McCain: Let weak airlines fail

[WingNaPrayer]

[BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/10/2003 10:35:30 PM mga707 wrote: [BR][BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE]As these were KLM's four oldest 747s, they definitely had some miles on 'em by the time HP took them on.[BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]Then I'm sure you should also know that HP dropped a serioius stack of coin to have those ships refurbished in their own livery, both inside and out including new engines, new paint jobs (no cheap undertaking on a 47) new interiors including seats, carpeting and first/business class replacements of overhead bins, they were in as good as new shape. I was on the maiden flight from PHX to HNL and when you stepped on board, you could just smell the new![BR][BR]Granted, I didn't get to see any of the planes after they completed their 'desert' service, but spoke to many who did and I'm not exagerating aircraft damage. In fact, I believe they displayed photos in the Phoenix Club at Sky Harbor for a while afterwards.[BR][BR]I don't knock McCain's support for his hometown airline, especially since it's one that in it's hey-days I used to favor and enjoy, anymore than I would knock little bush for supporting a carrier that is based in his home state as well. Politicians always show favor to business and happenings in their own state first, that's the american way![BR]

 

[AirwAr]

Here is a link to the video of the "Hearing on the Future of the Airline Industry"

http://www.c-span.org/VideoArchives.asp?Ca...t=&Code=&Page=2

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/11/2003 7:34:14 AM Hopeful wrote:

Senator McCain deserves respect for his service. But he and his fellow Senators once again are trying to change the laws to tilt the scale in manangement's favor. He wants to change the Railway Labor Act and force settlements on airline unions ala "baseball style arbitration." I can't recall any baseball players getting reductions in compensation or having to give concessions. My question to McCain is, who is going to force settlement on the greedy executives of airlines and make them take less pay and give up their perks?
----------------
[/blockquote]

Good deeds of the past are not a liscense to do bad deeds in the future. McCains acceptance of $300,000 from the airline industry and his presentation of S-1327 are actions that can not be mitigated by his military or political record.

How about who is going to force Senators to take less pay and give up their perks? Our Government is running a deficient, in business its the equivilent of losing money, but I dont see a call to cut politicians salaries.

 

[Buck]

Bob Owens et al:

I have yet to see any press from the TWU or the IAM concerning The Airline Dispute Resolution Act that was introduced by Sen. John McCain. As a TWU officer, would you know of any press releases from the TWU on this subject?


Mechanics oppose anti-strike bill
From the Business & Economics Desk
Published 1/8/2003 2:26 PM
View printer-friendly version


MINNEAPOLIS, Minn., Jan. 8 (UPI) -- Mechanics at Northwest and Mesaba airlines Wednesday criticized efforts to revive an anti-strike measure they say will push labor relations back a century.

Members of Local 33 of the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association are taking issue with the Airline Dispute Resolution Act, saying it would override the Railway Labor Act of 1926, which already makes it harder for airline and railroad employees to stage a walkout.

The Airline Dispute Resolution Act was introduced by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in 2001, after pilots at United Airlines staged a work slowdown that disrupted summer air travel.

The measure would amend federal aviation law to give the secretary of Transportation the power to declare an air transportation emergency whenever he finds that a labor dispute between an air carrier providing service to a hub airport and an employee organization representing the carrier's employees threatens to interrupt air service. The bill requires the secretary to issue an order of arbitration to resolve such disputes according to a specified procedure.

The mechanics said such arbitration panels "typically ... have been heavily stacked in management's favor."

"The public is already safeguarded since strikes in our industry can't happen suddenly and without warning," said Jim Atkinson, legislative liaison for Local 33. "The Railway Labor Act imposes a 30-day, cooling-off period followed by arbitration before a strike can occur.

"The possibility of a strike is our only leverage for persuading management to bargain in good faith. If you take this away, you reduce employees to a condition of servitude not seen in America since the 19th century. You also cease to attract the most qualified mechanics since the best people won't agree to work under these unfair conditions."

