TV Report: PILOTS ON FOOD STAMPS

[PCL_128]

How ironic..... that's exactly the excuse ALPA is using for changing positions on age 60, but you don't agree in that situation...

Actually, I do agree with ALPA in that situation. ALPA's analysis of the age-60 situation is correct: it is going to change, no matter what we do. My argument was always that the leadership apparently didn't convince the membership of that, because the members demanded that the policy remain as-is. Since I firmly believe that the leadership should follow the will of the majority (even if the majority is demanding a bad course of action), I disagreed with changing the policy at this time. This is in the same vein as the concessionary contracts of the past few years. I (and DW for that matter) didn't exactly like those contracts, but the pilots voted for them and got exactly what they wanted. Stupid decision? I think so, but the majority should rule.

Applying this principal to this case, the American public in an overwhelming majority no longer supports this war. It's time for the country's leaders to listen to the citizens.

 

[SplitBar]

OK, let's play your numbers. The highly paid Stupid Stan is making 25.00 per hr. He flies 1000 hrs a year, that 25000 per year. Smells like food stamps to me.

If you actually fly (block) 1000 in a year you are going to credit way over 1000 hours of pay. I usually fly around 800 hours per year and average over 100 hours credit per month.

Also, an income of $25,000 doesn't qualify you for food stamps unless you have 5 people in your household. The vast majority of regional new hires are single young adults and a single adult who makes $12K per year does not qualify for food stamps. A married couple, both earning minimum wage, does not qualify for food stamps, not even if they have 2 kids.

 

[JT8D]

My argument was always that the leadership apparently didn't convince the membership of that, because the members demanded that the policy remain as-is. .

WHOA WHOA WHOA there!

The leadership is not supposed to "convince" it's members of ANYTHING.

The ELECTED leadership is SUPPOSED to lobby accordingly to the expressed interests of the majority.

National didn't do that...

 

[highsky]

Applying this principal to this case, the American public in an overwhelming majority no longer supports this war. It's time for the country's leaders to listen to the citizens.

Sometimes what's right isn't popular. If you want a president who makes policy according to popular polls, vote for Hillary, because that's exactly how her husband governed.

Only 1/3 of the colonists supported the revolution; 1/3 were indifferent; 1/3 supported the British Crown. Should George Washington have listened to the citizens and surrendered?

 

[PCL_128]

WHOA WHOA WHOA there!

The leadership is not supposed to "convince" it's members of ANYTHING.

The ELECTED leadership is SUPPOSED to lobby accordingly to the expressed interests of the majority.

National didn't do that...

The membership usually doesn't have access to the same information that the leadership does. When was the last time you talked directly with Senators on Capital Hill? When did you last sit down to have lunch and discuss the issues with the Speaker of the House? The ALPA leadership is able to do these things frequently, and because of that they have a lot more information that the average Joe. Through these contacts, ALPA determined that there was no way to stop this change in the Age-60 rule. It's coming, period. So, ALPA should educate the members about this issue to let them know the reality of the situation. Only after the membership has been informed are they able to make a rational decision and provide direction to the leadership. Simply taking polls to determine what the members want without first educating them is useless.

 

[PCL_128]

Sometimes what's right isn't popular.

Who is to determine what is "right?" If an informed majority determines that a certain course of action is "right," then what qualifies a single man to make a different decision? How does he know that something is "right" when the rest of America disagrees with him?

If you want a president who makes policy according to popular polls, vote for Hillary, because that's exactly how her husband governed.

Using polls to determine all actions isn't possible, since it's not possible for the general public to be suitably informed on so many issues. However, in the case of the war, the public has had several years to observe this situation and come to an informed opinion. Over time, the public has looked at the situation in Iraq and determined that continuing to fight is not a viable option. Bush is providing no new information to sway this opinion. He merely continues the same rhetoric that the public has summarily rejected (ie. fight them there so we don't have to fight them here, etc...). If the Administration has no new information or strategy to offer that might sway the opinion of the citizens, then the will of the majority should prevail.

