised you forgot about this Andy. As for Clinton issuing the PEB for AA, there was way more involved than meets the eye.

I'm even more surprised that you forgot that Northwest Airlines mechanics went on strike for more than a year - Aug 2005 to Nov 2006. How could any airline worker forget the longest (and unsuccessful) airline strike in the last three decades?

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/08/22_newsroom_nwaflash/

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/11/06/nwamechanics/