Courtesy: KSTP-TV

Feds Side With Northwest Management

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S18379.html?cat=1

Video Report:

http://kstp.dayport.com/viewer/viewerpage.php?Art_ID=168675

[Edited 2006-08-24 02:51:45]

I will tell you this that I am not siding with the F/A's on this one. So far everyone else has taking a bite out of this $hit sandwich why shouldn't they. I believe that the ground Operations is going to take the biggest hit out of all Unions. I hope the F/A's use their heads and avert a Strike or their so called CHAOS. If the F/A's do strike and the IAM is asked to honor the AFA Strike I will say no and report to work. I just want to finish my last 3 months I have with NWA and get my Severence package.

Quoting Northwestair (Reply 1): So far everyone else has taking a bite out of this $hit sandwich why shouldn't they.

We have taken a bite, big bites. We've been taking bites left and right since 1992. We have been victim to NWA tactics longer than most other. Over the years, we have taken the brunt of the downsizing and

Quoting Northwestair (Reply 1): I believe that the ground Operations is going to take the biggest hit out of all Unions.

With all factors considered, we've taken over 40% cuts, more than all other groups. We, as well as the pilots are being subjected to workrules that are dangerous and wreckless, we're also the only 2 unions that do not get paid when we're on duty with the company. You guys at lest get clock in and out, and accounting for your time spent on the company property. We spend approximately 5-6hrs on duty per trip that is unpaid on average. We only get paid when the aircraft blocks until it blocks in at the end of the trip. We do not get paid when making our 8-2.5 hr call, for sign-in(we're on company property at this point), and we are not for boarding. How much of you're work are regularly not paid for? How many hours of work goes unpaid? Sorry my friend, but we are taking bigger cuts than most unions.

Quoting Northwestair (Reply 1): I hope the F/A's use their heads and avert a Strike or their so called CHAOS

Talk to the company. They're the ones dragging this out. They're only 6% away from securing a fair and equitable agreement.

Quoting Northwestair (Reply 1): If the F/A's do strike and the IAM is asked to honor the AFA Strike I will say no and report to work

We won't ask you, we can do it on our own.

Quoting Northwestair (Reply 1): I just want to finish my last 3 months I have with NWA and get my Severence package.

So would we.

You have my respect, Jetjack74. I am very disheartened that so many people here who claim to be enthusiasts would show so much animosity towards flight attendants. I can only assume it is because they truly do not understand what we do.

I'm not generally known as a big union supporter. In fact, I think the unions bear a fair share of the blame for the state of the airline industry today. I also wouldn't venture to say whether or not a strike is advisable at this time. But given that there is union representation in place, I can't see how it is fair to let the management impose a contract without union approval, then ban the union from striking. That's nothing more than throwing out union representation entirely and going with an "at will" type of employment arrangement.

Quoting We're Nuts (Reply 3): You have my respect, Jetjack74. I am very disheartened that so many people here who claim to be enthusiasts would show so much animosity towards flight attendants. I can only assume it is because they truly do not understand what we do.

Thanks Nutsy, we're in a fight with a management that looks to run over it's front-line employees. It's unfair for any employee group to minimise the contribution of their peer groups. We should all back each other up in some way. Even if the other groups wouldn't strike in support of us(They shouldn't, because they already settled their contract) but at least back us in spirit. Northwestair has a legitimate concern, and I respect his opinion. We don't want to strike, but if we don't stick together, we and other unions will just get steamrolled by management when the next contracts come up for review. What many on here fail to realise is, that many people like myself are enthusiasts working in the industry they love. But you can't become desensitised from your principals for love of something that get taken away from you.

Quoting CHIFLYGUY (Reply 4): I'm not generally known as a big union supporter. In fact, I think the unions bear a fair share of the blame for the state of the airline industry today. I also wouldn't venture to say whether or not a strike is advisable at this time. But given that there is union representation in place, I can't see how it is fair to let the management impose a contract without union approval, then ban the union from striking. That's nothing more than throwing out union representation entirely and going with an "at will" type of employment arrangement.

The ruling does not permanantly forbid a strike, it is just doing it temporarily. It appears the whole matter will go to a labor judge, a mediator will be appointed, and the two sides will be told to go back to the table. The bankruptcy judge did not rule that the FA's had the right to strike, he simply ruled that he was not empowered to stop them. Therefore, the case will be shifted to a labor judge, which is empowered, at this point, to oversee the negotiations in relation to the Railway Labor Act.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 2): We've been taking bites left and right since 1992

Do you still work for the company after having to deal with this for 14 years? If so, WHY?

