Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
SWAPA and SR361
- Thread starter NYRANGERS
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
spinup
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Posts
- 115
I have a great deal of respect for SWA. You all deserve more for the jobs that you do. At some point SWAPA needs to step up to the plate and play a little hard ball.
The contracts you shoot for at SWA have their basis in current ALPA and APA contracts. SWAPA wants, as they should, comparitive industry compensation. I know now they have deferred due to timing. But I fully expect them to look to ALPA and APA for guidence when the time comes. Inversely, should SWAPA get a steller contract then ALPA and APA look to SWAPA. We are all in this together.
My point is that not only is your union responsible in house, but also industry wide.
Speculation, but possibly ALPA and APA's stand on the age 60 debate will give SWAPA the amunition it needs for industry standard retirement packages down the road, should the retirement age stand at 60. Push it to 65 and SWA may never see an A fund or B fund.
The contracts you shoot for at SWA have their basis in current ALPA and APA contracts. SWAPA wants, as they should, comparitive industry compensation. I know now they have deferred due to timing. But I fully expect them to look to ALPA and APA for guidence when the time comes. Inversely, should SWAPA get a steller contract then ALPA and APA look to SWAPA. We are all in this together.
My point is that not only is your union responsible in house, but also industry wide.
Speculation, but possibly ALPA and APA's stand on the age 60 debate will give SWAPA the amunition it needs for industry standard retirement packages down the road, should the retirement age stand at 60. Push it to 65 and SWA may never see an A fund or B fund.
xhercdriver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 80
Well, there's "what's right," and there's "what's right for me" I guess.
Pilots who function solely on the "what's right for me" philosophy will note, correctly, that, absent any huge growth period, what was previously a 4-6 year path to captain upgrade will now become an 8-10 year path, so this isn't just about having to work longer, it's about having to work longer as an F/O and then working the same number of years as a Captain that they would have previously in order to have the same number of "high dollar" years.
Not really much of a way to argue that point, because they're right: it does pretty negatively effect any F/O (to say nothing of poolies) who isn't pretty close to upgrading.
That said, the "what's right" crowd should have a pretty easy time just pointing out that there was really no provable justification for the rule in the first place. You don't keep a bad rule just because it's "always been that way." The principle behind the same law that forced all the major airlines to drop their "perfect 20/20 vision," rule that would have kept a lot of you from even being hired is supposed to also provide all Americans the right to keep their jobs without being arbitrarily forced to retire at any specific age. The age-60 or even age-65 rule is only defensible on the grounds that it is in the interest of public safety, (which has never been proven) not on the grounds that it's "unfair" to the pilots who'd potentially fill those slots. After all, you could be a Wal-Mart greeter too, if all those old codgers would just get over themselves and retire, right?
Should they be forced to retire at 75 to make room for the 60-year old WM "poolies?"
So yeah, it may hurt you personally to see job vacancies you thought would be there evaporate, but you still have to ask, "what's right?"
Pilots who function solely on the "what's right for me" philosophy will note, correctly, that, absent any huge growth period, what was previously a 4-6 year path to captain upgrade will now become an 8-10 year path, so this isn't just about having to work longer, it's about having to work longer as an F/O and then working the same number of years as a Captain that they would have previously in order to have the same number of "high dollar" years.
Not really much of a way to argue that point, because they're right: it does pretty negatively effect any F/O (to say nothing of poolies) who isn't pretty close to upgrading.
That said, the "what's right" crowd should have a pretty easy time just pointing out that there was really no provable justification for the rule in the first place. You don't keep a bad rule just because it's "always been that way." The principle behind the same law that forced all the major airlines to drop their "perfect 20/20 vision," rule that would have kept a lot of you from even being hired is supposed to also provide all Americans the right to keep their jobs without being arbitrarily forced to retire at any specific age. The age-60 or even age-65 rule is only defensible on the grounds that it is in the interest of public safety, (which has never been proven) not on the grounds that it's "unfair" to the pilots who'd potentially fill those slots. After all, you could be a Wal-Mart greeter too, if all those old codgers would just get over themselves and retire, right?
