The Republican Airline Pilot a paradox?

[doh]

Bart, once again you try to blame pilots for management screw ups. Who was it who spent 45 million to trust fund their pensions while the company is losing money? That's right, you management scum. Who's pay has risen 3,000%? Do you really think today's manager is 3000% more productive. Of course not, you guys are just 3000 times bigger thieves! Go pedal your snake oil some where else Kermit!

 

[barnyard]

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreat post, Timebuilder!!!!

I feel we all must realize that this is a Capitalist nation. There is no organization in this nation truly adhered to 'raising the bar' !!!! Sorry everyone, the Dollar is the bottom line. Mgmnt everywhere knows this and they will continue trying to lower the pay of everyone who is not within the top ranks of their company's mgmnt. It hurts to say this, but the day of the 300K Captain is over!!! No amount of labor lobbying power will stop this fact. That being said, I am 100% in fighting for our cause. Never will you find me saying that concessions are a good thing because we all must band together in helping pilots maintain fair wages. But we live in a capitalist society! Lower cost=consumer investment! When I buy an airline ticket back home, i pay 104$ on Southwest Vs 300+ on mainline carriers. If I were truly holding up ther bar, I would pay 200$ more! Any other CFi's or 135 pilots or any other human making the same wages will agree!
My two cents.. Flame away at me if it makes you feel better.

 

[Singlecoil]

Hopefully y'all will figure out that Bush doesn't exactly have the interests of the American worker at heart, Pilots included. Further proof: here.

 

[merikeyegro]

ditto singlecoil

If you can cut taxes to prosperity, where is that prosperity right now? Bush cut taxes 3 YEARS AGO and I'm still pushing a Cessna 172 in Florida with 2850TT/360ME. The economy is not exactly rockin' out, bucko...Take a look at your latest paycheck, TimeBuilder...

Yeah, GDP is rising but the money is being made outside of this country. The companies are making money, not the people who would spend it to keep the economy going. Say what you will about Clinton, but he raised taxes and the economy grew for 8 straight years. King George I did the same in 1991. I agree that Reagan had to cut taxes in 1981 because they were cripplingly high, but you can't just cut taxes and hope to fix everything. Reagan at least TRIED to shrink the government. King George II hasn't even given it a thought. Spending had risen an AVERAGE of 8% per annum under GWB. He's the first fiscally liberal Republican to serve as president in years...

You have to look at the long term. We are ALL going to be paying back this *&#@^ debt that REPUBLICANS have run up, most recently by King George II. Clinton was a sleazy bastard, but he at least was fiscally responsible. Albeit he had a Republican Congress that was actually just as responsible. Together they were paying down the debt and keeping the country properous. Interest rates were too high, however, and the economy started tanking. Of course, Bush's answer, as always, was tax cuts. According to him, we were going to run a $5 trillion SURPLUS over 10 years. Sound like Al Gore's fuzzy math? I remember watching a debate between Gore and Bush just before the election. Al Gore stood up after Bush, pointed his finger at him, spoke to the crowd and said "if you want a big spending president, THIS is your man." He was right. Gore was a pu$$y and did not deserve to win the election, so we got stuck with Bush.

Must we sit here and praise the moron?

 

[bart]

Bush cut taxes 3 YEARS AGO and I'm still pushing a Cessna 172 in Florida with 2850TT/360ME. The economy is not exactly rockin' out, bucko...

If you continue to do the same things and expect different results, you will most certainly be disappointed.

Most people I know that make their living in sales have earnings increases in the double and triple digits for the last quarter of 2003 and are rockin' out this quarter as well. I know my company has posted double digit month on month revenue increases for 4 months now.

I am rockin' out, why aren't you?

The only thing I can be certain of is that it is someone else's fault, isn't it?

 

[Timebuilder]

If you can cut taxes to prosperity, where is that prosperity right now? Bush cut taxes 3 YEARS AGO and I'm still pushing a Cessna 172 in Florida with 2850TT/360ME. The economy is not exactly rockin' out, bucko...Take a look at your latest paycheck, TimeBuilder...