 

[JT8D]

Who is to determine what is "right?" If an informed majority determines that a certain course of action is "right," then what qualifies a single man to make a different decision? .

Just how does this eloquent explanation not apply to the age 65 situation?

Thank You PCL...You are a Peach!

 

[PCL_128]

Just how does this eloquent explanation not apply to the age 65 situation?

It does! The problem is that the leadership (Prater especially) has not even attempted to educate the membership before getting their informed opinion and taking action. The education "campaign" before the polling was nothing more than a BRP website that contained virtually no information, and a short video from Prater. If the Association had undertaken a full communications drive to inform the membership of why a change to policy would be wise, then I think the membership would make the right decision. If the membership still decided to keep current policy, then their direction should be adhered to, even if the guy at the top disagreed with it.

I think you and I agree about this more than we disagree.

 

[highsky]

Who is to determine what is "right?" If an informed majority determines that a certain course of action is "right," then what qualifies a single man to make a different decision?

Because he is our President, and according to our Constitution, he gets to call the shots.

How does he know that something is "right" when the rest of America disagrees with him?

Because he has the big picture and a vision for the future. He has a panel of expert advisers AND a military of about 2.5 million professionals in arms led by competent generals who understand more about the mission and the consequences of its failure than you or I will ever know.

The rest of America disagrees with him? The rest of America against one guy? Do you really need to exaggerate in order to make yourself believe your own non-sense?

Tens of millions support our President, troops, and our national security strategy.

Over time, the public has looked at the situation in Iraq and determined that continuing to fight is not a viable option.

I'll tell you what: I'll take the opinion of our National Security Council and our military leaders over the naive opinion of my know-it-all next door neighbor and Bill Mahr anyday.

Look, apparently, nothing I say will convince you to see things differently. I'm not surprised. That's usually the case with liberals. You insist on digging in your heals, if for no other reason, than just to spite Republicans/Libertarians and your country.

Honestly, I don't know how you people sleep at night.

Do the troops and your country a huge favor, and just try to keep the pie-hole shut with the self-defeating remarks about how this is all a failure. The ONLY people you are aiding is our enemies. They get a huge hard-on every time someone like you pontifiactes publicly. That is their strategy for victory, which you obviously haven't figured out, and will never understand. It's the same propaganda campaign that yielded the results of Vietnam and Somalia. They are students of American history. Perhaps you should be too: Send an unending supply of video clips of carnage, threats, and GI body bags to the biased American media who gladly broadcasts it to the world, and pretty soon you have a nation of doves whose stomach has been turned to the point that they put enough pressure on the ELECTED politicians to surrender. Remember the November 2006 election?

You may as well be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with them in Iraq with a megaphone shouting at the troops that we're all losers and need to surrender. It has the EXACT same effect.

Remove your head from your rectum and join the home team. We need you.

That's all I have to say on the subject to you. If you don't understand by now, you never will. I've determined that insanity equals spending countless hours of my life on flightinfo.com debating dimwits who will never get it.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Actually, I do agree with ALPA in that situation. ALPA's analysis of the age-60 situation is correct: it is going to change, no matter what we do. My argument was always that the leadership apparently didn't convince the membership of that, because the members demanded that the policy remain as-is. Since I firmly believe that the leadership should follow the will of the majority (even if the majority is demanding a bad course of action), I disagreed with changing the policy at this time. This is in the same vein as the concessionary contracts of the past few years. I (and DW for that matter) didn't exactly like those contracts, but the pilots voted for them and got exactly what they wanted. Stupid decision? I think so, but the majority should rule.

Applying this principal to this case, the American public in an overwhelming majority no longer supports this war. It's time for the country's leaders to listen to the citizens.

So majority should always rule? Is pure Democracy always right? Should ALPA fight age 60 even if it is enevitable that it is going to change?