Delta Pilots Vote to Authorize Strike by ~95%

Status
Not open for further replies.
Getting in late on this as well. I'm probably gonna have to disagree with 99% of the people on this board. I simply can't agree with the statements "stick up for the pilot groups and put our foots down to save the pilot groups in the future from a miserable benefits." So...strike. Hmm.

First, the wage cuts. And let me make this clear now before I'm berated. I'm not taking managements side or being against the pilots' group. I'm on the side of free market capitalism, the best system devised thus far. And I don't think you can find anything better. The wage cuts unfortunately are one of the negatives to the free market, and being a wage earner. But just pick up a copy of delta's financial 10-k and it doesn't take long to see the highest expense for the employer (and this isn't just airlines) is employee salaries and benefits. Salaries totaled 5 billion dollars in operating expenses. More than fuel, by about 800 million. Naturally, it will be the first to attempt to reduce.

Now don't think for a second that I say the executives should walk away with millions at the expense of other employees. No, the execs. should take cuts as well so there actions are not justified. But hey, the fact of the matter is management will always make more than an employee. That's just the way it is. Management vs. wage earner. Heck, look at some of the Enron execs that got away before the bankrupcy, some walked away with 60+ million, legally.

Some may say that well that's not fair. It's not fair for management to make more money than us. I say, so what? I'm not too concernced with how much they make (except when it's at the expense of other employees), but in good times, who cares? It's one of the negatives of capitalism, managment will make a lot. But that's a very small negative in the broad scheme of things. Because if you don't like that we can always go to the alternative, socialism. I say small price to pay for capitalism: some people make more than others. If you don't like that, move to France.

Next, the unions. Ironically, it is the unions more than anything that is hurting the profession. Yet most people don't see it that way. The union will command higher wages for one group of employees at the expense of another. It's Econ 101. If something costs more, the less of it people will want. So by actually demanding higher wages this is having a negative effect on the total amount of pilot jobs. More money is being spent on wages than say, investing in new airplanes or expanding routes and marketing opportunities, thereby creating more jobs for pilots. The best thing the pilot group could do is completely get rid of the union.

If you don't like having to take a pay cut, quit. Go do something else and be happy. But don't strike and take an entire company down with you because of wage demands. But, you may say, if enough pilot's quit at once then the company would go bankrupt anyway, but only if Delta couldn't hire more pilots and train them in time. At least then the company would fail because of the results of the free market as opposed to the demands of a group of employees, striking, at the expense of all other employees.

That's just my opinion...
 
Yet again, I have to ask:

"What attracted you to a career in aviation as opposed to just flying as a hobby?"
 
Sounds like someone needs to read "Flying the Line".

Airline flying is as safe as it is today because of the hard work of the ALPA of the past.


Love the avatar Doug :)
 
Doug, is managment starting to soften? Thier rhetoric seems a bit weak;

Delta spokesman Bruce Hicks said the airline's "focus will remain and our energies will remain on the critical issue of reaching a consensual agreement," adding that "that's the most important action, and in everyone's best interest."
Click to expand...

I know as well as you do that "everyones best interest" is read as "Best interest for the CEOs and shareholders.

And for those of you that think unions are bad for the industry:
retarded.gif
 
Well, here's the reason I ask.

Trust me, I hear "I just want to fly airplanes!" all the time in email.

Well, you can! You can get a private pilot's license and buzz around to your heart's content.

But then people look at the pay, vacation time, benefits, etc and want to get an airline job. Some decide that "unions are evil" but the bennies are great so why is everyone so angry?

The benefits which attract people to the professional side of aviation weren't bestowed from the goodness of management's heart. Those were hardfought thru labor strife, strikes, instances where people stood up and made a difference for the better of the profession.

Want to know why a particular airline's crew rest facilities were drastically improved and you can see the 777 "club house" that we all gawk about on airliners.net? Well, google "Roscoe McMillan MD-11" and see what it took and what he risked for long-term flight crew safety. Those facilities weren't created because management thinks we're swell and deserve a comfortable rest area.

If you just want to fly airplanes, get a PPL. Don't get into the airline business.

If you just want to shoot guns, buy a rifle. If you join the Marines, you're going to eventually get into a firefight.

But you can't run into a profession, attracted by the perception of fantastic benefits, then denigrate the struggle it tooks to get them and the struggle that it continues to be to maintain them.

The rationale of "If you don't like it, quit" is about as cheesy as having a argument with your spouse and your neighbor saying "Well, just run out and get a divorce."

I implore everyone to do some reading, or better yet, spend some time working for an airline before opining about what they think.

Opinions are fine on an internet website. But opinions formed with first-hand industry experience is cherry.

