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

What’s the deal with Duane Woerth?

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

DaveGriffin

Registered Self-Abuser
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
569
What’s the deal with Duane Woerth? On one hand he makes comments such as the following in a letter to the WSJ and at the same time the Delta MEC is considering a possible FM III grievance.

His comments about the “body blows” to the industry, the attack of 9/11 and the war in Iraq, are directly contrary to the DL MEC’s belief and argument that FM and the Iraq War are not valid justifications of the FM furloughs. He must not realize that the economic downturn started far before 9/11 and was not the trigger for the current industry BK filings and furloughs. Prior to 9/11 there was no talk of BK or furloughs.

One would think that a man in his position could chart a consistent and intellectually honest course. Is the unexpected impact of the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the US and the resulting war so devastating that it requires an unprecedented government bailout of the country’s airline industry? Or are the effects so negligible that management’s use of pilot furloughs to reduce unneeded capacity unwarranted?

Which is it Mr. Woerth?

It appears that the multiple tasks of testifying before congress, writing letters to the editor and overseeing his union’s FM grievances have him a bit confused.

letter from D. Woerth to the WSJ
April 2, 2003
Letters to the Editor
Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, New York 10281
To the Editor:
I suppose that Holman Jenkins, Jr. must be too busy conjuring up ways for our government to declare war on our airlines (Apr. 2, "A New Airline Policy: Kill United") to have seen footage of the Iraq war showing airliners from United (and other U.S. carriers) on the tarmac in Kuwait, supporting our troops in the current conflict. How else to explain his eagerness to launch a journalistic Scud missile against the men and women who are flying personnel and provisions to our military campaign even as they struggle to save United from the triple body blows of an economic downturn, 9/11, and a war that is driving away passengers in droves?
First, there is the odiousness of the very concept that the government would, of its own volition, forcibly kill off an ongoing business, for no reason other than that its thus far successful struggle to survive through massive concessions by its workers is inconvenient, if not embarrassing, to conservative economic theories. To this, the author adds the perversely inverted logic that the unused ATSB loan guarantees should be used to help other airlines participate in the breakup of our second-largest carrier. Congress intended that the loan guarantees should be used to stabilize existing carriers, not to facilitate a bloodbath and shark feeding frenzy within the industry.
The real effect of Mr. Jenkins’ column, though, is to sharply illuminate the point that the current administration has no policy for dealing with the airline crisis. Lacking any leadership or vision from the top, conservative pundits will have to continue devising half-baked schemes such as this in lieu of meaningful policies.
Sincerely,
Capt. Duane Woerth,
President
 
Duane Woerth is exactly right !

DaveGriffin said:
Is the unexpected impact of the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the US and the resulting war so devastating that it requires an unprecedented government bailout of the country’s airline industry? Or are the effects so negligible that management’s use of pilot furloughs to reduce unneeded capacity unwarranted?

Which is it Mr. Woerth?

Your tidy summation of the situation into a call for an "either/or" answer distorts the issues by being grossly simplistic.

The answers are not yes to one and no to the other, or vice versa. The answer lies more in the realm of yes, no and a little bit of maybe to both.

First, Capt Woerth was not calling for "an unprecedented government bailout" of the industry. He was responding to the itdiotic idea proposed by Holman Jenkins, Jr. (Apr. 2, "A New Airline Policy: Kill United") to forcibly kill off United Airlines and use the left-over parts, money, etc., to bolster the health of the remaining airlines. Now if you don't think that's ridiculous, this conversation is pointless.

Second, ALPA has never said that the effects of the terrorists attacks on America, yea the entire civilized world were in ANY way negligible. What has been argued, though, and supported by a judge I might add, is that the furloughs meted out by Delta did not comply with the "No Furlough" clause of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. It was argued and found that Delta USED the Force Majeure clause of the CBA to disguise furloughs that were desired by management due to the economic downturn that preceded 9/11/2001. Furloughs for "economic downturns" are not allowed in the CBA.

I find Capt Woerth's positions to be sound and consistent. I'm glad someone with his voice and clout spoke up when that bozo Jenkin's was allowed to publish his drivel.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top