Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
03-01-2011, 08:36 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: Nice while it lasted
Posts: 326
Disability question:
When do you go on disability? Where is it written?
Example: If I use 239 hours of sick leave prior to May. Then in May I call in sick for a three day trip, am I on disability for that trip?
Another pilot asked me this question and I can't find it in writing.
When do you go on disability? Where is it written?
Example: If I use 239 hours of sick leave prior to May. Then in May I call in sick for a three day trip, am I on disability for that trip?
Another pilot asked me this question and I can't find it in writing.
BTW, the answer to your question: will a pilot who exhausts his sick leave and then calls in sick again be on disability? Yes, 7 days after exhausting his sick leave, unless he has a short-term illness (cold, etc) and immediately calls Crew Resources to inform them of his intentions. See how simple this is?
Call DALPA.
03-01-2011, 09:14 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
And my grandfather, my father, and I were all commissioned officers in the military....no union. My point is this, for every tax dollar an American pays to the federal, state or local government is one less dollar of discretionary income they have to purchase an airline ticket. Conversely, government employees, like military servicemen and women, "serve." Corporations, like ours, produce a commodity. If customers can't purchase a commodity, we perish.
The government hires servants, corporations hire employees. Never once in my 20 years in the military did I expect a union to represent me. I signed up to serve. Now, living in California, I have no interest in paying any more of my 10% of state income tax to fund any more incompetency or continue to add to an already bankrupt state.
The governor of Wisconsin, whether Republican or not, is right on. You can't write checks you can't cash. We, in the legacy airlines, have certainly bitten the bullet over the last 8 or nine years, while state government employees have seen a 28% increase in income (in CA, for example). This is not a left vs. right thing, this is a fiscally-responsible thing. God bless your parents and their service to Chicago and Illinois. Presently, I'm worried about my job at Delta, my children and their future. Color me a little bit uncertain, but I'm not hanging my future, or theirs, on our union or anything.
Nothing personal New. I just beg to differ.
The government hires servants, corporations hire employees. Never once in my 20 years in the military did I expect a union to represent me. I signed up to serve. Now, living in California, I have no interest in paying any more of my 10% of state income tax to fund any more incompetency or continue to add to an already bankrupt state.
The governor of Wisconsin, whether Republican or not, is right on. You can't write checks you can't cash. We, in the legacy airlines, have certainly bitten the bullet over the last 8 or nine years, while state government employees have seen a 28% increase in income (in CA, for example). This is not a left vs. right thing, this is a fiscally-responsible thing. God bless your parents and their service to Chicago and Illinois. Presently, I'm worried about my job at Delta, my children and their future. Color me a little bit uncertain, but I'm not hanging my future, or theirs, on our union or anything.
Nothing personal New. I just beg to differ.
Charles G. Koch: Why Koch Industries Is Speaking Out - WSJ.com
Years of tremendous overspending by federal, state and local governments have brought us face-to-face with an economic crisis. Federal spending will total at least $3.8 trillion this year—double what it was 10 years ago. And unlike in 2001, when there was a small federal surplus, this year's projected budget deficit is more than $1.6 trillion.
Several trillions more in debt have been accumulated by state and local governments. States are looking at a combined total of more than $130 billion in budget shortfalls this year. Next year, they will be in even worse shape as most so-called stimulus payments end.
For many years, I, my family and our company have contributed to a variety of intellectual and political causes working to solve these problems. Because of our activism, we've been vilified by various groups. Despite this criticism, we're determined to keep contributing and standing up for those politicians, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who are taking these challenges seriously.
Both Democrats and Republicans have done a poor job of managing our finances. They've raised debt ceilings, floated bond issues, and delayed tough decisions.
In spite of looming bankruptcy, President Obama and many in Congress have tiptoed around the issue of overspending by suggesting relatively minor cuts in mostly discretionary items. There have been few serious proposals for necessary cuts in military and entitlement programs, even though these account for about three-fourths of all federal spending.
Yes, some House leaders have suggested cutting spending to 2008 levels. But getting back to a balanced budget would mean a return to at least 2003 spending levels—and would still leave us with the problem of paying off our enormous debts.