Very interesting. You are flying and I'm not, yet you are the one who is more dissatisfied.

I think you need to look at this situation from a clearer perspective. Suppose for instance that Bush had not cut taxes and spurred a recovery. Would you still be pushing a 172 in Florida? The chances are very goood that you'd be joining thousands of pilots who are on the sideline right now. I don't put the blame on the president for my situation, unlike the well-funded democrats who are now vying for delegates. All of the situations we now find ourselves in are market driven.

Prosperity is something that develops. Economic variables don't act like switches, they act more like variable resistors. Go to your yahoo! page and look at market trends since Bush entered office. See a trend? This is what causes employees to be hired, and it is how jobs are created or lost. I heard another democrat talking head yesterday asserting that Bush had "lost" x-number of jobs in the past two years. Really? Had a former president hired these workers who had been displaced ? No, of course not. Government doesn't "create jobs", companies do.

I am far better off for this economic stimulus compared to where I might be had it not happened. Who should have their taxes cut the most? Answer: those who pay the most in taxes. If anyone needs a lesson in fairness, we can further discuss how the tax system punishes the creation of wealth.

Jobs come from people who are investing large sums of money. Plain and simple.

 

[surplus1]

Although I firmly believe Churchill when he said that "if you are not a liberal when you are young, you have no heart - and if you are not a conservative by the time you have grown older, you have no brain." is absolutely correct; there are quite a few liberals whose patriotism I don't doubt for a minute.

You might want to consider whether Sir Winston's definition of "conservative" is in any way similar to the Republican Party's definition. You might be surprised.

 

[Timebuilder]

While the British "Labour" and "Conservative" parties (only two of 15 parties) are somewhat different from our definition of "liberal" and "conservative" the observation of the ultra-idealism of youth and the wisened, well-informed choices of a more experienced citizen are well taken.

 

[surplus1]

While the British "Labour" and "Conservative" parties (only two of 15 parties) are somewhat different from our definition of "liberal" and "conservative" the observation of the ultra-idealism of youth and the wisened, well-informed choices of a more experienced citizen are well taken.

While Churchill's observations are indeed well taken, efforts to "convert" them into associating Sir Winston with today's FOX News label of conservatism in American politics fall short of the mark.

Churchill's history, his writings and his political acts, apart from his conduct of WWII, would clearly indicate that he is much more what folks like you choose to define as "liberal" than what you define as conservative.

Part of the "problem" with political advocates in our country, regardless of party affiliation, is the effort to adopt buzz words and sound bites that, unfortunately, motivate a mostly ill-informed body politic to supporting them on election day.

The hype works, caters to a TV focused audience, and fools the electorate, which is mostly unaware of the true (or even most) details behind substantive issues.

We seem as willing to elect a President whose every other word is "terrorism" (thus motiviating fear), as one who shouts "bring it on" as justification for his opposition to the other. I respectfully submit that neither of these cliches speak to the problems or the future of America. Basically, we might as well be in a vacuum.

Regretably the political content of American TV, source of our most salient thoughts on who should be our President and why, matches the content of most non-political programming. It has little to offer and borders on ignorance. Yet, its influence is evident and reflected in "discussions" such as this one. Mediocrity is in Vogue.

 

[Noam]

Voting Republician and being a "union worker" is not just an issue in the airline industry. There are many other blue collar and union workers in this country aside from aviation employees that are conservatives.

Read up on Karl Marx's discussions on worker "false consciousness". You don't have to agree with his communist rheotric, but his views on worker ignorance and apathy are second to none.

Compared to most other first world countries, American workers are getting screwed. Poor health care, poor retirement, few vacations and time off, and stress that is off the charts. Maybe someday American's will realize (compared to our European and industrialized Asian counterparts) that we are getting screwed.

Until then...these "false consciousness workers" will vote REPUBLICIAN.

I have no problem with the conservative point-of-view. In fact, I appreciate the government minding their own business supporting an individual work ethic. However, George Bush is as much of a conservative as Fidel Castro is a captialist. All Bush (and unfortunately most other republicians and democrats) does is lobby for wealthy Americans and their interests. The man is totally corrupt (as are most other politicians).