Should they be forced to retire at 75 to make room for the 60-year old WM "poolies?" So yeah, it may hurt you personally to see job vacancies you thought would be there evaporate, but you still have to ask, "what's right?"
Full of LUV
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2002
- Posts
- 1,021
ISN'T THE REAL ISSUE AT SWAPA IS THAT IN THE ABSCENCE OF ANY COMPANY RETIREMENT MEDICAL COVERAGE, THEY ARE LEFT SOL IN RETIREMENT FROM 60 TO 65 UNTIL OLD MEDICARE KICKS IN AT 65? LETS CALL A SPADE A SPADE!
ALSO, HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE HAD A GRANDPARENT WHO WAS LEGAL TO DRIVE, BUT YOU WOULDN'T SEND YOUR KIDS IN THE CAR WITH THEM TO THE CORNER STORE. IT IS VERY HARD TO EXPLAIN TO ANYONE THAT THEY ARE TOO OLD TO BE CONSISTENTLY COMPETENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT DEALS WITH THEIR LIVELIHOOD.
ALSO, HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE HAD A GRANDPARENT WHO WAS LEGAL TO DRIVE, BUT YOU WOULDN'T SEND YOUR KIDS IN THE CAR WITH THEM TO THE CORNER STORE. IT IS VERY HARD TO EXPLAIN TO ANYONE THAT THEY ARE TOO OLD TO BE CONSISTENTLY COMPETENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT DEALS WITH THEIR LIVELIHOOD.
No age discrimination period! There has been no study supporting the allegation that airline pilots over 60 are any more or less safe then a pilot at age 35. "Statistics clearly show that General-Aviation pilots 60 to 69 years old have accidents at twice the rate of pilots 50 to 59 years old". (Commercial Aviation Safety page 105). I will underscore General-Aviation - not Airline Pilots! The general aviation community has no where near the training and recurrency requirments the airlines require to maintain proficiency, and should not be lumped into the same catagory. I feel that given the changes in the operational environment, the advances in medical understanding and technology, added with the stringent medical health standards required by the FAA and many times the carrier itself, require we take a new look at the madatory age limit of 65. The bottom line here is; if the law gets changed and pilots over 60 can pass their First Class Medical, they should have the Right to fly until 65.
If it is a safety thing, then NOBODY should be able to fly past 60: not corporate, not cropdusters, not general aviation, not foreign airline pilots in our airspace. Of course this is not about safety, its about money. The majors have big pensions and want to retire with their tax exemption at age 60. Others making substantially less money would like to continue to work to have enough to retire on (having enough to retire with kind of puts a new spin on "GREED"). Of course, they should not change the Age 60 Rule because it is a "law" - as if laws aren't changed all the time. The only laws I know of written in stone are the 10 Commandments..... Maybe the majority wants Age 60, but that is why you have The Constitution and anti-discrimination laws: to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
2 points. One is arguable, that the hiring to a traditional major is going to be much more difficult in the future with the rise of both the discounters (Southwest, JetBlue, etc) and the regional airlines. A lot of pilots are never going to make it to the majors, and thus never have the big pensions. The other is fact: people are living substantially longer than in 1959 and thus you need to work longer to be able to retire.
You certainly have your right to an opinion, but I have yet to see you make an argument other than hold out for more money.
You certainly have your right to an opinion, but I have yet to see you make an argument other than hold out for more money.
spinup
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Posts
- 115
46Driver,
I'm really not sure how far you want to break this discussion down. It is not all about money, a large part of any unious drive is quality of life.
I understand that not everyone wants to work for a major airline, nor should they. This isn't about any one airline being better then the next.
What is important to understand is that contractual obligations implemented at the mainline level also have implications industry wide. I cannot even begin to cite the regulatory and safety driven regulations which have their origin with various unions. Some of these are quality of life issues which all 121 operators enjoy. Trip and Duty rigs have their start in the mainline level, and slowly they are becoming evident at the regionals. This is a great thing. The higher the bar is continually set, the better it is for everyone, not just at mainline. If you believe, as I do, that loss of a quality of life, or compensation, at the mainline level has a ripple effect throughout the industry, then you should realize the necesity of holding the bar where it is.