McCain has acknowledged the airlines sometimes prolong negotiations to "avoid accountability at the bargaining table."

"Imagine how disadvantaged we would be if this bill were passed declaring strike illegal," Atkinson said.

The Association of Flight Attendants backs the mechanics' position.

"The legislation would tilt the delicately balanced collective bargaining process in favor of airline management," the AFA said. "Employers would have no incentive to negotiate fairly, weakening any chance for flight attendants and management to reach a mutual agreement at the bargaining table."

McCain said, however, his bill is modeled on Major League Baseball's arbitration process.

"Labor organizations must exercise their legal rights. However, increasingly courts have found that airline labor unions have resorted to illegal job actions such as slowdowns and sickouts," McCain said.

"Airlines are also to blame for the current situation. ... Employees become frustrated and lose faith in the existing system. Middle America has too often been stranded as a result of this activity."

Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International

 

[Hopeful]

Hey BOB, maybe Buck feels that "baseball style arbitration" will be good for him because he thinks he will be getting paid like a baseball player!

 

[Bob Owens]

Buck;
So who are you going to follow now, Dave or Delle? Dave and I believe you, I cant recall, have minimized the threat that S-1327 could have on us. You guys accused me of using "fear tactics", well what do you have to say now?
Will S-1327 be good or bad for us?

 

[RV4]

[BR]Bob Owens:[BR][BR]Your statement:[BR]"I cant recall"[BR][BR]Wasn't that a Reagan term used in the past to refute Iran-Contra misdeeds?[BR][BR]Regarding the original topic, I agree, let weaker airlines fail without Government intervention. It is commonly called Capitalism.[BR][BR]Why do you always find it necassary to change every topic into a political debate about my beliefs? I appreciate the attention but find it hardly useful to US Aviation. In fact, I suspect your actions contribute to less readership of most threads.

 

[Buck]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 8:29:59 AM Bob Owens wrote:

Buck;
So who are you going to follow now, Dave or Delle? Dave and I believe you, I cant recall, have minimized the threat that S-1327 could have on us. You guys accused me of using "fear tactics", well what do you have to say now?
Will S-1327 be good or bad for us?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Bob, I just ask if you could provide some information. If you do not have any information on the subject that is ok. Your attacks do not bother me. I said before that I have not researched S-1327. Basically I have been following your lead, not Daves or Delles. You seem to have accomplished a vast amount of research, what does it hurt for others to question your findings? My first view of S-1327, would be that is bad for "us", however it is immaterial to protect a right that we do not use. That being the right to strike. Why is it that we do not use the strike that this legislation is designed to destroy?

Hopeful:

No I do not believe I am going to get paid like a baseball player. I believe that I am going to be paid like an A&P mechanic represented by a mechanics union, not a union that does not support my craft and class, but uses its assets to provide for fleet service first and uses dues to fund the liberal left wing agenda of the Democratic Socialists.

 

[HPearlyretiree]

I was on the maiden PHX-LAS-HNL flight the next day, the planes were real nice inside. But they were hangar queens, flying pieces of garbage.

 

[Hopeful]

Buck, I agree with you. (relax, I was being sarcastic) However, I believe that the airlines are taking advantage of the airline industry's poor state. They are asking Congress to take away our rights under the Railway Labor Act. And that will not change just because we have AMFA. They also want the Governement to legally screw us and our pensions. And they are using the bankruptcy courts to legally strip us of our livelihoods. And you speak of us having to do our part to trim the fat? We, as mechanics are still not where we should be in terms of compensation. What's going on in the industry will set us back 10 years at least, never to recover!

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 6:38:29 PM Buck wrote:

Bob, I just ask if you could provide some information. If you do not have any information on the subject that is ok. Your attacks do not bother me. I said before that I have not researched S-1327. Basically I have been following your lead, not Daves or Delles. You seem to have accomplished a vast amount of research, what does it hurt for others to question your findings? My first view of S-1327, would be that is bad for "us", however it is immaterial to protect a right that we do not use. That being the right to strike. Why is it that we do not use the strike that this legislation is designed to destroy?