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 5): We should all back each other up in some way.

Why? You are playing with our jobs and our livelihood.

Quoting MattMSP767 (Reply 7): Do you still work for the company after having to deal with this for 14 years?

I've only been with the company since 96. The 1992 thing i'm referring to is the concessionary package the company negotiated, with the union. This included a stock purchase plan in exchange for giving concessions. Well, we never recieved payment for the buyback of the Series C stock that the company was ordered to do in a court decision in the middle of last year.

Quoting MattMSP767 (Reply 7): If so, WHY?

Because I still love my job, and i'm not going to just quit because that's NWA want's us to do. I'm going to try and stick it and see what develops. We're trying to keep this profession professional, and that is compensated with fair pay and benefits.

Quoting We're Nuts (Reply 3): You have my respect, Jetjack74. I am very disheartened that so many people here who claim to be enthusiasts would show so much animosity towards flight attendants. I can only assume it is because they truly do not understand what we do.

Unfortunately, you may not equate the business position with animosity towards f/a's.
I for one would like to see every f/a get a 10% raise globally. I would also like to see all airline employees be able to retire at full pensions.

The reality is that we do not have labour laws in the USA that protect workers. If we are to speak about who hates f/a's then we need to look inwaredly towards the GOV who has allowed companies to compete on the backs of employees while reducing benefits.

My reccommendation is to vote republication once again and ignor building labour consistency. Go Bush!

Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 8): Why? You are playing with our jobs and our livelihood.

I'd like to see Jetjack answer that. I felt the same pain when DL pilots were about to strike. My mother who works for DL was already searching for new jobs hopefully at other airlines. If DL went under, we would lose all our senority and my mother would have to work at a cheap airline like JetBlue. Why strike and be so selfish when you can't come to realise that you will not only put yourself out of an outstanding job with the best benefits in the world, but tens of thousands of other employees as well just because you were too selfish? Everyone else took the cuts....why can't you?

Quoting BillReid (Reply 10): My reccommendation is to vote republication once again and ignor building labour consistency. Go Bush!

Has it dawned on you that neither George W. or Jonathan are eligible to run again in their current positions, with both being term-limited?

Quoting We're Nuts (Reply 3): so many people here who claim to be enthusiasts would show so much animosity towards flight attendants. I can only assume it is because they truly do not understand what we do.

I think you are mis-understanding most of us.

It's not that we are anti-F/A, but we don't want to see Northwest end up as a big seller on EBAY.

I don't think the timing is appropriate to take this kind of action. The company, your company is down, and bleeding, as is much of the industry, why risk putting it out of business?

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 13): The company, your company is down, and bleeding

What part of that 179 million dollar PROFIT (not counting those restructuring items that will promptly be reversed the second Northwest emerges from bankruptcy) do you not understand?

Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 14): What part of that 179 million dollar PROFIT (not counting those restructuring items that will promptly be reversed the second Northwest emerges from bankruptcy) do you not understand?

Sure, NW made a small profit this past quarter, but that does not mean that everything is great in the industry.

NW is not out of the woods yet, and hardly healthy at the moment.

From the article:
'"If Northwest's motion is granted, the flight attendants' work life going forward will be the product of unilateral and unchecked economic coercion - a result flatly contrary to the (Railway Labor Act) and hardship which warrants denial of Northwest's appeal and its motion," the union wrote.'

That's a bald lie. There is absolutely no coercion involved. The FAs are free to quit if they don't like the deal.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 16): That's a bald lie. There is absolutely no coercion involved. The FAs are free to quit if they don't like the deal.

Zvezda, that's "at will" employment, which is typically what you get in non-unionized positions. Effectively, banning a strike would remove labor representation from the F/A's. This isn't how things work in unionized businesses, even in the USA.

If the F/A's did go on strike, NW would be allowed to hire replacements, of course.

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 15): Sure, NW made a small profit this past quarter, but that does not mean that everything is great in the industry.

If I have the choice between supporting a company that profits from short-changing and cheating their employees, and one that fosters productivity through mutual respect, I'll choose the latter every time.

