Can we now safely say the 900 is on property?

skydog said:
Yes, I am well aware of what is going on in the economy and global markets right now. But living in a free country and participating in a free market economy means that you have the freedom to make the wrong decisions for your business, and the freedom to fail in your business. That's basically what has happened. People have made poor business decisions, and the effects of that have rippled through the economy. My question to you is this: Who do propose should "check" (to use your word) the business decisions of entrepeneurs and business owners?
Click to expand...

This is exactly why these "free" businsess decisions are allowed to reward the few and punish the many. How far are you willing to stretch that "freedom" if it means that bad business decisions are rewarded with millions of dollars while the entire economy suffers for it. Looking at the reason of why we are in this situation today it is appalling that you could view it like that. Who's money do you think is paying for these "free bad business decisions?" ......YOURS! MINE! who's money do you think paid for the $440,000 luxury retreat for AIG executives after they recieved a 42 billion bailout? Airline CEOs are no different than wall street, how else can you explain the bonuses they recieve? I'm willing to bet that in many ways that you do not realize this greed has affected your life and your families life negatively. It is not escapable.
 
This is has got to be one of the funniest posts ive read in a loooong time. With that said, I am one of a few on here that fly the CRJ-900. I totally agree that the payrate at my company is subpar and that these planes should truly be at mainline.

With that said, when I was interviewing here I knew we had the '900' but I was totally expecting to get the SAAB. So, for a lot of guys like myself, we really had no choice what we were given. Im also 100% thankful to have a job right now, I understand that as well.

Its my goal to move on to a major too, but to get there you have to start somewhere. I'll say it again, I DO think that the CRJ-900 should be a mailine plane......
 
SmoothLanderJ said:
This is has got to be one of the funniest posts ive read in a loooong time. With that said, I am one of a few on here that fly the CRJ-900. I totally agree that the payrate at my company is subpar and that these planes should truly be at mainline.

With that said, when I was interviewing here I knew we had the '900' but I was totally expecting to get the SAAB. So, for a lot of guys like myself, we really had no choice what we were given. Im also 100% thankful to have a job right now, I understand that as well.

Its my goal to move on to a major too, but to get there you have to start somewhere. I'll say it again, I DO think that the CRJ-900 should be a mailine plane......
Click to expand...
:yeahthat: One of Mesaba's finest.
 
DenverPilot8 said:
This is exactly why these "free" businsess decisions are allowed to reward the few and punish the many. How far are you willing to stretch that "freedom" if it means that bad business decisions are rewarded with millions of dollars while the entire economy suffers for it. Looking at the reason of why we are in this situation today it is appalling that you could view it like that. Who's money do you think is paying for these "free bad business decisions?" ......YOURS! MINE! who's money do you think paid for the $440,000 luxury retreat for AIG executives after they recieved a 42 billion bailout? Airline CEOs are no different than wall street, how else can you explain the bonuses they recieve? I'm willing to bet that in many ways that you do not realize this greed has affected your life and your families life negatively. It is not escapable.
Click to expand...

I can only assume you are talking about the government bailouts. For the record, I am opposed to those bailouts. If a business can't stand on it's own, we ought not prop it up with tax dollars. Let the failures happen, and let the economy stabilize itself. It is not the government's place to prop up failed business. Similarly it is neither your nor my place to tell companies how to run their business, unless we happen to be shareholders.
 
skydog said:
I can only assume you are talking about the government bailouts. For the record, I am opposed to those bailouts. If a business can't stand on it's own, we ought not prop it up with tax dollars. Let the failures happen, and let the economy stabilize itself. It is not the government's place to prop up failed business. Similarly it is neither your nor my place to tell companies how to run their business, unless we happen to be shareholders.
Click to expand...

I know I'm talking to a brick wall but I guess I just like talking to myself. The reason a lot of people don't sign on whole heartedly to the ideals you espouse, the pure free market, is that the swings are so wild. Allowing things to completely fail provides so much instability that only one place, Hong Kong, ever bought into it. China reabsorbed them some years back at the end of the lease, and even they are gone now. Most people, including me, are willing to sacrifice a little pure growth for a little slower times in hopes that the little pure collapse is tempered as well.

