Don''t go breakin'' my heart & U''s MEC

[Braveheart]

MrAeroMan:

Where and what post did I say Seigel did not produce? Matter of fact I have applauded him on several occasions. I just disagree with paltry subterfuge tactics.

The entity with one foot in the grave was caused by the high archie, their mismanagement of spending procedures, thanks in part to the previous leader. Seigel preaches accord, yet eliminates the whole. He should practice what he preaches.

Unfortunately the market he is in today does not qualify him or you to compare salaries of pro athletes. Even if the market was as successful as the sports market, show me where the coach of that basketball, baseball or football team you are using for comparison makes more than that athlete slamming a basketball, hitting a fastball and throwing that touchdown. He by far is not the athlete; his employees are the athletes.

BTW, business leaders do not travel leisurely; they are traveling for a duty, responsibility, and an activity that has a direct impact on their business; it is called work. The consumer going on vacation travels leisurely. Inflated prices begin with mismanagement of spending.

Corporate expenses mismanaged such as fuel hedging, purchases and wrong decision-making has caused a major turmoil not only with both the business and leisure traveler, but also those people who are the backbone of success to a corporation and with the consumer traveling.

Of course as you are well aware, figures don’t lie, people lie. Maybe Seigel has his one foot on top of yours that is on that banana peel on the slippery slope hoping to slow the sliding down not realizing that your other foot is beginning to slide from under you also.

 

[Biffeman]

The RLA is not a level playing field it favors management in all aspects and it was enacted in 1926 to prevent the disruption of interstate commerce, there were no airlines back in 1926

 

[Bear96]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/3/2003 1041 AM ClueByFour wrote:

...You were paid in accordance with what your union could extract from the company under the skewed playing field provided by the RLA. Don't confuse it with market economics--it's not even close...


----------------
[/blockquote]

Hmmm. So in the late 1990s, when airlines were making money hand over fist, I guess you would have agreed with this statement:

"You were paid in accordance with the lowest wages management could get away with by using stalling and other tactics at times when contracts became amendable, to refuse to raise pay at a time many airlines were extremely profitable. Management was able to make extensive use of these tactics because of the viciously pro-management-skewed playing field provided by the RLA. Don't confuse it with market economics-- it isn't even close, and a purer approach to market economics would have led to much higher wage increases for all airline employees throughout the industry in the late 1990s."

Right?

 

[ClueByFour]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/3/2003 12:35:24 PM Bear96 wrote:

Hmmm. So in the late 1990s, when airlines were making money hand over fist, I guess you would have agreed with this statement:

"You were paid in accordance with the lowest wages management could get away with by using stalling and other tactics at times when contracts became amendable, to refuse to raise pay at a time many airlines were extremely profitable. Management was able to make extensive use of these tactics because of the viciously pro-management-skewed playing field provided by the RLA. Don't confuse it with market economics-- it isn't even close, and a purer approach to market economics would have led to much higher wage increases for all airline employees throughout the industry in the late 1990s."

Right?
----------------
[/blockquote]

Of course I would not agree with that statement. Because a company is making money does not necessarily beget that it pays it's employees more. In a truly free-market scenario, an employee is paid at a level that the market will support for his/her skillset and experience, regardless of how much money the company is making or losing (in conjuction with what the company can or cannot, in some cases, afford to pay).

You seem to think that because a company is making (more?) money that it should be turned over to the employees regardless of what the market will bear. That's not how the real world works, much less a public company.

Now, the folks at LUV, particularly the pilots, have negotiated compensation packages that include profit sharing. While this means they share in the risk, they also share in the reward--which is basically how the non-union world works. If wanted to be paid when times were good, you would have had to accept profit sharing (or lack thereof) when times were average or bad, and thus participated in the pain....

This notion of the being "paid what the market will bear and have been for years" is laughable.

 

[MrAeroMan]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/3/2003 4:31:24 PM Braveheart wrote:

MrAeroMan:

Nowhere in that written statement does it read he did not produce. Envy! I have no envy; I am viewing people who are only for themselves and not the team they represent. Reek all you wish, and please read a little more carefully.