There's a lot I don't know about unions, but there's a point at which labor concessions become squeezed dry. When that point is reached, it's up to management to earn their salaries by finding other ways to increase profitability.




2H4

Once again the DOJ gets involved with something it shouldn't. I am not a union advocate by any means, but the DOJ has been taking on this weird dictatorship stance lately. They are meddling with ORD slots, the Wright Amendment debate, and now this. As I've said before, the DOJ needs to stick to what they do best - suing as many companies as possible to generate revenue for the U.S. government.

Quoting Evan767 (Reply 11): Why strike and be so selfish when you can't come to realise that you will not only put yourself out of an outstanding job with the best benefits in the world, but tens of thousands of other employees as well just because you were too selfish?

Is this for real? I realize that you are only between 13-15 years of age, and that you don't support a household. Jetjack74 makes very vaild points and the fact that he is on the front lines, his perspective should be taken seriously. The best benefits in the world? What the heck are you talking about here? If you can't afford to live, how can one afford to travel free if they can even get on the plane. What about the other important benefits, like medical care or retirement. Yep, NW f/a are getting screwed big time, and this is one person that hoping the union wins this battle.

I find it hypocritical that the DOJ has chosen to try and intervene in the NWA flight attendant strike, yet remained silent when the NWA mechanics struck. Which is it DOJ? Do you only allow strikes when the company has lined up scabs?

Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 14): What part of that 179 million dollar PROFIT (not counting those restructuring items that will promptly be reversed the second Northwest emerges from bankruptcy) do you not understand?

You're right... that 179 million dollar PROFIT was earned with the terms of FA TA#1 in place I believe... thus supporting NWs position that the cuts are needed to sustain profitability. Thus, it's clear management does know what they're doing.

FYI, strategic planning involves planning for profitability and an acceptable return over the long term.... not a quarter.

Quoting Evan767 (Reply 11): Why strike and be so selfish when you can't come to realise that you will not only put yourself out of an outstanding job with the best benefits in the world, but tens of thousands of other employees as well just because you were too selfish?

best benefits in the world

This is just speaking for my airline, I'm sure others can add to the list.

* Highly reduced wages.
* Financially painful work rules.
* Tricky overtime pay rules.
* No (or lost) pension.
* Little or No 401K match.
* Worthless Stock options.
* Pitiful and/or overpriced Health plans.
* Reduced Paid Holidays.
* No carry over of Vacation days.
* No ability to DAT.
* No pay if your sick till your 3rd day.
* Fewer buddy passes.
* And last but not least...........Non-Reving.

Non Reving is not what it use to be. Loads are so high that it can be difficult to even get to work let alone go on a trip. Free Non-Reving is limited to your Spouse,kids and Mom & Dad. Buddy passes now have fees and their getting higher over time. The only reason that this part has been mostly untouched is because it one of the better hiring points the Airlines have.

Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 14): What part of that 179 million dollar PROFIT (not counting those restructuring items that will promptly be reversed the second Northwest emerges from bankruptcy) do you not understand?

After years of losses, they have turned a profit for acouple of quarters. Gas prices are continuing to rise, as well as other unknowns. You can't expect them to run at $0 profit. They need a cushion, or they need the option to adjust everyones wages, based on profits. You know noone would go with that.

Quoting CHIFLYGUY (Reply 17): Zvezda, that's "at will" employment, which is typically what you get in non-unionized positions. Effectively, banning a strike would remove labor representation from the F/A's. This isn't how things work in unionized businesses, even in the USA.

Yes. My point was that the FAs are not being coerced. They are free to work or not work. If they were not free to leave, that would be slavery.

Of course, if they refuse to work, they should be fired.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 25): Yes. My point was that the FAs are not being coerced. They are free to work or not work. If they were not free to leave, that would be slavery.

How delightfully 19th century. Let's just erase a hundred years of human development for the sake of Northwest's coffers.  

Quoting Okie73 (Reply 21): I find it hypocritical that the DOJ has chosen to try and intervene in the NWA flight attendant strike, yet remained silent when the NWA mechanics struck. Which is it DOJ? Do you only allow strikes when the company has lined up scabs?

This potential strike has serious implications with regard to the Railway Labor Act that the mechanics strike did not have. It's a completely different situation, whether you agree or not - it's not hypocritical in the least.