Please don't forget, I subsidized and supported the Comair strike as an ALPA member. I believed in their cause and applaud their attainment of a contract which IS changed the industry.
We are NOT overpaid in this profession. And I do NOT want to change the pattern bargining environment we have now thru the Railway Labor Act. It continually promotes safety and quality of life.
Realize however, that pilots do take the good with the bad. Just ask anyone who has been furloughed, down graded, or surplusses, then on top of that asked for concessions. If you combine surplusses and concessions, some pilots may see as much as a 40% reduction in wages. Pilots will do this because they want to protect their jobs, also because they believe in their airline, and want to correct poor management decisions. The sad thing is that after the pattern bargining in 2000, and 2001 most pilots were only able to bring the bar back to the level enjoyed in 1970's. 30 YEARS of work about to be wiped out with BK threats and Recovery Packages. Money is not something to fight for as you say. It is something we HAVE to fight for because that is the way union driven business is done. We all signed on for this.
We all need to hold onto what we can, because we are about to loose a lot. Nowhere in the industry is a new contract negotiated that doesn't heve wide ranging effect. I EXPECT the regional unions to promote quality of life, and safety issues. I EXPECT thoes negotiated issues to find their way into flying industry wide.
This is catagorically the wrong time to be promoting age 65 retirement. First, all contracts are going to be descimated at least in the short term thru concessions, we do NOT need to loose more. And yes, having to work 5 more years for your retirement is a loss. Second, there are over 7,000 pilots currently on the street looking for work, I will never support this amendment during times of furlough. Third, it will irrevocably lower the bar industry wide.
I understand the concern and the motivation some have in changing the retirement age, 401K. But you have to ask yourself, is this the best thing for the majority? what will the lasting effects be? Will this be a short term albatross to the industry or long term? I want to see better retirment packages at the regionals, and I WILL support thoes endevors thru my union. Increasing company contribution or adding pension programs are tangable programs with bennifits.
Please realize, that I do not only fight for rights at my airlne, but also for yours.
I'm really not sure how far you want to break this discussion down. It is not all about money, a large part of any unious drive is quality of life.
I understand that not everyone wants to work for a major airline, nor should they. This isn't about any one airline being better then the next.
What is important to understand is that contractual obligations implemented at the mainline level also have implications industry wide. I cannot even begin to cite the regulatory and safety driven regulations which have their origin with various unions. Some of these are quality of life issues which all 121 operators enjoy. Trip and Duty rigs have their start in the mainline level, and slowly they are becoming evident at the regionals. This is a great thing. The higher the bar is continually set, the better it is for everyone, not just at mainline. If you believe, as I do, that loss of a quality of life, or compensation, at the mainline level has a ripple effect throughout the industry, then you should realize the necesity of holding the bar where it is.
Please don't forget, I subsidized and supported the Comair strike as an ALPA member. I believed in their cause and applaud their attainment of a contract which IS changed the industry.
We are NOT overpaid in this profession. And I do NOT want to change the pattern bargining environment we have now thru the Railway Labor Act. It continually promotes safety and quality of life.
Realize however, that pilots do take the good with the bad. Just ask anyone who has been furloughed, down graded, or surplusses, then on top of that asked for concessions. If you combine surplusses and concessions, some pilots may see as much as a 40% reduction in wages. Pilots will do this because they want to protect their jobs, also because they believe in their airline, and want to correct poor management decisions. The sad thing is that after the pattern bargining in 2000, and 2001 most pilots were only able to bring the bar back to the level enjoyed in 1970's. 30 YEARS of work about to be wiped out with BK threats and Recovery Packages. Money is not something to fight for as you say. It is something we HAVE to fight for because that is the way union driven business is done. We all signed on for this.
We all need to hold onto what we can, because we are about to loose a lot. Nowhere in the industry is a new contract negotiated that doesn't heve wide ranging effect. I EXPECT the regional unions to promote quality of life, and safety issues. I EXPECT thoes negotiated issues to find their way into flying industry wide.