BRAVEHEART [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/11.gif']
----------------
[/blockquote]
My God man....are you blind??

"I myself have a hard time seeing employees suffer while the VP's and Seigel continue to demand but not produce."

Do you see it now?? P R O D U C E...you said it. Admit it for crying out loud or do I need to trim the words down a little further for you? Maybe you should reread your posts to remember what you say.
Viewing people who are only for themselves?? Are you serious?? You have got to be kidding me!! If that comment wasn't so ridiculous it'd be funny.

MrA [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/16.gif']

 

[Braveheart]

MrAeroMan:

Nowhere in that written statement does it read he did not produce. Envy! I have no envy; I am viewing people who are only for themselves and not the team they represent. Reek all you wish, and please read a little more carefully.

 

[Braveheart]

----------------
[/blockquote]

Of course I would not agree with that statement. Because a company is making money does not necessarily beget that it pays it's employees more. In a truly free-market scenario, an employee is paid at a level that the market will support for his/her skillset and experience, regardless of how much money the company is making or losing (in conjuction with what the company can or cannot, in some cases, afford to pay).

You seem to think that because a company is making (more?) money that it should be turned over to the employees regardless of what the market will bear. That's not how the real world works, much less a public company.

Now, the folks at LUV, particularly the pilots, have negotiated compensation packages that include profit sharing. While this means they share in the risk, they also share in the reward--which is basically how the non-union world works. If wanted to be paid when times were good, you would have had to accept profit sharing (or lack thereof) when times were average or bad, and thus participated in the pain....

This notion of the being "paid what the market will bear and have been for years" is laughable.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Who was the first to ask and offer profit sharing to avoid pay increases? Maybe the pain was asked for but refused when times were good.

Your scenario and annotative views are completely on two different sides of the hemisphere. While profit sharing was being received by one, it was being denied to the other. So how can participation occur with denial?

As pay increases to those in profit sharing were still being granted to themselves, the profit sharing losses were being used as tax write-offs, placing more profit in the pocket during bad times. This scenario was used as an excuse to avoid pay increases also.

Saving the world one clue at a time might help, however, it might be more important to utilize one's brain as a clue to make sure all body parts are healthy to compete in the task of saving one's self first to help and assist the world one step at a time. Remember, a body cannot function properly without all parts being healthy.

 

[MrAeroMan]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/3/2003 1121 AM Braveheart wrote:

MrAeroMan:

Where and what post did I say Seigel did not produce? Matter of fact I have applauded him on several occasions. I just disagree with paltry subterfuge tactics.

The entity with one foot in the grave was caused by the high archie, their mismanagement of spending procedures, thanks in part to the previous leader. Seigel preaches accord, yet eliminates the whole. He should practice what he preaches.

Unfortunately the market he is in today does not qualify him or you to compare salaries of pro athletes. Even if the market was as successful as the sports market, show me where the coach of that basketball, baseball or football team you are using for comparison makes more than that athlete slamming a basketball, hitting a fastball and throwing that touchdown. He by far is not the athlete; his employees are the athletes.

BTW, business leaders do not travel leisurely; they are traveling for a duty, responsibility, and an activity that has a direct impact on their business; it is called work. The consumer going on vacation travels leisurely. Inflated prices begin with mismanagement of spending.

Corporate expenses mismanaged such as fuel hedging, purchases and wrong decision-making has caused a major turmoil not only with both the business and leisure traveler, but also those people who are the backbone of success to a corporation and with the consumer traveling.

Of course as you are well aware, figures don’t lie, people lie. Maybe Seigel has his one foot on top of yours that is on that banana peel on the slippery slope hoping to slow the sliding down not realizing that your other foot is beginning to slide from under you also.


BRAVEHEART [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/11.gif']
----------------
[/blockquote]

x300Udriver:

Your point is well taken. Seigel is by far not a leader. He is a puppet to a man behind the scenes. The others, all 32 VP's are not willingly going to go into Seigel’s office and say "Hey give me a pay cut".