Noam @ ATA

 

[blueridge71]

I am a conservative airline pilot and I normally vote GOP.

The primary reason is that the GOP platform is closest to my ideology. For my three top domestic issues (aboriton, gun control, taxes), the Democrats are on the wrong side of all three. Furthermore, I find most of the Dem positions on social issues abhorrent.

Secondly, I don't trust the Democrats with national security issues. If Howard Dean and most of the rest (excluding Lieberman) don't believe that the world is a better place with Saddam off the streets, that only proves my point.

One of my pet peeves with ALPA, which I have a lot of peeves with, is that they use my hard-earned dollars to support candidates that I vigorously oppose.

Personally, most of the airline pilots that I know are some stripe of conservative. Most likely it is due to military (or military wannabe) backgrounds, together with the desire to not pay excessive taxes .

 

[Timebuilder]

Churchill's history, his writings and his political acts, apart from his conduct of WWII, would clearly indicate that he is much more what folks like you choose to define as "liberal" than what you define as conservative.

On what evidence do you base this assertion? Are you suggesting that Churchill would support what our own elitist liberals would be supporting for the future of America? The corruption of what was once thought of as "liberal" positions to a socialists-only, anything-goes, secular-humanist, hate-America-first group would make Churchill spin in his grave like a dervish.

Since you mentioned Fox News, I have an observation for you. People used to be sufficiently bamboozled by Peter Jennings and his soul mates at CNN, and they had grown suspicious that they were fed a load of malarkey.

Now, by switching to Fox News, they can hear what a liberal says, such as Maura Liasson (of National Public Radio) or Susan Estrich (currently the Robert Kingsley Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California and a member of the Board of Contributors of USA Today), or Geraldine Ferraro, AND what a conservative would say, often in the same segment.

You never, ever got that kind of side-by-side comparison from the major networks or CNN. ALL of that drivel was right out of the DNC manual. Because we are now comparing Fox to a group of birds that all sang the same song for decades, Fox looks very different. Perhaps that's why they are number one?

Maybe they, the American viewing public, got tired of the one-sided reporting at the other outlets. You NEVER heard a conservative viewpoint there.

 

[likeitis]

One of my pet peeves with ALPA, which I have a lot of peeves with, is that they use my hard-earned dollars to support candidates that I vigorously oppose.

Hmm, don't understand this one. It is illegal for them to give to any political candidates with you dues. PAC money is another thing, so if you don't back the PAC then what are they doing wrong? By the way ALPA-PAC has for years been considered by far the most unbiased of labor union PAC's for contributions to both major parties.

 

[Timebuilder]

Lately, I have received conflicting information about financial core status, which relates to a federal court ruling that allows you to pay only those dues which are concurrent with the costs of providing collective bargaining representation, and nothing toward political activities of the union.


Some have told me that the ruling only applies in "right to work" states, but I find it hard to believe that a court ruling could be limited by that kind of definition.

Some additional information is below.

This did not start in acting from what I have read.

http://www.mcalistertalent.com/ara/finlcore.htm

 

[barnyard]

Compared to most other first world countries, American workers are getting screwed. Poor health care, poor retirement, few vacations and time off, and stress that is off the charts. Maybe someday American's will realize (compared to our European and industrialized Asian counterparts) that we are getting screwed.

Noam @ ATA

You're kidding, right?

Welcome to America. Land of the Free. In this country, we get out of life what we put into it. Where we all end up in life is the result of the cumulative personal decisions we make. From grade school, to college, to our profession, we must live with effects of our choices. Does a junkie who does not complete grade school deserve good health care, vactaions??????? Retirement? No. Does someone who has a marketable talent willing to work hard to make things good for themselves and others deserve these things? Yes!
I saw recently that the average poor person in this country will earn more than your average European. In Europe you have a very wealthy (very small percent), and the 'working' class. The working class all fall under the same rules, work the same hours, earn an average pay. There is no advantage given to someone who works extra hard at their 35 hr. a week job. The slobs benefit as much as the hard workers! Is this fair?
Btw,
How much will a European airline pilot make compared to an American?