Machinists Call for Airline Re-Regulation

Because the union stands to make a great deal of money by asking for
protection.

How do you think the union stands to profit? Do you believe the union
will raise the members' dues if their bid for re-regulation is
granted?

When I say the union stands to make a lot of money, I don't mean union dues.
"Regulation" = "Less Competition" = "Protection" of union jobs. Remember
the days before deregulation, with all the waste/bloat/high-priced tickets?

As much as we all lament the great service of the "old days", I don't think
anyone wants to pay $1K (in today's money) to fly cross-country anymore.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On May 10, 7:51*am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

Because the union stands to make a great deal of money by asking for
protection.
--
Jay Honeck

Utter cluelessness Jay. Larry D just likes to post endless news
stories and then mis-interparate thier meaning so he can start
arguments. I am surprised you fell for it. Arent you usualy the one
who posts complaining about the lack of integrity on this list ?
The sad fact of the matter is that (The way it is structured now) the
airline biz in this country will never consistently make money. I dont
know if regulation in some form may be an answer to this or not, but
AIM does not "Ask" for protection. As an organization they have little
to gain from this. They are voted in and voted out just like in a
democracy.
There are definatly pros and cons to industry consolidation, especialy
if you are an airline employee right now. AIM obviously sees a
downside to consolidation as far as its members are concerned. Do you
want to see dedicated career profesionals working at airlines ?
F Baum

On May 10, 8:47*pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

When I say the union stands to make a lot of money, I don't mean union dues.
"Regulation" = "Less Competition" = "Protection" of union jobs. *Remember
the days before deregulation, with all the waste/bloat/high-priced tickets?

First, disreguard my last post. Second, whats wrong with a little job
security. We all stand to gain from a stong viable airline industry.
IAM is AGAINST consolidation (Which would mean less competition). What
waste/Bloat are you talking about.

As much as we all lament the great service of the "old days", I don't think
anyone wants to pay $1K (in today's money) to fly cross-country anymore.

I lament those hot young flight attendants.
Frank

I lament those hot young flight attendants.

Now *there* is something we can all agree on!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

F. Baum wrote:

I lament those hot young flight attendants.
Frank

The loss of which you can also blame on the government.

On Mon, 12 May 2008 09:53:38 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

F. Baum wrote:

I lament those hot young flight attendants.
Frank

The loss of which you can also blame on the government.


They're not lost. Many of them are still flying (unfortunately). :-)
How do you figure the government bears any responsibility for who air
carriers hire to herd cattle? Is the FAA limiting the issuance of
certificates to flight attendant applicants who don't qualify as being
hot and young? Or are you referring to the fair employment statutes
that prohibit job discrimination based on age (among other things)
throughout our fair nation?

On Sun, 11 May 2008 06:58:32 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum"
wrote in
:

Larry D just likes to post endless news stories and then mis-interparate
thier meaning so he can start arguments.

One man's argument is another's discussion:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discussion
dis·cus·sion Audio Help /d?'sk???n/ Pronunciation Key - Show
Spelled Pronunciation[di-skuhsh-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
Pronunciation

–noun an act or instance of discussing; consideration or
examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions;
informal debate.

As for your accusation of my alleged misinterpretation, it's not
possible to have meaningful exploration of a subject without differing
points of view. Surely you aren't suggesting that all participants in
this forum hold the same viewpoint on every subject as you do, are
you?

Further, I'd like to thank you for pointing out my habit of opening
discussion of on-topic issues, thus increasing the newsgroup's
signal-to-noise ratio, unlike those limit their participation to
followup articles.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008 09:53:38 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

F. Baum wrote:

I lament those hot young flight attendants.
Frank
The loss of which you can also blame on the government.


They're not lost. Many of them are still flying (unfortunately). :-)
How do you figure the government bears any responsibility for who air
carriers hire to herd cattle? Is the FAA limiting the issuance of
certificates to flight attendant applicants who don't qualify as being
hot and young? Or are you referring to the fair employment statutes
that prohibit job discrimination based on age (among other things)
throughout our fair nation?


Yes, that is exactly what I'm referring to.

On May 12, 9:24*am, Larry Dighera wrote:

One man's argument is another's discussion:

* *http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discussion
* * dis·cus·sion * Audio Help * /d?'sk???n/ Pronunciation Key - Show
* * Spelled Pronunciation[di-skuhsh-uhn]

Thanks for that.

As for your accusation of my alleged misinterpretation, it's not
possible to have meaningful exploration of a subject without differing
points of view. *Surely you aren't suggesting that all participants in
this forum hold the same viewpoint on every subject as you do, are
you?

Stop calling me Shirley. AIM is going after job security. Based on the
dismal history of airlines since Deregulation, some form of it may be
necessary. They are actually against consolidation, which
theoretically should help consumers. Rest assured AIM (As are other
unions) is a for profit bussiness and they are doing what they are
payed to do.

Frank

On May 9, 4:39*pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2008 16:11:13 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"

In fact, that is what gov't regulation does. It disrupts the natural
forces of the market and directs artificial amount of money towards
certain people.

There's little question that government regulation "disrupts the
natural forces of the market," but I don't see that as a bad thing. *

I understand, and I understand there are a lot of people like you. For
many of us the natrual forces of the market are very intuitive but for
others its a difficult concept. In a nut shell, as long as producers
have to compete for customers, customers will get the best value
(based on what is important to them). In the airline industry
passengers have said over and over again that they want cheap fares
and are not willing to pay extra for comfort. Several have tried to
create "premium" airlines but they always fail. If someday passengers
prefer comfort over price the market will change. There is a reason
BMV sells better cars then Kia and its not because they are nicer
people.

-Robert