Although I'm on the F A's side they were hardly forced.They did have two agreements with NWA that were negotiate by their own rep's(two different unions).Both were voted down.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 27): This potential strike has serious implications with regard to the Railway Labor Act that the mechanics strike did not have. It's a completely different situation, whether you agree or not - it's not hypocritical in the least.

it's only different in that with the mechanics management recruited a bunch of scabs before the strike. The implications with regard to the RLA are the same either way.


for the record though I think the DOJ may be making a mistake. If they are going to argue that the FAs cannot strike because all the provisions of the RLA have not been met, well guess what? All the provisions of the RLA have not been met to allow management to impose terms. Goes both ways.

[Edited 2006-08-24 18:12:17]

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 22): You're right... that 179 million dollar PROFIT was earned with the terms of FA TA#1 in place I believe... thus supporting NWs position that the cuts are needed to sustain profitability. Thus, it's clear management does know what they're doing.

Wrong sir...that 179 million dollar profit was earned with the "yellow book" terms in place. The terms of F/A TA#1 were not in place until August 1st, well after Q2 was finished.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 5): Even if the other groups wouldn't strike in support of us(They shouldn't, because they already settled their contract) but at least back us in spirit.

Just out of curiosity, why would you expect the other employees at NWA be "with you in spirit" if you strike? You striking puts the existence of the company, and thus their jobs, on the line. Unlike when the mechanics went on strike, the F/A's striking brings a major halt to flight operations.

Now I'm trying to keep a neutral and well-informed opinion in all this. I see both sides of the argument. There are probably employees (management) within Northwest who should take pay-cuts before or at least along with the front-line workers, especially the F/A's, CSR's, ramp workers (Pilots are a different story. I think pilots are overpaid, and this is from someone who wants to be a pilot. I find it sad that even with the cuts, there are airline pilots who still make more than (or at worst, about even with) the top ranking officers in the military, and look at who has a far greater responsibility).

Basically, what I'm trying to say in a nutshell is that the decision to strike is your's (the F/A's). Just be aware of the consequences and reprecussions of your actions. Don't expect any symapthy from the rest of the employees at NW if you do strike and your strike is the final straw that causes Northwest to go belly up and don't expect any sympathy from most of us either. Most of us are not going to view and remember you as heroes who "fought till the end."

Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 30): Wrong sir...that 179 million dollar profit was earned with the "yellow book" terms in place. The terms of F/A TA#1 were not in place until August 1st, well after Q2 was finished.

Awesome,... then the outlook for sustainable acceptable returns in the long-term is even better w/TA #1 in place.

Airlines are in business to make money, not to break even. And NW hasn't done either for years.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 31): (Pilots are a different story. I think pilots are overpaid, and this is from someone who wants to be a pilot. I find it sad that even with the cuts, there are airline pilots who still make more than (or at worst, about even with) the top ranking officers in the military,

two questions for you.

First, what does pilot pay in relation to military pay have to do with anything? All kinds of people in the civilian sector make more than top officers in the military. The my wife's boss, a VP at a very small company (200 employees) makes more than a general in the military. A buddy of mine from college, a CPA makes way more than a general. For that matter, the president of every airline makes more than a top military officer, yet who has more responsibility??

Second question, since you seem to have all the answers, what should a professional pilot be paid?

This is not actually a big news item.

It is no surprise that Bush's justice department sided with management. This is just one brief that the Federal District Court judge will read before ruling. Everyone already knew that the executive branch would try to put the squeeze on the judicial branch to block a strike. But the justice department brief ultimately doesn't hold any water. It is the legal precedents that will mater. The right to strike in bankruptcy is firmly established for other workers under the Wagner Act and Taft-Heartly, and it is likely that they will extend this protection to flight attendants working under the Railway Labor Act. The most likely person to block the strike would have been Groper in the bankruptcy court, but even he ruled that he lacked that authority.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 2): are being subjected to workrules that are dangerous and wreckless

There you go. Nothing you write before or after should be taken seriously because you showed yourself as a union hack who's willing to lie to get your way.

NW is not allowed to, under any contract, subject you to work rules that are dangerous and wreckless, unless you feel the industry mandated maximums are themselves dangerous and wreckless, and if so, you need to look elsewhere to get those changed.

PROPAGANDA!

