Fresh White House Opposition

[SmoothRide]

:angry: Pension Relief Bill Negotiations Falter

More fresh hell from the GOP and Bush administration. I urge you to vote Democrat in November - whether or not you philosophically agree with the Democratic platform or not - if you value your job! Things change quickly and even airlines with modest stabilization of their balance sheets today could quickly see them unravel placing some employees security at risk.

Food for thought.

 

[avek00]

:angry: Pension Relief Bill Negotiations Falter

More fresh hell from the GOP and Bush administration. I urge you to vote Democrat in November - whether or not you philosophically agree with the Democratic platform or not - if you value your job! Things change quickly and even airlines with modest stabilization of their balance sheets today could quickly see them unravel placing some employees security at risk.

Food for thought.

No more government welfare for the airlines, period.

 

[A Baby Ate My Dingo]

you should really know who opposes the pension relief. Not the Bush administration, but AirTran, JetBlue, Frontier Airlines, and America West. All have publicly opposed the pension relief bill. Its rumored that Southwest is also on the same side, but will not say so publicly.

 

[FWAAA]

:angry: Pension Relief Bill Negotiations Falter

More fresh hell from the GOP and Bush administration. I urge you to vote Democrat in November - whether or not you philosophically agree with the Democratic platform or not - if you value your job! Things change quickly and even airlines with modest stabilization of their balance sheets today could quickly see them unravel placing some employees security at risk.

Food for thought.

I'm confused. If anyone should be against allowing big businesses to defer funding their employees' pensions, should the DEMOCRATS be against such corporate welfare?

I'm a lifelong Republican, but it seems to me that Democrats would be in favor of holding Corporate America's feet to the fire on this issue. Democrats are now in favor of weakening workers' pensions?? What do I know??

Politics gets stranger every day. B)

 

[magsau]

It is truly ironic that the employees of theses carriers (AirTan, JetBlew and others) would have most likely applied to or gone to work for major carrier that would have offered them a job 10 years ago. Why would they have wanted that job? Benefits, retirement and wages.

Now, they and their companies want to lower the bar on benefits and make the airline industry a sweatshop. Good on the LCC's, they are dragging an industry and the professions in it to new lows.

JetBlew, the same airline that was petitioning the FAA to cancel the 8 hour scheduled flight time limitation last year. Brillant.

:angry: :angry:

 

[Busdrvr]

:angry: Pension Relief Bill Negotiations Falter

More fresh hell from the GOP and Bush administration. I urge you to vote Democrat in November - whether or not you philosophically agree with the Democratic platform or not - if you value your job! Things change quickly and even airlines with modest stabilization of their balance sheets today could quickly see them unravel placing some employees security at risk.

Food for thought.

I'm confused. If anyone should be against allowing big businesses to defer funding their employees' pensions, should the DEMOCRATS be against such corporate welfare?

I'm a lifelong Republican, but it seems to me that Democrats would be in favor of holding Corporate America's feet to the fire on this issue. Democrats are now in favor of weakening workers' pensions?? What do I know??

Politics gets stranger every day. B)

All you Dem folks need to realize a couple things. First, if you want to know the direction the dems are going, look straight to Avek. He was a intern for a certain Senator from NJ.... It appears the "new dems" are more concern with legitimizing same sex marriage than looking out for workers. Second, BOTH ATSB members who voted against UAL were DEMOCRATS.

 

[Just Plane Crazy]

I don't think it is about Democratees or Republicans. It is about the lobbyist. Who finances them and whome do they court?

 

[orwell]

No more government welfare for the airlines, period.

Fine - as long as we do away with cumbersome regulations in our supposedly "deregulated" industry. The shrill whining about "bailouts" and "wellfare" are pretty empty when you consider:

A)The enormous local, state and federal fees collected by airlines (and perceived as part of the fares by price-is-king consumers) for government - much of which is NOT reinvested into the commercial aviation infrastructure. (How long does it take to build a new runway?)