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

Why protect a right that we do not use? At least 50% of our population that has the right to vote chooses not to. At least 50% of the population does not own a firearm. Those that do and dont hunt hope that they never have to use it. We built thousands of nuclear warheads that we never plan on using. You buy Life insurance that you plan on never using. The fact is that we do have the right to strike, it is a last resort action to secure fairness in the workplace. It may be a long road full of obsticles to get there but we do have the right once we make it to strike. If we did not have that right then why do you think that McCain and all those Airline CEOs would push for this? I hope that we never have to strike. But if McCains bill is put in place we may never legally strike again, regardless of the terms offered by the company. The terms under which the panel uses to select the contract proposal are completely biased towards the airline.
The reason why we have not used this right is because prior to getting to the point of striking the majority of those who voted on the company's "last best offer" considered the offer acceptable and voted the agreement in. Tulsa has usually lead the way. If you recall NWA pilots went on strike a few years ago, so did AA flight attendants. The right is still there for those who have the guts to hold out for somethingt better. If an agreement is in place and being fulfilled then there is no reason to strike. While our ability to strike is limited to major disputes its still an important tool for negotiations.

 

[WingNaPrayer]

[BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/16/2003 619 AM Bob Owens wrote:[BR][BR]Why protect a right that we do not use? At least 50% of our population that has the right to vote chooses not to. [BR][BR][FONT color=#ff0000]Thank the electoral college for that. People are sick and tired of the popular vote being ignored. Case in point: the war monger we now have who sued his way into the white house.[/FONT][BR][BR]At least 50% of the population does not own a firearm. [BR][BR][FONT color=#ff0000]That we know of. When background checks and regulations were announced in the mid 80s, thousands upon thousands flocked to buy their guns before the new laws took effect.[BR][/FONT][BR]Those that do and dont hunt hope that they never have to use it. We built thousands of nuclear warheads that we never plan on using. You buy Life insurance that you plan on never using. The fact is that we do have the right to strike, it is a last resort action to secure fairness in the workplace. It may be a long road full of obsticles to get there but we do have the right once we make it to strike. If we did not have that right then why do you think that McCain and all those Airline CEOs would push for this? I hope that we never have to strike. But if McCains bill is put in place we may never legally strike again, regardless of the terms offered by the company. The terms under which the panel uses to select the contract proposal are completely biased towards the airline. [BR][BR][FONT color=#ff0000]Is there a difference between a strike and a walk-out? Case in point: General Electric. Thousands of their employees simply walked off the job for two days and I do believe it got their employer's attention. If that were to happen at AA, what do you think would happen? Do you think AA would fire thousands of employees? The airline can't run without them and that's the bargaining chip that so many of you don't realize that you have.[BR][/FONT][BR]The reason why we have not used this right is because prior to getting to the point of striking the majority of those who voted on the company's "last best offer" considered the offer acceptable and voted the agreement in. Tulsa has usually lead the way. If you recall NWA pilots went on strike a few years ago, so did AA flight attendants. The right is still there for those who have the guts to hold out for somethingt better. If an agreement is in place and being fulfilled then there is no reason to strike. While our ability to strike is limited to major disputes its still an important tool for negotiations.[BR][BR][FONT color=#ff0000]And so is a walk-out. Carty already realizes that many employees are abusing sick time and FMLA days off. Are they really abusing it so badly that he had to speak up, or are they simply sending a message?[/FONT][BR][BR][BR]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]

 

[Buck]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/16/2003 619 AM Bob Owens wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/15/2003 6:38:29 PM Buck wrote:

Bob, I just ask if you could provide some information. If you do not have any information on the subject that is ok. Your attacks do not bother me. I said before that I have not researched S-1327. Basically I have been following your lead, not Daves or Delles. You seem to have accomplished a vast amount of research, what does it hurt for others to question your findings? My first view of S-1327, would be that is bad for "us", however it is immaterial to protect a right that we do not use. That being the right to strike. Why is it that we do not use the strike that this legislation is designed to destroy?