I myself have a hard time seeing employees suffer while the VP's and Seigel continue to demand but not produce. If he wants to be a leader and truly save the company, he should have been the very “FIRSTâ€￾ to demonstrate himself as a prime example so his troops would follow.


BRAVEHEART

Here's the quote and was posted by you. Dave may have made mistakes but you have to admit time wasn't on his side. If he had dragged his feet even once the whole house of cards would come crashing down. I agree with you the previous management had a big play in the ultimate problems at U but if you believe for a minute the unions and their leadership don't share some of the blame you're living with Alice in Wonderland.
The business traveler has, for many, many years, subsidized leisure travel. If I have to explain this to you obviously you aren't in the airline business.
I can't help but come to the conclusion the root of your problem with Dave and management is envy. Your post reeks with it and your ramblings do nothing but further my point.

MrA[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/16.gif']

 

[ClueByFour]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/3/2003 440 PM Braveheart wrote:


Who was the first to ask and offer profit sharing to avoid pay increases? Maybe the pain was asked for but refused when times were good.

Your scenario and annotative views are completely on two different sides of the hemisphere. While profit sharing was being received by one, it was being denied to the other. So how can participation occur with denial?

As pay increases to those in profit sharing were still being granted to themselves, the profit sharing losses were being used as tax write-offs, placing more profit in the pocket during bad times. This scenario was used as an excuse to avoid pay increases also.

Saving the world one clue at a time might help, however, it might be more important to utilize one's brain as a clue to make sure all body parts are healthy to compete in the task of saving one's self first to help and assist the world one step at a time. Remember, a body cannot function properly without all parts being healthy.


BRAVEHEART [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/11.gif']
----------------
[/blockquote]

I see the "union talking points" strategy has been gifted to you at some point. I'll try again:

1. Just because an entity does well does not mean that employees are going to get, or even deserve, compensation increases. Compensation increases in a market economy are a function of demand for a particular skillset versus the supply thereof. Unionized labor, in conjuction with the RLA, breaks this model (eg, skillsets are compensated at levels the market would never bear).

2. Those who do so much better (middle and upper level management) do so because they are not tied to the seniority system, and are rewarded when times are good and punished when times are bad. Or risk versus reward, if you will.

Regarding your feeble attempt to insult me via my sig tagline:

This is a common union "talking point" tactic--completely duck the arguement as presented and shoot the messenger. The other sign that you can't defend your position was when you went after management (the BS about "Granting profit sharing without sharing it, in effect). Just a clue for you: that's part of the reward (in the risk v. reward scenario).

Cheers.

 

[PITbull]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/3/2003 3:34:25 PM ClueByFour wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/3/2003 12:35:24 PM Bear96 wrote:

Hmmm. So in the late 1990s, when airlines were making money hand over fist, I guess you would have agreed with this statement:

"You were paid in accordance with the lowest wages management could get away with by using stalling and other tactics at times when contracts became amendable, to refuse to raise pay at a time many airlines were extremely profitable. Management was able to make extensive use of these tactics because of the viciously pro-management-skewed playing field provided by the RLA. Don't confuse it with market economics-- it isn't even close, and a purer approach to market economics would have led to much higher wage increases for all airline employees throughout the industry in the late 1990s."

Right?
----------------
[/blockquote]

Of course I would not agree with that statement. Because a company is making money does not necessarily beget that it pays it's employees more. In a truly free-market scenario, an employee is paid at a level that the market will support for his/her skillset and experience, regardless of how much money the company is making or losing (in conjuction with what the company can or cannot, in some cases, afford to pay).

You seem to think that because a company is making (more?) money that it should be turned over to the employees regardless of what the market will bear. That's not how the real world works, much less a public company.

Now, the folks at LUV, particularly the pilots, have negotiated compensation packages that include profit sharing. While this means they share in the risk, they also share in the reward--which is basically how the non-union world works. If wanted to be paid when times were good, you would have had to accept profit sharing (or lack thereof) when times were average or bad, and thus participated in the pain....

