W's Not Going To Help.
- Thread starter Borescope
- Start date
Oneflyer said:
Oneflyer,
Nice try at labeling.
Is Bob a Socialist in the 'purest' context?
I think not, prove me otherwise or apologize.
There is currently no form of governance in its 'purest' form that will succeed.
For a government to grow and prosper, has to have components from all theologies to truly work.
Currently, we in the US are working under the 'Capitalist' theory wherein those whom have the gold make the rules. Our society has accepted this theology because they are too lazy to research history and too ignorant of historical events to recognize when they are being taken advantage of. Politicians wave the flag and pronounce their evangelical deity like candy to a bunch of moronic suckling’s.
Take a walk within yourself and if your have no political and/or societal components that may be earmarked as one of these theologies, then you are part of the problem instead of part of the solution.
- Big E
9epnsrip
Member
jimntx said:
Right Again!!!!!!!!
Its been said before "Neal Cohen will take nwa to the place he took USair"
markkus757
Veteran
- Jul 26, 2004
- 598
- 1
I think if W butts out then the government better rescind the ATSB loans also. This industry was headed for a downturn before 9/11 happened. 9/11 just sped the process up a bit. Why don't we level the playing field for all of the struggling carriers by not giving any of them anymore of a bailout? NW has forced their employees into a corner. I think they are setting the company up for purchase by someone else. Let's all remember something here, the president is only there for 4 or 8 years. You have the majority of Congress getting re-elected for multiple decades and they don't care about the average American. As far as Afghanistan and Iraq, Congress was given the same information that Bush had and they decided to do it. Bush needed their permission. Start spreading the blame. :down:
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,907
- 9,359
700UW said:
It's a moot point since ATSB has already signed off on the deal, but don't kid yourself into thinking that the taxpayers won't be picking up part of the tab if there's a default. The balances on those loans are still fairly hefty, and I seriously doubt that the collateralized assets on US's side hold enough market value to pay off the loans.
Plus, if you want to get rid of "bailouts" then let's also recind the ability of UA and US to walk away from their billions of dollars in pension underfunding. Some taxpayers are already picking up the tab of the pension defaults at both US and UA. It may not be a direct tax, but employees (who -are- taxpayers) of every other company with a pension are being taxed indirectly, since their employers will be paying higher PBGC premiums to make up for the UA debacle.
The Drunken Duck
Member
- Mar 20, 2004
- 71
- 0
700UW said:
Banks provided the loans guaranteed by the credit if the US government. The loans were collateralized because some semblence of logic needed to be used in making the loans. Lending to airlines on an uncollateralized basis is insane.
Well arent PEBs and court imposed concessions a form of price contriol on wages?
No. You are free to walk away from the job. From a practical standpoint, if people were unwilling to do the job for the pay, then the pay would go up.
Which do you think would be better for an airline's operations and finances -- expensive jet fuel or no jet fuel?
Your assumption is rediculous.
Explain. If you price a product below the equilibrium price (where Q supplied equals Q demanded), then there WILL be shortages. For example, when gas is cheap, the APU get's turned on earlier, and we taxi faster on two engines. In the air, we are willing to go a little faster to make up a few minutes for the one time, or go lower to get that smooth ride. Gas hog jets that are paid for and cheap (727) don't get retired. If there were price controls, we'd have to make that occasional announcement that "sorry, we won't be flying today to ORD due to a lack of fuel".
Those are two different things. The courts cannot regulate oil companies,
Why not? If the court can impose temporary concessions upon workers then why couldnt they do the same to the oil companies?
Let's look at this practically. We import over half our oil. Let's just say the gubment demands all U.S. oil gets sold for $30 a barrel. Do you think the Saudis or event he Canadians will go along? Who get's the U.S. oil at $30 a B and who would get the Saudi oil at over $70 a barrel? Since BP (the "B" stands for BRITISH) owns a BUNCH of former U.S. oil companies, and even some "domestic" oil is produced "offshore", who's gonna make them sell you oil for $30? And if you aren't happy about BP owning a bunch of former U.S. oil companies, then thank your pals in the Reno justice Dept.
But again, on the subject of YOUR workrules, you don't HAVE to work there. Likewise, what do you think would happen if the oil companies didn't "HAVE" to sell oil here?
What we are really discussing is our property rights and our ability to set a price on what we sell.
You still have that RIGHT. Go into the AMR officce tomorrow and inform them that you will NOT work for less than $XX an hour. When they have work worth $XX an hour, and no one else willing to do it for $XX-1, they will call you. Good luck with that.
Maybe its not the old union rules that need changing but the Old Railway Labor Act that needs to be eliminated since it dictates that everyone within a class and craft as determined by the NMB must all belong to the same union regardless of location. This is the reason why someone on Oklahoma may be "overpaid" when compared to locals with comparable skills while someone in New York is grossly underpaid in comparasion.
Can't the union demand a locational COL adjustment for the NY guys? I kind of like the way things are. That way you can chase money or QOL. You choice.
No. You are free to walk away from the job. From a practical standpoint, if people were unwilling to do the job for the pay, then the pay would go up.
Which do you think would be better for an airline's operations and finances -- expensive jet fuel or no jet fuel?
Your assumption is rediculous.
Explain. If you price a product below the equilibrium price (where Q supplied equals Q demanded), then there WILL be shortages. For example, when gas is cheap, the APU get's turned on earlier, and we taxi faster on two engines. In the air, we are willing to go a little faster to make up a few minutes for the one time, or go lower to get that smooth ride. Gas hog jets that are paid for and cheap (727) don't get retired. If there were price controls, we'd have to make that occasional announcement that "sorry, we won't be flying today to ORD due to a lack of fuel".