B)The endless rules (like microscopic merger/alliance scrutiny and the crippling changes to the transit-without-visa program which have diverted intl connecting passengers away from the US. Just look at AC and how this is fueling growth in Canada. The point being, of course, that if big government meddles in a business' affairs in a way that drains vast amounts of revenue, you shouldn't protest "bailouts" without also protesting the heavyhanded groping of the industry that has gone on for years.

 

[Dave]

>>It appears the "new dems" are more concern with legitimizing same sex marriage than looking out for workers. Second, BOTH ATSB members who voted against UAL were DEMOCRATS.<<

No Busdriver,

You need to realize which direction the Bush administration is taking this country.
This April, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing a case brought up by this administration to allow Mexican trucks access to our roads. How long do you think it will be before foreign airlines will be allowed to fly our domestic routes? Do you really believe United will use us to fly our current routes, or would they be happier selling tickets on Star Alliance? When are you folks going to wake up and realize that Bush is not just standing by and watching jobs leave this country, he's actively aiding outsourcing.

 

[blueskies4ever]

No more government welfare for the airlines, period.

Great idea !!

That is a great idea lets get rid of it all starting with all businesses, and YOUR mortgage deduction since that is welfare too.I'm sure you wont mind or better
yet lets end all subsidies for you since you dont mind denying them to UAL.

 

[blueskies4ever]

You need to realize which direction the Bush administration is taking this country.
This April, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing a case brought up by this administration to allow Mexican trucks access to our roads. How long do you think it will be before foreign airlines will be allowed to fly our domestic routes? Do you really believe United will use us to fly our current routes, or would they be happier selling tickets on Star Alliance? When are you folks going to wake up and realize that Bush is not just standing by and watching jobs leave this country, he's actively aiding outsourcing.


You sir need to realize it was democrats who signed NAFTA,GATT,and the WTO.

 

[MiAAmi]

The Bush Administration is about big business ,not the workers. Bush and his oil buddies are going to tear this country apart. Tax relief for the Rich is not going to make my life any easier.

 

[Just Plane Crazy]

No more government welfare for the airlines, period.

Fine - as long as we do away with cumbersome regulations in our supposedly "deregulated" industry. The shrill whining about "bailouts" and "wellfare" are pretty empty when you consider:

A)The enormous local, state and federal fees collected by airlines (and perceived as part of the fares by price-is-king consumers) for government - much of which is NOT reinvested into the commercial aviation infrastructure. (How long does it take to build a new runway?)

B)The endless rules (like microscopic merger/alliance scrutiny and the crippling changes to the transit-without-visa program which have diverted intl connecting passengers away from the US. Just look at AC and how this is fueling growth in Canada. The point being, of course, that if big government meddles in a business' affairs in a way that drains vast amounts of revenue, you shouldn't protest "bailouts" without also protesting the heavyhanded groping of the industry that has gone on for years.

The money collected is not menat to go in fixing and upgrading our airports. Would the money be used for that purpose, we would have upgraded the airport in the last two years to a security standard that would be acceptable. And building (upgrading) a new runway would take only month and not decades.

With the policies our goverment has set in place they are hurting this industry more than they do good with loans, bailouts etc. We have lost and are even losing much more in the convention industry that it is not funny. As an exsample, Amway moved a worldwide convention for their distributors from Los Angeles to Tokyo because their distributors couldn't get visas. This was a loss of revenue for Los Angeles (2004) of over $15Million. In this number is not included all the airline tickets and vacation time of the attendees after the convention. You are correct that AC is the winner with all the transit passengers and the revenue the bring.

NAFTA or not is not the issue. This industry has been hit twice. Once on 9/11 and once by politicians.

 

[Dave]

>>You sir need to realize it was democrats who signed NAFTA,GATT,and the WTO<<

So you are saying the republicans were opposed to nafta, gatt, and wto?
I didn't think so.

 

[Whadayano]

Still, to get back on topic--if I was getting close to retirement the last thing I would want is the airlines being allowed to not fund the obligation they contractually committed to fund. And if you think that after two years they will really let themselves be stuck with "catch-up" payments, dream on. If you don't get the money into the pension funds now, you ain't never going to get it!