Anyhow, we don't live in the land of the free market which you believe in so solidly. So it's a moot point.
 
I'll admit that a free market economy isn't perfect, but it's far better than any alternative out there.

I'm not sure where we are going with this discussion. My original point was that the decision of where airplanes "should" go be left to the marketplace. Scope clauses and collective bargaining agreements are not what should determine fleet size, mix, type, and distribution. Passenger demand should determine what airplane goes where. Forcing companies to deploy assets in accordance with labor contract provisions rather than the demands of the marketplace costs money in terms of increased expenses, and lost revenue opportunies.
 
skydog said:
I'll admit that a free market economy isn't perfect, but it's far better than any alternative out there.

I'm not sure where we are going with this discussion. My original point was that the decision of where airplanes "should" go be left to the marketplace. Scope clauses and collective bargaining agreements are not what should determine fleet size, mix, type, and distribution. Passenger demand should determine what airplane goes where. Forcing companies to deploy assets in accordance with labor contract provisions rather than the demands of the marketplace costs money in terms of increased expenses, and lost revenue opportunies.
Click to expand...

The alternative is our current system in the US. I'll keep that for a bit thanks. Just NOT an idealist anymore, so idealism makes me choke a little.

The discussion wasn't going anywhere, that's why I was talking about the brick wall and listening to myself.

I guess we can make it go somewhere, I'm wandering who knows where I'll end up. Passenger demand should not determine what airplane goes where, solely. It's not like it does now anyhow so I don't know why you are bringing it up. Passengers are still trying to talk me out of the hub and spoke system, at the hub and the spoke. ICK. Wanna go direct? Get in the car. Ohhh wait, it's cheaper to fly, never mind.

Forcing companies do to things like working for the long term interests of the company... sounds crazy I know. Bear with me a while. Company gets a few ideas going on how to cash out in the next 2 years on the company stock and retire/leave company with wads of cash. Investors are not investors anymore, they are giant funds, and no one takes time to look at long term gains/losses. Besides if they are bull crazy investors they are already seeing what the company execs are doing and have jumped onto the boat at the beginning. Company floods market dumb sales promotions that makes sales go crazy. More people buy into the company because they have the magic ingredient ... "growth" *shiny light comes down from heavens, and angelic harps play*. Management cashes out and runs away with a couple investors, company files, pilot pensions are robbed to pay the bills *buzzer sounds and wheel of fortune wah wah wah wahhhhhh plays*

Instead the employees who actually have a long term interest in the company make the company choose something better than a quick buck. Obviously company wins more time than employees, but things don't goto #### all that quick and maybe we can make a buck or two before the bitter end. That's a BIG maybe though.
 
skydog said:
I'll admit that a free market economy isn't perfect, but it's far better than any alternative out there.

I'm not sure where we are going with this discussion. My original point was that the decision of where airplanes "should" go be left to the marketplace. Scope clauses and collective bargaining agreements are not what should determine fleet size, mix, type, and distribution. Passenger demand should determine what airplane goes where. Forcing companies to deploy assets in accordance with labor contract provisions rather than the demands of the marketplace costs money in terms of increased expenses, and lost revenue opportunies.
Click to expand...

http://www.continental.com/web/en-US/apps/vendors/default.aspx?i=CORPJOBS

Here, it's a management position you should apply for.
 
skydog said:
Forcing companies to deploy assets in accordance with labor contract provisions rather than the demands of the marketplace costs money in terms of increased expenses, and lost revenue opportunies.
Click to expand...

Remember your audience here: most of these dudes couldn't give a rat's a$$ about anything that makes financial or efficiency sense for "the company". Unless it results in pilots getting paid more or having better work rules, it makes no difference to them.

It's a valid discussion for a group of MBAs, but not for anyone remotely associated with a labor union.
 
Hacker15e said:
Remember your audience here: most of these dudes couldn't give a rat's a$$ about anything that makes financial or efficiency sense for "the company". Unless it results in pilots getting paid more or having better work rules, it makes no difference to them.

It's a valid discussion for a group of MBAs, but not for anyone remotely associated with a labor union.
Click to expand...

Hehe, ouch.