Those are two different things. The courts cannot regulate oil companies,
Why not? If the court can impose temporary concessions upon workers then why couldnt they do the same to the oil companies?
Let's look at this practically. We import over half our oil. Let's just say the gubment demands all U.S. oil gets sold for $30 a barrel. Do you think the Saudis or event he Canadians will go along? Who get's the U.S. oil at $30 a B and who would get the Saudi oil at over $70 a barrel? Since BP (the "B" stands for BRITISH) owns a BUNCH of former U.S. oil companies, and even some "domestic" oil is produced "offshore", who's gonna make them sell you oil for $30? And if you aren't happy about BP owning a bunch of former U.S. oil companies, then thank your pals in the Reno justice Dept.
But again, on the subject of YOUR workrules, you don't HAVE to work there. Likewise, what do you think would happen if the oil companies didn't "HAVE" to sell oil here?
What we are really discussing is our property rights and our ability to set a price on what we sell.
You still have that RIGHT. Go into the AMR officce tomorrow and inform them that you will NOT work for less than $XX an hour. When they have work worth $XX an hour, and no one else willing to do it for $XX-1, they will call you. Good luck with that.
Maybe its not the old union rules that need changing but the Old Railway Labor Act that needs to be eliminated since it dictates that everyone within a class and craft as determined by the NMB must all belong to the same union regardless of location. This is the reason why someone on Oklahoma may be "overpaid" when compared to locals with comparable skills while someone in New York is grossly underpaid in comparasion.
Can't the union demand a locational COL adjustment for the NY guys? I kind of like the way things are. That way you can chase money or QOL. You choice.
Former ModerAAtor said:
Fine then. Let's get rid of "bailouts". If a bunch of buffoons try to mount engines and pylons on a DC-10 with a forklift, then shouldn't they pay every other airline that had to ground and inspect DC-10's for the lost revenue? If ill trained crewmembers ham-foot the rudder off a widebody, then shouldn't they pay the other airlines for the lost bookings that occured while people were trying to figure out if it was terror? And on the subject of pay. If one airlines unions, who are already WELL below industry standard, come crawling on it's knees ready to "service" any management with any favors they ask for, outside of BK, just to protect THEIR cowardly arses, then shouldn't those unions pay something to the unions that tried to protect the profession and went down fighting? Should they pay all the expenses incurred by other airlines unions, and the companies themselves for that matter, who fought to stop the spread of the scabish B-scale (a wonderful invention made famous by the Sky-nazi's) all the way to a strike? Maybe you need some interspection.
I think the point is that when oil companies decide it is no longer profitable to sell gas in HI at $ 3.00 (or if more profit can be had elsewhere for those same gallons of gas), you will see gas shortages in HI as they quit supplying oil at a loss there.Borescope said:The state of Hawaii has a cap on the cost of auto gas at $3.00. There was an article in last Wednesdays paper addressing this very issue. Don't know if it extends to Jet fuel. So, yessssssss you can order caps.
[post="289135"][/post]
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,907
- 9,359
Busdrvr said:
Bringing up accidents from over 25 years ago into this is totally classless, Busdrvr. And you seem to bring it up on a regular basis.
The current and previous CEO's of UAL (Ferris, Wolf, Creighton, Goodwin, Tilton) have done far more economic damage to the industry as a whole and union payscales than any other airline, including TWA and Texas Air. I'll give Greenwald a pass since he was only brought in to fool the unions into believing that they were really employee-owners for a couple years.
------------------------------------------------------------
Borescope said:
Hawaii's "cap" is a little more complicated than just a flat $3.00 per gallon, since it changes weekly based on the following formula:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/V..._0486H-0013.htm
© The baseline price for regular unleaded gasoline referred to in subsection (B) shall be determined on a weekly basis and shall be equal to the average of[/b]:
(1) The weekly average of the spot daily price for regular unleaded gasoline for Los Angeles;
(2) The weekly average of the spot daily price for regular unleaded gasoline for New York Harbor; and
(3) The weekly average of the spot daily price for regular unleaded gasoline for the United States Gulf Coast;
as reported and published by the Oil Price Information Service for the five business days of the preceding week; provided that the commission, in its discretion, may determine a more appropriate baseline or a more appropriate price information reporting service.
(d) The location adjustment factor referred to in subsection (B) shall be $.04 per gallon or as otherwise determined by the commission and shall thereafter be subject to adjustment pursuant to section 486H-16(a).
(e) The marketing margin factor referred to in subsection (B) shall be $.18 per gallon or as otherwise determined by the commission and shall thereafter be subject to adjustment pursuant to section 486H-16(a).
(f) The mid-grade adjustment factor shall be $.05 per gallon or as otherwise determined by the commission and shall thereafter be subject to adjustment pursuant to section 486H-16(a).
(g) The premium adjustment factor shall be $.09 per gallon or as otherwise determined by the commission and shall thereafter be subject to adjustment pursuant to section 486H-16(a).
JS
Veteran
Former ModerAAtor said:
Thanks for the explanation. It is a prohibition on price gouging, not a price cap, since the limit is based on the market price of gasoline in other parts of the United States (price gouging is always localized, such as hurricane or flooding disaster areas, or the Phoenix gasoline shortage in August 2003).