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 9): Because I still love my job

Well, if you are willing to work at the horrible pay for this job because you love it, then, in fact you are getting paid FAIRLY. It's something few understand. Fair pay is receiving the amount of money that you are willing to take to do the job. Obviously, despite all the cuts, you were still willing to do the job, this NONE OF THE CUTS WERE UNFAIR. In other words, you were being OVERPAID before, and now the pay is coming into line with what it would take for you to switch jobs...

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 18): I'll choose the latter every time.

Do you, in fact, do this? Do you investigate everywhere you eat and shop on a daily basis, and compare it with other companies and eateries, to find the places that treat their employees best and then only choose them?

Do you even do this when looking for flights?

Or are you just spouting something to make you feel good. Do you live what you say? You might, but I find few, if anyone does...

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 2): We spend approximately 5-6hrs on duty per trip that is unpaid on average. We only get paid when the aircraft blocks until it blocks in at the end of the trip.

Being paid block in/out pay is one rule that is clear through the beginning of the hiring process. If not then, the first few days of training. Work rules and such, I do support you on those.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 5): Northwestair has a legitimate concern, and I respect his opinion. We don't want to strike, but if we don't stick together, we and other unions will just get steamrolled by management when the next contracts come up for review.

Maybe, if you wanted support, you should have stuck with the mechanics. I am all about fair pay and I think the front line employees are getting the shaft, but you certainly didn't back the mechanics up and if, "in spirit," you did back them up, it wasn't enough. Hindsight is 20/20.

Quoting MattMSP767 (Reply 7): Do you still work for the company after having to deal with this for 14 years? If so, WHY?

Anyone can take a certain amount of heat. Enough is enough. Quitting is not really the answer. You never expect to get rich being an airline employee, however, you do expect to be able to buy gas and groceries...

I think the NW flight attendants could have set a precedence being the fighters they are if NW would have been one of the early filers of bankruptcy. Unfortunately, NW has new mechanics, UA's pension severely reduced, pay reduced, and work hours increased. I understand the price of fuel is up, but there may have been fuel surcharges and/or higher ticket prices sooner rather than later had an employee group stood their ground like NW's. I also think CHAOS is BS. Walk out, you will be back to work in a matter of hours. With CHAOS, you are giving NW time to hire more foreign workers, replacement scabs and put people on other flights.

I just don't think any of the other pay reduced, work hours increased union groups appreciated what they could have done for the entire industry over the past few years had they stood up and voted down contracts, fought harder and/or actually did go on strike. You shut down MSP for the day, if UA had shut down ORD for a day, if DL shuts down ATL for a day, AA/DFW, CO/EWR, you do not show management/company what you are capable of, you show an entire industry that is in turmoil what is important, front-line workers. Do I think any airline would have gone out of business because of this, possibly, it's always a risk? Would they go out on their own accord with or without a strike, probably? The industry is what it is now. I hope the best for NW employees. Good luck!

M

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 25): Of course, if they refuse to work, they should be fired.

But that's what the union is for. For the lazy and incompetent to hide behind. I can see why NW mgmt wants to cut paid work hours. In a typical 8 hour shift they'd be lucky that that employee maybe worked 2 hours.

Before you flame me I've worked in union jobs myself and hated the mentally of most members. When I worked for UPS at MSP a lot of former NW MX's workers came over. I heard story after story of lazy employees sitting around their whole shift. Of course mgmt has a poor view of unions!!!!

I work in a mixed enviroment and my raises are based off my preformance. Where as the unions employees get a standard raise every year, regardless of preformance.

just my   

now where did I place my flame retardent suit!!!!

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 35): Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 2): are being subjected to workrules that are dangerous and wreckless There you go. Nothing you write before or after should be taken seriously because you showed yourself as a union hack who's willing to lie to get your way.

Are you contending, Ikramerica, that there are no dangerous practices that can currently (and legally) take place under the regulations of the FAA and Northwest Airlines? A yes or no answer will be fine.

Once upon a time, the airlines and their governing authorities did not disallow flying at speeds in excess of 250kts below 10,000 feet....yet, we know now that doing so presents dangers in the form of midair collisions.

I assume Jetjack was referring to duty time rules.

That the FAA and Northwest Airlines legally allow the duty times that currently exist does not make the practice safe or prudent. After several more aluminum showers and ensuing deaths are found to be attributed to fatigue among crewmembers, perhaps the regs will be revisited.