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

Why protect a right that we do not use? At least 50% of our population that has the right to vote chooses not to. At least 50% of the population does not own a firearm. Those that do and dont hunt hope that they never have to use it. We built thousands of nuclear warheads that we never plan on using. You buy Life insurance that you plan on never using. The fact is that we do have the right to strike, it is a last resort action to secure fairness in the workplace. It may be a long road full of obsticles to get there but we do have the right once we make it to strike. If we did not have that right then why do you think that McCain and all those Airline CEOs would push for this? I hope that we never have to strike. But if McCains bill is put in place we may never legally strike again, regardless of the terms offered by the company. The terms under which the panel uses to select the contract proposal are completely biased towards the airline.
The reason why we have not used this right is because prior to getting to the point of striking the majority of those who voted on the company's "last best offer" considered the offer acceptable and voted the agreement in. Tulsa has usually lead the way. If you recall NWA pilots went on strike a few years ago, so did AA flight attendants. The right is still there for those who have the guts to hold out for somethingt better. If an agreement is in place and being fulfilled then there is no reason to strike. While our ability to strike is limited to major disputes its still an important tool for negotiations.

----------------
[/blockquote]
Ok that is fair enough. Why has the TWU not used this right to strike in the past? Why Article 33 of the TWU/AA agreement?

ARTICLE 33 – NO STRIKE – NO LOCKOUT
(a) It is the intent of the parties to this Agreement that the procedures set forth in this Agreement will serve as a means of amicable settlement of all disputes that may arise between them, and, therefore:

(1) The Company will neither cause nor permit a lockout during the life of this Agreement; and

(2) Neither the Union nor the employees will engage in a strike, sitdown, walkout,
stoppage, slowdown, or curtailment of work for any reason during the life of this Agreement.

Off Topic: Where did you get your numbers about gun ownership?

 

[RV4]

What about the original topic?[BR][BR][SPAN class=BodyFont][STRONG]McCain: Let weak airlines fail[BR]by Jaret Seiberg in Washington[BR]Updated 06:41 PM EST, Jan-9-2003[BR][BR]The incoming chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee warned the airlines Thursday, Jan. 9, that he would rather see carriers fail than waste billions of dollars to sustain economically doomed companies. [BR][/STRONG][BR]Bob, [BR][BR]The "New Topic Button" is easy to find on this bulletin board. [BR][BR][A href="http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/edit.asp?mode=new&catID=9&forumID=30&topicID=3125&sessionID={C859ACE1-0AB9-4224-9852-C94E5E126DFF}"]

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/16/2003 6:08:38 PM Buck wrote:

Ok that is fair enough. Why has the TWU not used this right to strike in the past? Why Article 33 of the TWU/AA agreement?

ARTICLE 33 – NO STRIKE – NO LOCKOUT
(a) It is the intent of the parties to this Agreement that the procedures set forth in this Agreement will serve as a means of amicable settlement of all disputes that may arise between them, and, therefore:

(1) The Company will neither cause nor permit a lockout during the life of this Agreement; and

(2) Neither the Union nor the employees will engage in a strike, sitdown, walkout,
stoppage, slowdown, or curtailment of work for any reason during the life of this Agreement.

Off Topic: Where did you get your numbers about gun ownership?
----------------
[/blockquote]

Having a little trouble following the conversation? Why would we go on strike when the agreement has been ratified?
"The reason why we have not used this right is because prior to getting to the point of striking the majority of those who voted on the company's "last best offer" considered the offer acceptable and voted the agreement in."
From the NRA website;
"How many gun owners are there?
While no absolute count is available, it is closely estimated that there are 60-65 million gun owners, 30-35 million of whom own handguns. According to survey research, at least 45% of American households own firearms."

A little bit of fuzzy math there, 65 million is around 23% of 280 million. Of course this is a political lobby so they inflate the numbers in thier favor like most political lobbies, regardless of the positions they represent. The NRA has around 4.5 million members or less than 2% of the population.