United's Future

[46Driver]

FDJ's,
Very well stated.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Surplus-

Your use of the term 'warmongering' is a mischaracterization of Bush's policy, whether deliberate or not.

Am I the only one that realizes that we would not even be having inspections if hussein did not think war was a real possibility?

12 years of stonewalling, then all of a sudden he's letting inspectors in. Bullies require a real threat to their safety to back down, not a bunch of hand-wringing negotiators.

For someone who has such a logical viewpoint on so many other issues, I am really surprised that you cannot see this situation with some perspective. Bush does not WANT war. Anyone who thinks that is his real goal is a fool and a demogogue. Leave that viewpoint to the hollywood crowd - professional fools.

FDJ nailed it - Gorbachev rode the tide of history to his political advantage, as do many politicians.

Reagan, and now Bush are willing to take risks for the betterment of the world.

By the way, evry time you get all pi--ed off when some non-pilot decides that we need some stupid new rule to improve 'safety', and you think what an idiot that person is, remember that we are similarly out the inner loop of knowledge concerning this issue.

 

[rjcap]

Perhaps they do. Now please tell me what good thing does extreme right wing war mongering do for us?

Its times like these that you really do miss that good ole boy Jimmy Carter and his half drunk brother. Georgia's finest in the White House and what was absolutely 4 of the most miserable years for this country in recent history.

As far as the other Democrat nuckel head - Slick Willy. All I can say is the 1993 bombing of the world trade center and the follow up bombing of the USS Cole with no retaliation whatsoever.

Then 9-11-01.

On the issue of the airlines. It is not the govenment's responsibility to bail out poorly run businesses while their competitors are offering a better product at a lower price and making a profit.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus,

I absolutely REFUSE to get into a political discussion with you, so I'll make one short comment and let you have the last word.

Gorby deserves credit only for seeing the writing on the wall. Believe me, you do not achieve the position he did without being a career, hard-line communist. Ronald Reagan forced USSR to spend into insolvency if they wanted to keep up with us in the arms race, and it hastened the demise of the Soviet Union (which, truth be told, was doomed anyway). Since it was doomed, Reagan deserves some, but not all of the credit. As does Gorby. However, when Time magazine and the rest of the mainstream media fawn all over Gorby, they fail to recognize that his genius lies only in recognizing the collapse of his county. More credit should be given to the man who accelerated that destruction.

FDJ,

Though it may surprise you, there is not much of what you say with which I disagree. Reagan did escalate the arms race and it did contribute to hastening the collapse of the Soviet Union's economic system. As you state, it is highly probably that it would have collapsed anyway. As a whole, the USSR had been on the brink of economic collapse much before Reagan became President or Gorbachev Chairman. Mr. Reagan wasn't a "bad" President. I just down "fawn" over him either and do not consider him to be numbered among our "great" Presidents. The latter is the myth to which I referred.

I also don't fawn over Gorbachev. Of course he was a communist, as was his successor Mr. Yeltsin and the current president of Russia, Mr. Putin. The truth is there are no Russian leaders alive who were not communists at some point in time. . Just as there are no American leaders who are not advocates of capitalism. Don't overlook the fact that a large percentage of current Russian leaders and population are still communists. It wouldn't take much more than a military coup to return Russia to a communist system. However, communist or no, Gorby was definitely a revisionist. The reforms he chose to instigate contributed, I would argue, far more to the acceleration of the changes that occured in the Soviet Union than did Reagan's military escalation.

I'm all for giving credit where credit is due.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

and do not consider him (Reagan) to be numbered among our "great" Presidents.


The reforms he (Gorby) chose to instigate contributed, I would argue, far more to the acceleration of the changes that occured in the Soviet Union than did Reagan's military escalation.

I strongly disagree on both counts. Once again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus-

Your use of the term 'warmongering' is a mischaracterization of Bush's policy, whether deliberate or not.

If you look again you will see that I did not say that Bush's policy was warmongering. What I did was ask you (or anyone else) to tell me what good extreme right wing warmongering does for our country?

If you consider Mr. Bush to be "extreme right wing", then I guess you could construe it as you did.

To be candid with you, I wish I knew what Mr. Bush's policy really is. A feeling that seems prevalent in much of the world, not to mention our own country.

For me, Saddam Hussein is not the issue. It is no secret that he is a despot and controls a government that is not beneficial to his people or to anyone else. It is also true that he has not been cooperative with foreign inspectors nor in compliance with UN mandates.

Whether or not he harbors "WMD", is left to be seen. I certainly don't know and it appears that my government doesn't know either. If it did, I can see little reason why it should not reveal more than it has to the American people or to the rest of the world. So far, it has not.

