Pelosi says no standalone airline relief bill

eolesen

Veteran
Jul 23, 2003
15,930
9,365
It's official -- no relief until after the election at the earliest.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/ec...e-relief-bill-workers-their-families-n1242630

“There is no standalone bill without a bigger bill. There's no bill,” the speaker said during her weekly press conference.

Pelosi just used airline workers and their families as bargaining chips to try and get a bigger bill passed.

Anyone who votes Democrat thinking that they're looking out for the working man is a fool.
 
well, maybe if the airlines agreed to waiving baggage fees and providing more leg room in return....

say, what happened to the republicans who believed in free markets and were against socialism? you should be against a bailout package.

In fact, It was steroid addled Trump who killed the more generous aid package until “after he is re-elected”. Sucks being a hostage. vote for me or else!

Voting republican is voting for dictatorship. Cheers!
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #4
say, what happened to the republicans who believed in free markets and were against socialism? you should be against a bailout package.

Well, you're an idiot. I've been saying rip off the bandaid and that the bailout was a bad idea since, oh, March?

It handcuffed the airlines on what they could do regarding layoffs and service cuts cost, and it cost the airlines more than they got, and delayed the inevitable.
 
now,now. no need for name calling when you are the one talking out of both sides of your mouth. you are either for “ripping off the band aid” or you are for helping working class families. you cant be both.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #6
Nah, I'm reporting facts. Pelosi just used working airline families as a pawn for a bigger deal.

I'm all for working families, but also believe in following the letter of the contract vs. trying to float people when there's not enough work or cutting hours for everyone versus layoffs.

Ripping the band-aid off makes sure there's a company to come back to, and forcing weaker competitors out of business helps *my* co-workers when we pick up their business.

I seriously doubt that Southwest would be asking for concessions if one of the weaker airlines had gone under, or if they'd been able to exploit someone else retreating into their hubs vs. having to maintain the same levels of service they did in March.
 
You are just being a Trump lap dog. No comment when he shut down relief for everyone until after the election. You care as much about airline workers as you do the people of color in Chicago.
 
It's official -- no relief until after the election at the earliest.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/ec...e-relief-bill-workers-their-families-n1242630



Pelosi just used airline workers and their families as bargaining chips to try and get a bigger bill passed.

Anyone who votes Democrat thinking that they're looking out for the working man is a fool.
So you prefer the socialist program of the Republicans instead. I thought we weren't supposed to vote for Biden because we'd become a socialist country...but because Pelosi opposes Republican socialism - it's bad.
 
Nah, I'm reporting facts. Pelosi just used working airline families as a pawn for a bigger deal.

I'm all for working families, but also believe in following the letter of the contract vs. trying to float people when there's not enough work or cutting hours for everyone versus layoffs.

Ripping the band-aid off makes sure there's a company to come back to, and forcing weaker competitors out of business helps *my* co-workers when we pick up their business.

I seriously doubt that Southwest would be asking for concessions if one of the weaker airlines had gone under, or if they'd been able to exploit someone else retreating into their hubs vs. having to maintain the same levels of service they did in March.
How have the airlines survived without your minute by minute counsel?
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #10
So you prefer the socialist program of the Republicans instead. I thought we weren't supposed to vote for Biden because we'd become a socialist country...but because Pelosi opposes Republican socialism - it's bad.

I know you're not that stupid, but you know damn well Pelosi wants more money for handouts than what's been offered at the table.

I prefer market forces without government interference. Unfortunately, there are a bunch of liberal CEO's and others who want the handouts, so here we are.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #11
How have the airlines survived without your minute by minute counsel?

Well, the ones following the course I'm suggesting do seem to be doing pretty well. Just look at Delta.
 
I know you're not that stupid, but you know damn well Pelosi wants more money for handouts than what's been offered at the table.

I prefer market forces without government interference. Unfortunately, there are a bunch of liberal CEO's and others who want the handouts, so here we are.
So how is Pelosi using working families as a pawn? You don't support giving them anything. If she's on your side on this, then she's on your side. You can ***** about socialism all you want after the election, but to say she's using airline workers as a pawn for doing what you recommend is a bit disingenious.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #13
I think you're conflating my opinion with the politics being played. They're mutually exclusive.

A handout to get thru the next six months doesn't help if it damages the company for the long term. That's ultimately bad for working families because it will drag out recovery and recall, and limit the ability to let labor get pay increasss down the line.

We all came into this industry understanding that seniority dictates who stays and who goes. Expecting the majority of employees to take a cut in hours to protect the bottom of the seniority list is ultimately bad for more working families than having layoffs.

There's a consensus amongst organized labor on these forums that it was bad for labor when union leadership chose jobs over pay over the last 20 years. This is no different of a situation than post 9/11 or 2008 in terms of what needs to happen.

That's my personal opinion. Prove me wrong.

As for the politics....

Pelosi knows there is bipartisan support in the Senate to try and keep airlines solvent, and better positioned staffing wise to bounce back as segments of the economy recover. She's exploiting that support to try and force further concessions from the Senate and fund the things she thinks are important.

If thats not using airline families as pawns, I don't know what else to call it.
 
I think you're conflating my opinion with the politics being played. They're mutually exclusive.

A handout to get thru the next six months doesn't help if it damages the company for the long term. That's ultimately bad for working families because it will drag out recovery and recall, and limit the ability to let labor get pay increasss down the line.

We all came into this industry understanding that seniority dictates who stays and who goes. Expecting the majority of employees to take a cut in hours to protect the bottom of the seniority list is ultimately bad for more working families than having layoffs.

There's a consensus amongst organized labor on these forums that it was bad for labor when union leadership chose jobs over pay over the last 20 years. This is no different of a situation than post 9/11 or 2008 in terms of what needs to happen.

That's my personal opinion. Prove me wrong.

As for the politics....

Pelosi knows there is bipartisan support in the Senate to try and keep airlines solvent, and better positioned staffing wise to bounce back as segments of the economy recover. She's exploiting that support to try and force further concessions from the Senate and fund the things she thinks are important.

If thats not using airline families as pawns, I don't know what else to call it.



Sooooo Sanctimonious one, you're saying FULL PAY.....till the LAST DAY !

Unbelievably, I AGREE with you !!
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #15
Sooooo Sanctimonious one, you're saying FULL PAY.....till the LAST DAY !

Unbelievably, I AGREE with you !!
I think I've been pretty consistent over the last 20 years in saying that the TWU trading jobs for pay was a bad idea in long run. That was a choice they made.

But don't conflate that with saying negotiated concessions are never justified. Resetting contracts is a necessity over time when conditions warrant.

Your union simply made bad choices at the table. Other unions were smarter and had better negotiators who put the right checks and balances into their concessions, eg an expiration date, snapback triggers, etc... Your union simply saw jobs at TUL and some small stations for Fleet being protected and didn't bother to think any further.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top