Federal data indicate how urgently we need reform: The unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid already exceed $106 trillion. That's well over $300,000 for every man, woman and child in America (and exceeds the combined value of every U.S. bank account, stock certificate, building and piece of personal or public property).
The Congressional Budget Office has warned that the interest on our federal debt is "poised to skyrocket." Even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is sounding alarms. Yet the White House insists that substantial spending cuts would hurt the economy and increase unemployment.
Plenty of compelling examples indicate just the opposite. When Canada recently reduced its federal spending to 11.3% of GDP from 17.5% eight years earlier, the economy rebounded and unemployment dropped. By comparison, our federal spending is 25% of GDP.
Government spending on business only aggravates the problem. Too many businesses have successfully lobbied for special favors and treatment by seeking mandates for their products, subsidies (in the form of cash payments from the government), and regulations or tariffs to keep more efficient competitors at bay.
Crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market. But it erodes our overall standard of living and stifles entrepreneurs by rewarding the politically favored rather than those who provide what consumers want.
The purpose of business is to efficiently convert resources into products and services that make people's lives better. Businesses that fail to do so should be allowed to go bankrupt rather than be bailed out.
But what about jobs that are lost when businesses go under? It's important to remember that not all jobs are the same. In business, real jobs profitably produce goods and services that people value more highly than their alternatives. Subsidizing inefficient jobs is costly, wastes resources, and weakens our economy.
Because every other company in a given industry is accepting market-distorting programs, Koch companies have had little option but to do so as well, simply to remain competitive and help sustain our 50,000 U.S.-based jobs. However, even when such policies benefit us, we only support the policies that enhance true economic freedom.
For example, because of government mandates, our refining business is essentially obligated to be in the ethanol business. We believe that ethanol—and every other product in the marketplace—should be required to compete on its own merits, without mandates, subsidies or protective tariffs. Such policies only increase the prices of those products, taxes and the cost of many other goods and services.
Our elected officials would do well to remember that the most prosperous countries are those that allow consumers—not governments—to direct the use of resources. Allowing the government to pick winners and losers hurts almost everyone, especially our poorest citizens.
Recent studies show that the poorest 10% of the population living in countries with the greatest economic freedom have 10 times the per capita income of the poorest citizens in countries with the least economic freedom. In other words, society as a whole benefits from greater economic freedom.
Even though it affects our business, as a matter of principle our company has been outspoken in defense of economic freedom. This country would be much better off if every company would do the same. Instead, we see far too many businesses that paint their tails white and run with the antelope.
I am confident that businesses like ours will hire more people and invest in more equipment when our country's financial future looks more promising. Laying the groundwork for smaller, smarter government, especially at the federal level, is going to be tough. But it is essential for getting us back on the path to long-term prosperity.
Mr. Koch is chairman and CEO of Koch Industries, Inc. He's the author of "The Science of Success: How Market-Based Management Built the World's Largest Private Company" (Wiley, 2007).
03-01-2011, 09:47 PM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 70
Completely agree, Buzz. Here's an article in today's WSJ reiterating your point and good reading for all, IMO....
Charles G. Koch: Why Koch Industries Is Speaking Out - WSJ.com
Years of tremendous overspending by federal, state and local governments have brought us face-to-face with an economic crisis. Federal spending will total at least $3.8 trillion this year—double what it was 10 years ago. And unlike in 2001, when there was a small federal surplus, this year's projected budget deficit is more than $1.6 trillion.
Several trillions more in debt have been accumulated by state and local governments. States are looking at a combined total of more than $130 billion in budget shortfalls this year. Next year, they will be in even worse shape as most so-called stimulus payments end.
For many years, I, my family and our company have contributed to a variety of intellectual and political causes working to solve these problems. Because of our activism, we've been vilified by various groups. Despite this criticism, we're determined to keep contributing and standing up for those politicians, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who are taking these challenges seriously.
Both Democrats and Republicans have done a poor job of managing our finances. They've raised debt ceilings, floated bond issues, and delayed tough decisions.
