OverpaidSlacker
Newbie
- Feb 25, 2003
- 2
- 0
i am new to usaviation, but have been on flyertalk for some time. despite (or perhaps because of) repeated warnings and admonitions on flyertalk about this site, i decided to take a look. i was especially curious to read what was being said here after having read the washington post article about a strike threat.
chip (et al), i am a doctor, not a pilot. i follow the airline industry closer than most "industry analysts" probably do, and i have a particular interest in usairways. while i certainly agree with you that the money paid to your company's former execs (especially in the context of the company's financial situation at that time) smacks of arrogance and outrageous fiscal irresponsibility, i must say that i cannot understand how alpa/mec believe a strike could possibly help things for the employees they represent.
"crazy enough" (to quote you, chip) is exactly what you would have to be to strike. it would almost certainly cost you your livelihood; in this economy, it is certainly not reasonable to expect to just turn around and be hired elsewhere (especially in the airline industry). on top of your lost salary, you would also lose whatever pension (or fraction thereof) you would have upon retiring.
even if y'all are "crazy enough" to "burn this whole thing down", a strike may not have said desired effect anyhow. usairways will likely be able to higher pilots who have been furloughed elsewhere. union or not, people need to sustain their standard of living, and i can't recall the last time i heard of a union cutting paychecks to the employees they represent.
i, for one, don't buy into the "you've got a high paying job, so shut up and like it" arugment. i have a high paying job, too, and i sympathize with my colleagues in pennsylvania, west virginia, new jersey, and elsewhere who have finally reacted to a marketplace (malpractice insurance -- both the companies themselves, and the lawyers who both write the malpractice laws and profit from them) that has exploited us for far too long. but in their situation, there is something to be won besides the satisfaction of watching the enemy "burn down". there does not appear to me to be an upside to you and yours by striking (or threatening to strike) soon.
what seems most reasonable (and most likely to benefit you longterm) is to allow the company to reorganize, emerge from bankruptcy, stabilize financially, and then renegotiate the terms of your contracts/pensions, in the context of having generously granted concessions to the company when they were hurting. if they are unwilling to talk at that point, then screw them -- strike. at least at that point, the economy is likely to be in better shape (god willing), and a strike won't be such a direct shot in your own foot.
just some food for though. i'll be over here, donning my flame-resistant chain mail, awaiting your responses.
chip (et al), i am a doctor, not a pilot. i follow the airline industry closer than most "industry analysts" probably do, and i have a particular interest in usairways. while i certainly agree with you that the money paid to your company's former execs (especially in the context of the company's financial situation at that time) smacks of arrogance and outrageous fiscal irresponsibility, i must say that i cannot understand how alpa/mec believe a strike could possibly help things for the employees they represent.
"crazy enough" (to quote you, chip) is exactly what you would have to be to strike. it would almost certainly cost you your livelihood; in this economy, it is certainly not reasonable to expect to just turn around and be hired elsewhere (especially in the airline industry). on top of your lost salary, you would also lose whatever pension (or fraction thereof) you would have upon retiring.
even if y'all are "crazy enough" to "burn this whole thing down", a strike may not have said desired effect anyhow. usairways will likely be able to higher pilots who have been furloughed elsewhere. union or not, people need to sustain their standard of living, and i can't recall the last time i heard of a union cutting paychecks to the employees they represent.
i, for one, don't buy into the "you've got a high paying job, so shut up and like it" arugment. i have a high paying job, too, and i sympathize with my colleagues in pennsylvania, west virginia, new jersey, and elsewhere who have finally reacted to a marketplace (malpractice insurance -- both the companies themselves, and the lawyers who both write the malpractice laws and profit from them) that has exploited us for far too long. but in their situation, there is something to be won besides the satisfaction of watching the enemy "burn down". there does not appear to me to be an upside to you and yours by striking (or threatening to strike) soon.
what seems most reasonable (and most likely to benefit you longterm) is to allow the company to reorganize, emerge from bankruptcy, stabilize financially, and then renegotiate the terms of your contracts/pensions, in the context of having generously granted concessions to the company when they were hurting. if they are unwilling to talk at that point, then screw them -- strike. at least at that point, the economy is likely to be in better shape (god willing), and a strike won't be such a direct shot in your own foot.
just some food for though. i'll be over here, donning my flame-resistant chain mail, awaiting your responses.