This notion of the being "paid what the market will bear and have been for years" is laughable.
----------------
[/blockquote]


Hey Clue less,

When the market could bear more; all groups were not proportionately increased or benefited from market conditions. I don't know if you know the history at U, but some groups it took years to negotiate a contract AFTER the amendable date, only to end up with "crumbs".So, you see, even though a co. profits, for unionized workers, it does not mean you get increases automatically. However, conversely, when unionized co. report substantial losses, they most ALWAYS come to their unionized labor and ask for concessions. Historically, that is how it has been working if you follow unionized labor. In addition, Union contracts are amendable every 3-5 years. For us at U, it is 6 1/2 year contract vs. non-union employees who get "performance reviews" every year with an average increase of 2% and up. And just because they have an amendable date, doesn't mean you automatically sit down and work out another contract in a month; takes years.

Particularly for us, everytime there has been a DOWNTURN in the economy, management always came immediately and asked for concessions from Labor; OUTSIDE SEC. 6 NEGOTIATIONS. For U, those times were 1995 (contracts were not amendable then) and then again in 2002 (again, contracts NOT amendable then for any group). Non-union workers historically do not get slashed salaries, they forfiet bonuses and increases. They do not go backwards in wages by 5 and 10 years.



WE ALL DID!

So, if the real world should follow your theory of no increases just because a co. profits, then, companies should follow that same thought process and not come to Labor for any concessions when years turn unprofitable, especially public companies.

p.s.Where is it written that only non-unionized emplyees "deserve" increases just because a co. does well. I am sorry, every one has a talent/skill they bring into a co. Mangement as well. They may be the archetics with a plan; but without the contractors in place, the plan, is just that...a "pie in the sky" thought.

 

[Braveheart]

MrAeroMan:

You make me chuckle bubb! I think you need to go back and read what you been writting about, place it in the proper context so you gain clarity and due understanding. Remember, parts of texts or statements that surround a particular word or passage will clearly help one to determine the meaning properly.

PS- You already funny dude [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/1.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/1.gif'] .

[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif'] BRAVEHEART [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif']

 

[ClueByFour]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/3/2003 7:48:54 PM PITbull wrote:
Hey Clue less,
[/blockquote]

Once again, would you like to try addressing what I wrote before you break out the insults?


[blockquote]
When the market could bear more; all groups were not proportionately increased or benefited from market conditions. I don't know if you know the history at U, but some groups it took years to negotiate a contract AFTER the amendable date, only to end up with "crumbs".So, you see, even though a co. profits, for unionized workers, it does not mean you get increases automatically. However, conversely, when unionized co. report substantial losses, they most ALWAYS come to their unionized labor and ask for concessions. Historically, that is how it has been working if you follow unionized labor. In addition, Union contracts are amendable every 3-5 years. For us at U, it is 6 1/2 year contract vs. non-union employees who get "performance reviews" every year with an average increase of 2% and up. And just because they have an amendable date, doesn't mean you automatically sit down and work out another contract in a month; takes years.
[/blockquote]

Here is what you have to ask yourself: when the market for travel is good, is the skill or experience level of a flight attendant more in demand, harder to train, or harder to hire/come by/retain?

Nope. Welcome to the free market and it's nasty darwinistic habits. It's a kick in the teeth. It's a horrible thing to say. It's the way that it is.

Were it not for the seniority protections built in to the CBA, the better employees could possibly excel when times were good, and survive when times are bad. With the system in place, there is no chance for that, and it's the way THE UNION WANTS IT.

[blockquote]
Particularly for us, everytime there has been a DOWNTURN in the economy, management always came immediately and asked for concessions from Labor; OUTSIDE SEC. 6 NEGOTIATIONS. For U, those times were 1995 (contracts were not amendable then) and then again in 2002 (again, contracts NOT amendable then for any group). Non-union workers historically do not get slashed salaries, they forfiet bonuses and increases. They do not go backwards in wages by 5 and 10 years.



WE ALL DID!
[/blockquote]

It happened at U, thru the 1990s. I know people from CCY to RIDC (non-union) who took it in the teeth--I'm talking about _reductions_ in salary and bennies--not simply forfeiting bonuses and the like.