In spite of looming bankruptcy, President Obama and many in Congress have tiptoed around the issue of overspending by suggesting relatively minor cuts in mostly discretionary items. There have been few serious proposals for necessary cuts in military and entitlement programs, even though these account for about three-fourths of all federal spending.
Yes, some House leaders have suggested cutting spending to 2008 levels. But getting back to a balanced budget would mean a return to at least 2003 spending levels—and would still leave us with the problem of paying off our enormous debts.
Federal data indicate how urgently we need reform: The unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid already exceed $106 trillion. That's well over $300,000 for every man, woman and child in America (and exceeds the combined value of every U.S. bank account, stock certificate, building and piece of personal or public property).
The Congressional Budget Office has warned that the interest on our federal debt is "poised to skyrocket." Even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is sounding alarms. Yet the White House insists that substantial spending cuts would hurt the economy and increase unemployment.
Plenty of compelling examples indicate just the opposite. When Canada recently reduced its federal spending to 11.3% of GDP from 17.5% eight years earlier, the economy rebounded and unemployment dropped. By comparison, our federal spending is 25% of GDP.
Government spending on business only aggravates the problem. Too many businesses have successfully lobbied for special favors and treatment by seeking mandates for their products, subsidies (in the form of cash payments from the government), and regulations or tariffs to keep more efficient competitors at bay.
Crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market. But it erodes our overall standard of living and stifles entrepreneurs by rewarding the politically favored rather than those who provide what consumers want.
The purpose of business is to efficiently convert resources into products and services that make people's lives better. Businesses that fail to do so should be allowed to go bankrupt rather than be bailed out.
But what about jobs that are lost when businesses go under? It's important to remember that not all jobs are the same. In business, real jobs profitably produce goods and services that people value more highly than their alternatives. Subsidizing inefficient jobs is costly, wastes resources, and weakens our economy.
Because every other company in a given industry is accepting market-distorting programs, Koch companies have had little option but to do so as well, simply to remain competitive and help sustain our 50,000 U.S.-based jobs. However, even when such policies benefit us, we only support the policies that enhance true economic freedom.
For example, because of government mandates, our refining business is essentially obligated to be in the ethanol business. We believe that ethanol—and every other product in the marketplace—should be required to compete on its own merits, without mandates, subsidies or protective tariffs. Such policies only increase the prices of those products, taxes and the cost of many other goods and services.
Our elected officials would do well to remember that the most prosperous countries are those that allow consumers—not governments—to direct the use of resources. Allowing the government to pick winners and losers hurts almost everyone, especially our poorest citizens.
Recent studies show that the poorest 10% of the population living in countries with the greatest economic freedom have 10 times the per capita income of the poorest citizens in countries with the least economic freedom. In other words, society as a whole benefits from greater economic freedom.
Even though it affects our business, as a matter of principle our company has been outspoken in defense of economic freedom. This country would be much better off if every company would do the same. Instead, we see far too many businesses that paint their tails white and run with the antelope.
I am confident that businesses like ours will hire more people and invest in more equipment when our country's financial future looks more promising. Laying the groundwork for smaller, smarter government, especially at the federal level, is going to be tough. But it is essential for getting us back on the path to long-term prosperity.
Mr. Koch is chairman and CEO of Koch Industries, Inc. He's the author of "The Science of Success: How Market-Based Management Built the World's Largest Private Company" (Wiley, 2007).
Charles G. Koch: Why Koch Industries Is Speaking Out - WSJ.com
Years of tremendous overspending by federal, state and local governments have brought us face-to-face with an economic crisis. Federal spending will total at least $3.8 trillion this year—double what it was 10 years ago. And unlike in 2001, when there was a small federal surplus, this year's projected budget deficit is more than $1.6 trillion.
Several trillions more in debt have been accumulated by state and local governments. States are looking at a combined total of more than $130 billion in budget shortfalls this year. Next year, they will be in even worse shape as most so-called stimulus payments end.
For many years, I, my family and our company have contributed to a variety of intellectual and political causes working to solve these problems. Because of our activism, we've been vilified by various groups. Despite this criticism, we're determined to keep contributing and standing up for those politicians, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who are taking these challenges seriously.