This is catagorically the wrong time to be promoting age 65 retirement. First, all contracts are going to be descimated at least in the short term thru concessions, we do NOT need to loose more. And yes, having to work 5 more years for your retirement is a loss. Second, there are over 7,000 pilots currently on the street looking for work, I will never support this amendment during times of furlough. Third, it will irrevocably lower the bar industry wide.
I understand the concern and the motivation some have in changing the retirement age, 401K. But you have to ask yourself, is this the best thing for the majority? what will the lasting effects be? Will this be a short term albatross to the industry or long term? I want to see better retirment packages at the regionals, and I WILL support thoes endevors thru my union. Increasing company contribution or adding pension programs are tangable programs with bennifits.
Please realize, that I do not only fight for rights at my airlne, but also for yours.
I agree with most of what you said. Its the future of the industry where I differ that leads me to support the Age 65 - and you nailed it, 401K. Many people think this is just another downturn cycle - I am much more pessimistic and think it is a revolutionary change. RJ's, low cost carriers, internet ticketing, city travel banks, fractional ownership, and international alliances all converged at the same time to create carnage among the traditional majors. As strong as a union may be (and I thank you for your support), the economic pressure and vicious competition between companies is forcing salaries down, bankrupting airlines, and furloughing mainline pilots - I don't see those jobs coming back but rather an increasing reliance on a portfolio of cheaper regional carriers flying 50 and 70 seat RJ's. I sincerely hope you are right and I am wrong - I would much rather fly at a major - but I am preparing for the long haul at a solid regional. (They really got in depth on the mainboard in the thread about scope, unions, and RJ's.) If you can shred some of those arguments, that is good; I could use the positive waves......
w8n4swa
...in OAK!
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2001
- Posts
- 185
IMHO
It has been said that quality of life will be lower with retirement age raised to 65....sure, quality of life would be great if we retired at 55 or even 50, but why force everyone to retire so early when many pilots may want to continue to fly. I say, if you want to retire at an earlier age, by all means go right ahead and do so...it's your choice. No one should be forced to retire at 60 if they're fit enough to pass their physicals/checkrides and they'd like to continue flying. Let's do what's fair and raise the standard.
It has been said that quality of life will be lower with retirement age raised to 65....sure, quality of life would be great if we retired at 55 or even 50, but why force everyone to retire so early when many pilots may want to continue to fly. I say, if you want to retire at an earlier age, by all means go right ahead and do so...it's your choice. No one should be forced to retire at 60 if they're fit enough to pass their physicals/checkrides and they'd like to continue flying. Let's do what's fair and raise the standard.
SpeedRacer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 60
I'm retiring!
Holy Smoke! What a debate.......
Who in their right mind would want to WORK an extra 5 years?
I DO believe pilot's should be able to choose when to retire but co'mon. The SWA "clan" that is squawking the loudest about working more for their managers must be drinking the "canyon-blue" kool-aid again. I even saw two SWA Captain's on CNN petitioning D.C. Congressmen to sign for this ridiculous bill and was QUOTED to say," Just when I'm getting GOOD at my job the Federal Government forces ME to retire".
What a LAUGH!!!
I don't know how long it takes someone to "get good" at flying a 737 from DAL to LUB???
These guys were an embarrassment to their fellow guppy drivers......
For me, I'm retiring early so I can my grandkids around the farm in my Citabria!!!
You guys go right ahead and work yourselfs to death!!!
Adios!!
Holy Smoke! What a debate.......
Who in their right mind would want to WORK an extra 5 years?
I DO believe pilot's should be able to choose when to retire but co'mon. The SWA "clan" that is squawking the loudest about working more for their managers must be drinking the "canyon-blue" kool-aid again. I even saw two SWA Captain's on CNN petitioning D.C. Congressmen to sign for this ridiculous bill and was QUOTED to say," Just when I'm getting GOOD at my job the Federal Government forces ME to retire".
What a LAUGH!!!
I don't know how long it takes someone to "get good" at flying a 737 from DAL to LUB??? These guys were an embarrassment to their fellow guppy drivers......
For me, I'm retiring early so I can my grandkids around the farm in my Citabria!!!
You guys go right ahead and work yourselfs to death!!!
Adios!!
InHot
Oh Yeahhhh
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 279
Re: I'm retiring!