I know that's tough for the folks in Thorn Run to swallow, but there are several thousand people who are non-union at U who don't enjoy the perks that the top level execs do. I do understand that admitting to this truth would ruin the propoganda stream coming out of "40". What to do....

[blockquote]
So, if the real world should follow your theory of no increases just because a co. profits, then, companies should follow that same thought process and not come to Labor for any concessions when years turn unprofitable, especially public companies.

p.s.Where is it written that only non-unionized emplyees "deserve" increases just because a co. does well. I am sorry, every one has a talent/skill they bring into a co. Mangement as well. They may be the archetics with a plan; but without the contractors in place, the plan, is just that...a "pie in the sky" thought.




----------------
[/blockquote]

You know who judges the skill that an employee brings to the table in most workplaces? Their boss. The good ones who have a skill in demand are rewarded.
When times are tough, the good ones survive.

Of course, if the valuable employees happen to be on the bottom of the seniority list in la-la land, they get furloughed so that the most "senior" person can work on, regardless of their contribution to the entity. Want the reward?

TAKE THE RISK!!!

 

[ScottishWitch]

[blockquote]
----------------
These clean cut folks turned out to be young military shipping out the next day to parts unknown, and literally risking their lives for... $14k/year.


Kinda puts a different perspective on things, doesn't it?
***********************************

No,it doesn't. Today's military forces are all voluntary. They are there because they WANT to be, and they signed up knowing full well what might be in their future. The military of today is entirely different from the days of Viet Nam. When you consider that along with that 14K comes 3 meals a day, housing, free medical and dental care, college tuition, job training and VA loans it really isn't such a bad deal. I speak from experience as a Viet Nam veteran.

Of course they put their lives on the line. But no more so than a pilot or F/A. All life is sacred, not just a soldier's or sailor's and you can't put a value on life.

 

[Braveheart]

ClueByFour:

Thank you so much for the compliment, greatly appreciated and humbly beseeching.

Answering No. 1 – Your choice of wordage and nonchalant comparison allows one to possibly believe you may be somewhat exasperated. Why did you avoid the actual facts of what I wrote?

Answering No, 2 – Same response as No. 1 with exception, seniority has nothing to do with a CEO who should be demonstrating the importance of sharing the same burden with all. After all, he is the number ONE leader and should be the first to show tranquility.

No feeble attempt intended to thy sig tagline; just a reality builder hoping you may grasp the understanding and meaning.

Furthermore, I humbly express great gratitude for such a fine understanding on your behalf to compare my thoughts and beliefs as a union “talking pointâ€￾ tactic. For those Union people are the backbone, the slave drivers that sacrifice their all for their family, their friends, their country and their employer.

PS – I defended my land and stance, what is taking you so long?

Beers to your Cheers

 

[MrAeroMan]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/3/2003 10:18:17 PM Braveheart wrote:

MrAeroMan:

You make me chuckle bubb! I think you need to go back and read what you been writting about, place it in the proper context so you gain clarity and due understanding. Remember, parts of texts or statements that surround a particular word or passage will clearly help one to determine the meaning properly.

PS- You already funny dude [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/1.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/1.gif'] .

[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif'] BRAVEHEART [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif']
----------------
[/blockquote]
You must be the next Bill Clinton. Tell me Bravey dude....what is the meaning of the word "IS"? Do you always have to use 10 or more words to say what a sensible person can say in 1 or 2? I guess that makes you feel important and highly educated or maybe it's helping you compensate for the shortcomings in your life. Perhaps you should go to the dictionary and look up the work "Clarity". Maybe then you can apply that to your future posts so you can look a little more sensible.
The first part of recovery is admitting you have a problem. Obviously you are still in the denial stage and I'm not talking about a river in Egypt either. I still say you're envious of Dave and top management. Reading the posts you've made in this thread and on other threads solidifies my theory as does your nonsensical replies to valid questions.
If you're a pilot I may be having second thoughts about having absolute trust in the guys and gals in the cockpit. If you communicate in the cockpit like you write in here I'm afraid for the traveling public.

BTW....writing is spelled with one "T", not 2.

MrA