Both Democrats and Republicans have done a poor job of managing our finances. They've raised debt ceilings, floated bond issues, and delayed tough decisions.
In spite of looming bankruptcy, President Obama and many in Congress have tiptoed around the issue of overspending by suggesting relatively minor cuts in mostly discretionary items. There have been few serious proposals for necessary cuts in military and entitlement programs, even though these account for about three-fourths of all federal spending.
Yes, some House leaders have suggested cutting spending to 2008 levels. But getting back to a balanced budget would mean a return to at least 2003 spending levels—and would still leave us with the problem of paying off our enormous debts.
Federal data indicate how urgently we need reform: The unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid already exceed $106 trillion. That's well over $300,000 for every man, woman and child in America (and exceeds the combined value of every U.S. bank account, stock certificate, building and piece of personal or public property).
The Congressional Budget Office has warned that the interest on our federal debt is "poised to skyrocket." Even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is sounding alarms. Yet the White House insists that substantial spending cuts would hurt the economy and increase unemployment.
Plenty of compelling examples indicate just the opposite. When Canada recently reduced its federal spending to 11.3% of GDP from 17.5% eight years earlier, the economy rebounded and unemployment dropped. By comparison, our federal spending is 25% of GDP.
Government spending on business only aggravates the problem. Too many businesses have successfully lobbied for special favors and treatment by seeking mandates for their products, subsidies (in the form of cash payments from the government), and regulations or tariffs to keep more efficient competitors at bay.
Crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market. But it erodes our overall standard of living and stifles entrepreneurs by rewarding the politically favored rather than those who provide what consumers want.
The purpose of business is to efficiently convert resources into products and services that make people's lives better. Businesses that fail to do so should be allowed to go bankrupt rather than be bailed out.
But what about jobs that are lost when businesses go under? It's important to remember that not all jobs are the same. In business, real jobs profitably produce goods and services that people value more highly than their alternatives. Subsidizing inefficient jobs is costly, wastes resources, and weakens our economy.
Because every other company in a given industry is accepting market-distorting programs, Koch companies have had little option but to do so as well, simply to remain competitive and help sustain our 50,000 U.S.-based jobs. However, even when such policies benefit us, we only support the policies that enhance true economic freedom.
For example, because of government mandates, our refining business is essentially obligated to be in the ethanol business. We believe that ethanol—and every other product in the marketplace—should be required to compete on its own merits, without mandates, subsidies or protective tariffs. Such policies only increase the prices of those products, taxes and the cost of many other goods and services.
Our elected officials would do well to remember that the most prosperous countries are those that allow consumers—not governments—to direct the use of resources. Allowing the government to pick winners and losers hurts almost everyone, especially our poorest citizens.
Recent studies show that the poorest 10% of the population living in countries with the greatest economic freedom have 10 times the per capita income of the poorest citizens in countries with the least economic freedom. In other words, society as a whole benefits from greater economic freedom.
Even though it affects our business, as a matter of principle our company has been outspoken in defense of economic freedom. This country would be much better off if every company would do the same. Instead, we see far too many businesses that paint their tails white and run with the antelope.
I am confident that businesses like ours will hire more people and invest in more equipment when our country's financial future looks more promising. Laying the groundwork for smaller, smarter government, especially at the federal level, is going to be tough. But it is essential for getting us back on the path to long-term prosperity.
Mr. Koch is chairman and CEO of Koch Industries, Inc. He's the author of "The Science of Success: How Market-Based Management Built the World's Largest Private Company" (Wiley, 2007).
03-01-2011, 10:12 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
And my grandfather, my father, and I were all commissioned officers in the military....no union. My point is this, for every tax dollar an American pays to the federal, state or local government is one less dollar of discretionary income they have to purchase an airline ticket. Conversely, government employees, like military servicemen and women, "serve." Corporations, like ours, produce a commodity. If customers can't purchase a commodity, we perish.
The government hires servants, corporations hire employees. Never once in my 20 years in the military did I expect a union to represent me. I signed up to serve. Now, living in California, I have no interest in paying any more of my 10% of state income tax to fund any more incompetency or continue to add to an already bankrupt state.