I respectfully submit that there are many other despots sitting at the head of other nations. There are many other countriess, not friendly to the US, that posess WMD. There are many other nations that do not comply with numerous UN resolutions.

No one, including the United States, is advocating that we should invade those countrys and change their government by force. How come?

Why is it that the rest of the world's leading nations do no share the views of our President? Please spare me the usual slurs at the French for that fact is that the population of Great Britain appears to have the same opinion as the government's of France and Germany. The British Prime Minister thinks differently, but is at odds with 85% of his population. His government could well collapse as a consequence.

We are having to "purchase" the support of Turkey, to the tune of billions of dollars.

While demanding that Hussein "comply with UN resolutions", our President seems more than willing to lead us into battle in defiance of the very same Security Council.

I am totally aware that the US military can easily invade Iraq, defeat its army (a joke) and occupy the country by force. When that is finished, what do we do next? Occupy that country for how many years, and at what cost, and to what end? Do you really believe that it is possible for the United States to impose democracy on people that don't want it?

After we remove Hussein, whom will we invade next? Will it be Syria? Perhaps the Syrians don't have WMD, but they certainly support terrorism. What about Iran? What about Pakistan? Isn't Pakistan the place where most folks believe our enemy Bin Laden now lives? Think we can invade them too? What about North Korea? Sorry, but I don't subscribe to the concept that might makes right.

I'm not a left wing liberal nor a pacifist. I'm also not a right wing extremist. When it is necessary to defend out country, or even our clear interests, I am willing to do so and I have, personally, in uniform. When Iraq committed agression against Kuwait, I supported our actions in the Gulf. I supported our effort to prevent genocide in Yougoslavia, I supported our effort in Afghanistan and still do.

As of now, I do not support the invasion of Iraq and will not support it, unless the United Nations freely decides that the world community should do so.

I think President Bush, for whatever reason, does want to make war on Iraq. To date, he has not given this American sufficient reason to support that policy.

 

[northmountain]

Oh I think I just barfed....

100LL...again stated"...Bush are willing to take risks for the betterment of the world" Oh, crap, I just barfed again.

I worked for 7 years in DC in legislative affairs and lobbying firms. The betterment of the world is furthest from the mind of Bush and other elected officials. The betterment of him? Yep. The betterment of the US? There may be a politico left who seeks this. But the world? Fuggettaboutit.

UAL problems. Folks, the blame is both with management and the union.

200-300K for someone who works a week a month? Come on. I am all for good wages, but 100-150K tops sounds like fair compensation for what we do.

If you get paid for 75 hours of work, well, then, management and the unions better utilize you for that time. When I tell people who are not familiar with this industry that "Oh I worked 60 hours but got paid for 75" I get this look from every person in the room

While I am on the topic, why do we think hiring someone to work 75 hours a MONTH is a-ok? I understand we can't, nor would we want to fly 40 hours a week. But 40-70 hours a MONTH.

You cannot continue to run a company where 50 of its revenues goes to employee expense (compare this to 35 percent for Continental)

12 million is obscene for Tilton.

Then again, I can't compare it to the guy who runs Jet Blue (who gets about 250,000 a year). After all UAL has 23BILLION in assets. Comparing compensation packages between JB and UAL is comparing apples and oranges.

 

[B737G]

Oh I think I just barfed....


200-300K for someone who works a week a month? Come on. I am all for good wages, but 100-150K tops sounds like fair compensation for what we do.


What we do? It appears you are a flight instructor. Comment on what we do when you fly aircraft that cost upward of 250 million with 400 lives on board like the UAL pilots making the big bucks do. Where do you get one week per month? The guys I know making that kind of cash work 15 to 16 days per month. You have much to learn on the subject.

 

[46Driver]

Hmmm, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is responsible for a $385 Billion budget, is charged with protecting 280 Million lives and works around the clock - and he makes what - $180k a year????

 

[surplus1]

Hmmmm again. The President of the United States has a salary of $400K. The President of ALPA makes about the same. I wonder if we should compare responsibilities?

In 1998, one ALPA attorney, that's right one (1) had a salary that was more than the entire annual budget allocated to the Comair MEC to represent 1000 pilots.

To the gentleman that thinks UAL, or for that matter any other airline's pilots, work only one week, consider this: The number of hours that a pilot flies, is not equal to the number of hours that a pilot works. It fits the purposes of some to say that a UAL pilot only works 36 hours. That may well be the average flight time, but is quite different from the average hours of work. Federal law permits an airline pilot to fly a maximum of 1000 hours (domestic) per year, or about 83 hours per month. If you were an airline pilot, you would soon find out that it takes about 250 t0 340 hours of being at work, every month, to accomplish that.