In short, the allowance of a given practice does not automatically validate it as safe and/or prudent.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 35): Do you, in fact, do this? Do you investigate everywhere you eat and shop on a daily basis, and compare it with other companies and eateries, to find the places that treat their employees best and then only choose them?

Don't be ridiculous, Ikramerica. If I'm able to ascertain whether a company employs good, moral business practices, I'll be more apt to give that company my business. That's all there is to it.




2H4

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 32): Airlines are in business to make money, not to break even. And NW hasn't done either for years.

Northwest has a fundamental problem that runs far deeper than you realize. Destroying employee moral is what will send them to Ch. 7, not FA salaries.

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 32): Airlines are in business to make money, not to break even

Employees are in the business to make money too, if organized action is in their self interest then so be it, if its not se be that.

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 32): Airlines are in business to make money

So are their employees, on a smaller scale!

[Edited 2006-08-24 20:32:12]

Here's one thing that needs to be done, so that everyone understands. Congress needs to amend the RLA to cover the situation of a bankruptcy court throwing out a collective-bargaining agreement.

Congress could define a bankrupcty court order the same as a mediator declaring an impasse and starting the clock on the 30-day-cooling-off period.

Congress could limit contracts imposed by bankruptcy courts to a fixed duration, say 12 to 36 months.

Congress could also say that a union can't strike, but that negotiations must start within a set time limit, and that the procedure for calling the mediator, having an impasse declared, etc., must be followed, so that the parties reach a mutal agreement at some point in the future.

Regardless how you feel about NW's F/As, the RLA is silent about the NW situation, and DL and UA faced similar situations. Congress needs to address the issue, so that the courts don't have to make the law.

I don't want to get into the issue of judicial activism, but this is a policy issue that Congress must resolve, or it will be relitigated, every time a carrier goes into bankruptcy and can't reach agreements with its unions.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 38): Are you contending, Ikramerica, that there are no dangerous practices that can currently (and legally) take place under the regulations of the FAA and Northwest Airlines? A yes or no answer will be fine.

You are not a lawyer and I am not obligated to follow your 'work rules' when answering your question.

I am contending that as long as NWA is following the FAA rules, they are not being wreckless and dangerous, or even reckless for that matter!

The claim above was union propaganda, not substantiated or supported fact. During every union dispute I've seen, the union leadership claims things are unsafe and dangerous and all that, and then they often agree to all or most of those same unsafe and dangerous rules, and claim them to no longer be dangerous until the next round of negotiations.

Please show me all the dangerous and deadly results of these unfair and reckless workrules that you claim exist.

A detailed answer would be fine...

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 38): Don't be ridiculous, Ikramerica. If I'm able to ascertain whether a company employs good, moral business practices, I'll be more apt to give that company my business. That's all there is to it.

Nope. In other words, no you don't bother to confirm that businesses you frequent treat their employees well. You only see fit to take this moral stand here, in this forum.

At least we are clear.

After all, I would hope that nobody would want to spend money somewhere where they witness blatant mistreatment of employees. But few people know what goes on behind the scenes, and thus publicly espousing this moral stand on your part is hollow.

And I did ask a simple question. Do you choose your flights based on this criteria? After all, as enthusiasts, we do know more about that industry than the general public, and we do know who treats employees well and who doesn't.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 38):

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 43):

Safety is not black and white, gentlemen. The issue at hand, I believe, is that NWA is scheduling its crews to fly more and more hours, approaching the legal maximum (and when you get to 100 hours in the air, you're fatigued, no ifs, ands, or buts), while at the same time reducing their pay. So it's a no-win situation for employees. And the safety concern is genuine - productivity should never come first.

Quoting Bucky707 (Reply 33): two questions for you. First, what does pilot pay in relation to military pay have to do with anything? All kinds of people in the civilian sector make more than top officers in the military. The my wife's boss, a VP at a very small company (200 employees) makes more than a general in the military. A buddy of mine from college, a CPA makes way more than a general. For that matter, the president of every airline makes more than a top military officer, yet who has more responsibility??

I guess I should have made it more clear. My point was I'm tired of reading posts with "we work for peanut wages. boo hoo hoo", when in fact, many don't work for "peanut wages"; not even close to it. And I probably should have said "were overpaid" instead of "are overpaid". I think pilots are being payed fair, or close to it, now. For further elaboration, see below.