That's the point - it's about the right to choose when one wants to retire. Whether it be 55 - 60 or 65! Give me the choice! Don't dictate and then make up reasons why.
"oppsahh" asked: How is it descrimination to make someone retire at 60 but all of a sudden it is no longer descrimination if you let them continue to fly until 65 but then make them retire.
He's right, it still is discrimination (spelled with an "i"), but giving guys another 5 years to make their choice is a step in the right direction.
The issue is CHOICE
SpeedRacer said:
That's the point - it's about the right to choose when one wants to retire. Whether it be 55 - 60 or 65! Give me the choice! Don't dictate and then make up reasons why.
"oppsahh" asked: How is it descrimination to make someone retire at 60 but all of a sudden it is no longer descrimination if you let them continue to fly until 65 but then make them retire.
He's right, it still is discrimination (spelled with an "i"), but giving guys another 5 years to make their choice is a step in the right direction.
The issue is CHOICE
spinup
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Posts
- 115
Inhot,
The choice to fly beyond 60 is available. Under FAR 135 and FAR 91, one can fly untill they can no longer hold a medical. The fractionals all operate here and offer a great long term, or supplemental career. As do corporate flight departments. You chose a FAR 121 career, knowing of this limitation.
Speedracer,
Again, fortunately today, the stronger unions are ALPA and APA. I understand that ALPA is fighting this with some success. Those who want to do more can register their opposition with Feinstein's political office at (202) 224-3841. The call took me only a couple minutes, tops. They are very familiar with S.361 and only need your name and zip code.
The choice to fly beyond 60 is available. Under FAR 135 and FAR 91, one can fly untill they can no longer hold a medical. The fractionals all operate here and offer a great long term, or supplemental career. As do corporate flight departments. You chose a FAR 121 career, knowing of this limitation.
Speedracer,
Again, fortunately today, the stronger unions are ALPA and APA. I understand that ALPA is fighting this with some success. Those who want to do more can register their opposition with Feinstein's political office at (202) 224-3841. The call took me only a couple minutes, tops. They are very familiar with S.361 and only need your name and zip code.
About Choice?
Come on folks, if this was truely about choice, then you would actually see support from pilots that work at airlines with retirement plans.
If you made a choice to work for an airline that has no retirement plan (yes, aside from a 401k), then you used your freedom of choice.
Step up to the plate and admit what this is all about.
See
Come on folks, if this was truely about choice, then you would actually see support from pilots that work at airlines with retirement plans.
If you made a choice to work for an airline that has no retirement plan (yes, aside from a 401k), then you used your freedom of choice.
Step up to the plate and admit what this is all about.
See
SpeedRacer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 60
To clarify......
I'm emailing my congressman to vote NO to this bill.
Choice is great BUT I refuse to agree to ANYTHING Diane Feinstein (from the great state of CA) has her signature on!!
Not to mention senoirty would get all screwed up along with retirements, hiring, yadda, yadda, yadda........
Hey, I wonder if SWAPA would be pushing for this IF they had a traditional retirement???
I'm emailing my congressman to vote NO to this bill.
Choice is great BUT I refuse to agree to ANYTHING Diane Feinstein (from the great state of CA) has her signature on!!
Not to mention senoirty would get all screwed up along with retirements, hiring, yadda, yadda, yadda........
Hey, I wonder if SWAPA would be pushing for this IF they had a traditional retirement???
I believe the resolution gives the option to the individual pilot: you can either retire at Age 60 as before with no tax penalties or you can continue to work as a part 121 carrier. That is choice.
I hear, "Go to work for a carrier with a retirement plan other than a 401K" - well, all of those are still furloughing.
I hear, "Go fly for a Fractional" (which invalidates the Age 60 rule being about safety...) knowing full well that would going from a Southwest captain (or regional captain) to a fractional F.O. would be a 75% pay cut - wholly unrealistic.
I asked earlier, and I will ask again, is this a severe down cycle and things will come back to normal, or is this a revolutionary change where management plays one regional off against another all the while constantly downsizing the majors in favor of large RJ's and overseas codeshares?
I hear, "Go to work for a carrier with a retirement plan other than a 401K" - well, all of those are still furloughing.