(Kristie: See, I didn't use the word 'gravitas' even once! :) )
 
But what else could it mean besides exactly that "everyone's best interest"?? Instead you are choosing to interpret that statement suspicously. Yes it should be read as "Best interest for CEO's, and shareholders, and employees and everyone" Of course, you can choose to interpret the statement any way you want.

And yes, the unions are bad for the industry as a whole. Read Milton Friedman's Free to Choose.
 
NTXPilot said:
But what else could it mean besides exactly that "everyone's best interest"?? Instead you are choosing to interpret that statement suspicously. Yes it should be read as "Best interest for CEO's, and shareholders, and employees and everyone" Of course, you can choose to interpret the statement any way you want.

And yes, the unions are bad for the industry as a whole. Read Milton Friedman's Free to Choose.
Click to expand...


Who do you work for again?
 
NTXPilot said:
And yes, the unions are bad for the industry as a whole. Read Milton Friedman's Free to Choose.
Click to expand...

Capitalism is bad for the industry as a whole. Read Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto"
 
Doug,
The "if you don't like it, quit" argument may be cheesy and blunt, but it's true. Now there may be external factors (lifestyle, family, ect.) that may hold someone back from quitting, but the fact is anyone can quit if they don't like their job. Find another line of work, move to another company. Options are there, especially in this country.

"Those were hardfought thru labor strife, strikes, instances where people stood up and made a difference for the better of the profession."

My point exactly. Hardfought. Fought at the expense of something else. Left to the free market, the benefits and the better of the profession would develop naturally. Employers would pay enough to attract employees, if the pay was too low, they wouldn't be able to attract a qualified workforce (ie pinnacle some time ago). Competitors will compete for the highest skilled workforce and try to attract that skill through pay and benefits. The company with the best offer gets the best employees. When one business looses the inflow of skilled workers they are forced to raise benefits to attract skilled workers for the survival of the business. Because without skilled workers, the business would fail. The process develops naturally in a free market.

True, I've never flown for an airline or worked in the business; I'm strictly just offering my point of view. I would never assume to know more than the people who work in the industry day to day, I'm just offering my opinion from the outside.
 
NTXPilot said:
But what else could it mean besides exactly that "everyone's best interest"?? Instead you are choosing to interpret that statement suspicously. Yes it should be read as "Best interest for CEO's, and shareholders, and employees and everyone" Of course, you can choose to interpret the statement any way you want.

And yes, the unions are bad for the industry as a whole. Read Milton Friedman's Free to Choose.
Click to expand...
NTX-
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I fail to believe that you are that ignorant or that naieve. I'm gonna take it as simple flame-bait. All the same, I think you should forgo the pilot thing-- it dosen't sound like you would be well recieved in a line pilot environment, being a follower of Friedman's theories. You may do well, however, on the managment side of things.
 
MasterMags,
Communism doesn't work. I thought that was proven?

Stucking,
Don't work for an airline. Read last paragraph in my above post.
 
CapnJim,
You may be right about not being received well by the pilot group, don't know never really tried. Not flame-bait; I'm not trying to piss anyone off here, I'm just stating my opinion and this is not directed toward anyone personally.
 
shooter13 said:
French companies are failing to compete globally.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you can make such a sweeping statement when the front pages of the Wall Street Journal last week talked about a French company (Alcatel) gobbling up an American icon (Lucent).

Yeah, yeah, merger of equals and all that, but let's not kid ourselves, it's gonna be Alcatel that calls the shots.
 
Don't take this the wrong way, but that's an awful lot of "book knowledge" being thrown into a forum to debate people with actual industry experience.

I do respect your opinion. Please don't take this the wrong way, but I feel you don't have the basic understanding of the issues at hand.

I could read 100 books about neurosurgery. However, it doesn't mean that I'm about to engage in debate with neurosurgeons about maladies of the cerebral cortex and look bewildered when they ask "And you've been a doctor for how long?"
 
We are not engaged in a debate about how to correctly fly an airliner, lets say. I wouldn't attempt to enter that because I have no experience in that matter. Debating with surgeons, nope, that would be debating a topic where no underlying themes exist, ie it's all medicine the body,ect. If you don't know that stuff then you can't debate. The sickness of the airline industry does however have underlying themes like economics. And that is what I'm debating; not the way to fly the airplane, or how it is to be an airline pilot.

Not taken the wrong way at all. The "book knowledge" is not difficult to grasp and it is extremely applicable. I disagree with what actual industry experience has to do with discussing something from a business/economic point of view--which is the view I'm taking. That's precisely what these analysts do; they analyze entire industries without ever having stepped foot in them. I'm not suggesting my expertise is as vast is theirs, no; but that is exactly what they do.

I feel that the basic understanding of the issues at hand here are exactly that: basic, from an economics point of view. If you would like to elaborate on some of the issues you are refering to I would be interested in hearing them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top