It seems to some of us simple minded folks that whats been going on so far is neither efficient nor good for the company. As far as work rules and being paid, have guys more comfortable and less fatigued may lead to less hull loses, that is also in the best interest in the company (i think). Though if they all turn into RJ's those are pretty cheap so who knows.
 
Hacker15e said:
Remember your audience here: most of these dudes couldn't give a rat's a$$ about anything that makes financial or efficiency sense for "the company". Unless it results in pilots getting paid more or having better work rules, it makes no difference to them.

It's a valid discussion for a group of MBAs, but not for anyone remotely associated with a labor union.
Click to expand...

Word Holmes, that's pretty much spot on.
 
skydog said:
I'll admit that a free market economy isn't perfect, but it's far better than any alternative out there.

I'm not sure where we are going with this discussion. My original point was that the decision of where airplanes "should" go be left to the marketplace. Scope clauses and collective bargaining agreements are not what should determine fleet size, mix, type, and distribution. Passenger demand should determine what airplane goes where. Forcing companies to deploy assets in accordance with labor contract provisions rather than the demands of the marketplace costs money in terms of increased expenses, and lost revenue opportunies.
Click to expand...
You are 100% spot on. That is why I should be flying a 145 for AA and not Eagle.
 
Everyone at ASA (especially you Trip7) needs to realize that just because "the 20 -200's are leaving in a year" doesn't necessarily mean they are going to be flying until then (see Comair in CVG). Look for more reductions in block hours by Delta and more planes parked at the A-tech center in the upcoming months.

Seriously trip, you need to chill out on the Kool-Aid.
 
Hacker15e said:
Remember your audience here: most of these dudes couldn't give a rat's a$$ about anything that makes financial or efficiency sense for "the company".
Click to expand...

67820957_acce81ded0.jpg
 
Hacker15e said:
Remember your audience here: most of these dudes couldn't give a rat's a$$ about anything that makes financial or efficiency sense for "the company". Unless it results in pilots getting paid more or having better work rules, it makes no difference to them.

It's a valid discussion for a group of MBAs, but not for anyone remotely associated with a labor union.
Click to expand...

I know it. But you'd think intelligent, educated poeple would recognize that pay increases and better work rules come from profits, not from scope clauses and collective bargaining agreements.
 
skydog said:
I know it. But you'd think intelligent, educated poeple would recognize that pay increases and better work rules come from profits, not from scope clauses and collective bargaining agreements.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the issue is that the intelligent, educated people do not believe that the lack of scope clauses and collective bargaining agreements will help anyone but airline management. Management who will in turn further decrease pay and work rules to get even more profits. There was a reason the collective bargaining started in the first place in aviation.

In the age of regulation, or the "golden days" of aviation if you will, airlines still squandered a good deal of their money. Without our ALPA founders to stand up the axe was going to come down squarely on the pilots. So instead they turned to the govt to get their handouts.

Well, now regulation is gone and with it those glorious govt subsidies. Airlines have still not learned how to run their businesses efficiently and look for the easiest, often backhanded, ways to make cuts and save a buck as always. Seems to me like scope clauses and collective bargaining are still quite a necessary evil.

It is certainly true that profits and better pay and work rules should go hand in hand. The issue is that in the seeking of these profits the airlines are still trying to bleed the stone of labor and give them the almighty shaft. Maybe 1 in 10 of managements doesn't think that way, but things in the industry are bad enough as it is and there is no labor group presently willing to take that chance (save maybe the Skybus folks, but that idea seemed doomed from the beginning to everyone but their CEO and those same pilots).
 
skydog said:
I know it. But you'd think intelligent, educated poeple would recognize that pay increases and better work rules come from profits, not from scope clauses and collective bargaining agreements.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the profits would increase when they nix the scope agreements b/c management would just outsource their jobs to cheaper regionals. Who cares if the company makes money if your job goes elsewhere?
 
Perfectly stated!

surreal1221 said:
Oh yeah, something to be proud of. No doubt about that.

Allow much rejoicing to sing from Trip777's apartment and the company's headquarters. May they be in sync so that all of the fine city of Atlanta can recognize the extreme hotness of a stretch RJ being flown by sub contracted pilots.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top