I hear, "Go fly for a Fractional" (which invalidates the Age 60 rule being about safety...) knowing full well that would going from a Southwest captain (or regional captain) to a fractional F.O. would be a 75% pay cut - wholly unrealistic.
I asked earlier, and I will ask again, is this a severe down cycle and things will come back to normal, or is this a revolutionary change where management plays one regional off against another all the while constantly downsizing the majors in favor of large RJ's and overseas codeshares?
Michael Knight
helping the innocent
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 103
I'm with all those that say No! It is simply about greed and not age discrimination. "I've got mine" attitudes. The same folks are probably picking up open time while folks are on furlough or in the SWA pool waiting for a class. If it were about age discrimination they would be trying to remove the age limit altogether. I surely hope this ammendment dies a quick and painful death.
I have already contacted my Senators and strongly encourage everyone else that wants this amendment to die. Call and let yourself be heard.
CALL 202-224-3121
I have already contacted my Senators and strongly encourage everyone else that wants this amendment to die. Call and let yourself be heard.
CALL 202-224-3121
I think the FO's should get to vote on which Captains get to stay past age 60. It would work kind of like the current avoidance bid. The unsafe guys that suck would be outa here and so would all the jerks we've got here at Brownhound. At least that would give the Captains some incentive to be nice and stay sharp!
tredding@swa
SWA F/O
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2002
- Posts
- 294
b747dogg
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 222
Anyone who wants to work past 60 should have the option. Working for a pay check and earning your money is not greedy. It's greedy and selfish to kick someone out of there seat because of their age so someone else can move up a seniority number, get recalled, or get out of a pool a day earlier. You have to think of the long term. Have fun. 
c747dogg stated:
"Working for a pay check and earning your money is not greedy."
then:
"It's greedy and selfish to kick someone out of there seat because of their age so someone else can move up a seniority number, GET RECALLED, or get out of a pool a day earlier."
(my capitalization added to the quote)
With regards to getting recalled, where's the difference when it comes to greed between the two groups??
You say that its not greedy to want to earn a paycheck and make money.......Well, there are thousands of pilots out there right now who are not making a paycheck due to being furloughed. If this rule passes, they stand to be out on the street for a LOT longer, and hence, not earning a paycheck.
So where is the difference between the greed of someone who currently has a job earning a paycheck that wants to keep that job versus someone who lost their job and wants to get it back sooner than 6,7,8 years from now so that they can continue to earn a paycheck??
For BOTH groups, its about "greed". One currently has their money and is trying to keep it, the other is trying to get it back.....no difference.
"Working for a pay check and earning your money is not greedy."
then:
"It's greedy and selfish to kick someone out of there seat because of their age so someone else can move up a seniority number, GET RECALLED, or get out of a pool a day earlier."
(my capitalization added to the quote)
With regards to getting recalled, where's the difference when it comes to greed between the two groups??
You say that its not greedy to want to earn a paycheck and make money.......Well, there are thousands of pilots out there right now who are not making a paycheck due to being furloughed. If this rule passes, they stand to be out on the street for a LOT longer, and hence, not earning a paycheck.
So where is the difference between the greed of someone who currently has a job earning a paycheck that wants to keep that job versus someone who lost their job and wants to get it back sooner than 6,7,8 years from now so that they can continue to earn a paycheck??
For BOTH groups, its about "greed". One currently has their money and is trying to keep it, the other is trying to get it back.....no difference.
Thats all fine and good, but I was not really commenting on the whole discrimination or the myriad of other issues that relate to this subject.
From my original post: "....where's the difference when it comes to GREED between the two groups?? "
I was responding to his assertion that one group is greedier than the other.........again, one is "greedy" in that they want to keep their job and their paycheck, the other is "greedy" and wants their paycheck back........both have personnal gains and/or losses behind their stance on the issue.
From my original post: "....where's the difference when it comes to GREED between the two groups?? "
I was responding to his assertion that one group is greedier than the other.........again, one is "greedy" in that they want to keep their job and their paycheck, the other is "greedy" and wants their paycheck back........both have personnal gains and/or losses behind their stance on the issue.
Last edited:
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