For a comparison: while, I think professional athletes are way overpaid, if someone is willing to pay them millions to catch a football or hit home runs, who am I to interfere or say "that's not fair"? I'm not a "take from the rich, give to the poor" socialist. I'm very much a capitalist and believe what you make is yours to keep. I just want these people to remember that there are people who put a lot (or everything) on the line everyday, be it firefighters, police officers, soldiers (especially low ranking enlisted members), and on and on and on, and do what they do for a lot less money than some of these whiny pilots who are working for "peanut wages".
You should at least be pleased to know that I do believe management should do their part and take an equal share in the pay cuts to help the airline survive. Some on here have said management have taken cuts, others say management hasn't. Which is true, I'm not sure. But if I were to find out management is demanding major concessions from the pilots and other workers while giving back nothing themselves, my view point would change. However, from what I have read and seen, my belief is that the pilots, as a group have the most to give back (when compared to the F/A's, ramp workers, CSR's, etc) in concessions to the company and therefore should give the most to give it the best chance of survival in these troubled times. And if and when better times return, I hope the pilots are given the most back.

Quoting Bucky707 (Reply 33): Second question, since you seem to have all the answers, what should a professional pilot be paid?

When did I imply or say that I have all the answers?
But for my last point: I don't think the initial concessions asked of the pilots by management were unfair (well, except for losing most or all of their pensions and benefits. I would rather give up a few more dollars an hour in pay and keep my benefits and pension plans, but that's me) But when the airline returns to profitability, I would expect wages for all the employees to go back up, in relation to what was given to the company in concessions. Those who gave the most up (most likely, the pilots) should get the most back.


BTW: If it seems like my opinions and beliefs about the aviation industry are uniformed, well, that's why I finally joined this community, so that my opinions and beliefs will become better informed.

[Edited 2006-08-24 21:23:11]

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 18): If I have the choice between supporting a company that profits from short-changing and cheating their employees, and one that fosters productivity through mutual respect, I'll choose the latter every time. There's a lot I don't know about unions, but there's a point at which labor concessions become squeezed dry. When that point is reached, it's up to management to earn their salaries by finding other ways to increase profitability.

  

you are absolutely right.

Ikramerica are you playing devils advocate or are you really against everything. It would seem that you have nothing or very little positive to say to anyone on this site. Just to add my two cents on your last post, it is quite well known that the FARs are written in blood. FARs are changed when someone dies. To say that because no one has died or nothing dangerous has happened yet doesn't mean that they are safe. The Union maybe creating some propaganda that isn't entirely true; but, at the same time it isn't entirely false either. Overworking an employee that is responsible for some 50 or so lives sounds dangerous and reckless to me, even if it is within the FARs

I think we all need to be less antagonistic.

I personally think that a strike is a very touchy thing right now for NW and needs to be very well thought out. I said during the DL pilot scare that it was stupid to strike and bring down the company when your making an average of 120,000 a year. NW FAs are in a little different position. I think that they should be very careful about their actions but even employees of a bankrupt company can only take so many cuts and if a strike is the only way to have the management hear them then so be it, but they must be prepared for the consequences.

JOE

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 43): I am contending that as long as NWA is following the FAA rules, they are not being wreckless and dangerous, or even reckless for that matter!

Then why does the FAA revise regs from time to time based on NTSB recommendations? The answer, whether you choose to accept it or not, is because the FAA's existing rules and regs are not necessarily safe by definition.

Prior to July 19, 1989, the DC-10's hydraulic system wasn't considered to be dangerous. Try certifying a system like that today, however, and the FAA will inform you in no uncertain terms that it is quite dangerous.

Your logic, sir, is flawed.

Quoting We're Nuts (Reply 45): And the safety concern is genuine - productivity should never come first.

  




2H4

Quoting We're Nuts (Reply 39): Northwest has a fundamental problem that runs far deeper than you realize. Destroying employee moral is what will send them to Ch. 7, not FA salaries.

Quoting We're Nuts (Reply 39): Employees are in the business to make money too, if organized action is in their self interest then so be it, if its not se be that.

Quoting SHUPirate1 (Reply 41): So are their employees, on a smaller scale!

All three of you are confusing ROI (return on investment) with an exchange of compensation for labor.