The governor of Wisconsin, whether Republican or not, is right on. You can't write checks you can't cash. We, in the legacy airlines, have certainly bitten the bullet over the last 8 or nine years, while state government employees have seen a 28% increase in income (in CA, for example). This is not a left vs. right thing, this is a fiscally-responsible thing. God bless your parents and their service to Chicago and Illinois. Presently, I'm worried about my job at Delta, my children and their future. Color me a little bit uncertain, but I'm not hanging my future, or theirs, on our union or anything.
Nothing personal New. I just beg to differ.
The government hires servants, corporations hire employees. Never once in my 20 years in the military did I expect a union to represent me. I signed up to serve. Now, living in California, I have no interest in paying any more of my 10% of state income tax to fund any more incompetency or continue to add to an already bankrupt state.
The governor of Wisconsin, whether Republican or not, is right on. You can't write checks you can't cash. We, in the legacy airlines, have certainly bitten the bullet over the last 8 or nine years, while state government employees have seen a 28% increase in income (in CA, for example). This is not a left vs. right thing, this is a fiscally-responsible thing. God bless your parents and their service to Chicago and Illinois. Presently, I'm worried about my job at Delta, my children and their future. Color me a little bit uncertain, but I'm not hanging my future, or theirs, on our union or anything.
Nothing personal New. I just beg to differ.
Nothing personal at all. I still owe you a beer?
Discussion:
State government employees don't "serve" like you and your family did. (My thanks to you all.) They don't take an oath, they aren't elected, and they don't have to defend and protect the Constitution. Just like Boeing Corporation, and their military contracts, teachers are private citizens who are providing a "service" to the state. That service has a cost associated with it, just like any other program.*
(*In this case, the providers of the service have already agreed to a reduction in the cost --everything the governor asked for. So, what does having a public service union or a teachers union have to do with bankrupting the state?)
States are very much like corporations, too. Just think of the citizens of Wisconsin as members of the Wisconsin Frequent Flyers Program. If the Governor now and his successors can't work it out, the state will perish just as surely as any airline would, as the frequent flyer members will leave and go to other airlines. People moved to California in droves because of all the great programs. But, now that taxes are on their way up, people will leave. It happens all the time.
Private sector unions and public sector unions do the same thing. Their union doesn't do anything different than our union does. So, if the teachers press too hard, the state has to raise taxes, people move, and there is less need for teachers. So, why is it that a teacher, who is a private citizen, who is a professional, just as we are private citizens and professionals, any less deserving of union representation than we are?
New K Now
Last edited by newKnow; 03-01-2011 at 10:45 PM.
03-01-2011, 11:41 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Why not improve the regional lifestyle though your MEC too?!? Take a stand! 
There is limits to how much 'gain' you can get out of a deal when the NMB controls your destiny. The NMB exists to get a deal accomplished, not to let a strike/lockout occur because "you deserve more".
03-02-2011, 02:09 AM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
FDR opposed public sector unions
Roosevelt openly opposed bargaining rights for government unions.
"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the National Federation of Federal Employees. Yes, public workers may demand fair treatment, wrote Roosevelt. But, he wrote, "I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place" in the public sector. "A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government."
RealClearPolitics - FDR's Ghost Is Smiling on Wisconsin's Governor
Why not have a union as a member of the military? Same reason as stated above.
Private unions create profits and have competition. Public unions are monopolies that raise taxes.
"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the National Federation of Federal Employees. Yes, public workers may demand fair treatment, wrote Roosevelt. But, he wrote, "I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place" in the public sector. "A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government."
RealClearPolitics - FDR's Ghost Is Smiling on Wisconsin's Governor
Why not have a union as a member of the military? Same reason as stated above.
Private unions create profits and have competition. Public unions are monopolies that raise taxes.
03-02-2011, 03:29 AM
Weekend and Holiday Pilot
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Sippin' at the Troubadour
Posts: 1,142
And my grandfather, my father, and I were all commissioned officers in the military....no union. My point is this, for every tax dollar an American pays to the federal, state or local government is one less dollar of discretionary income they have to purchase an airline ticket. Conversely, government employees, like military servicemen and women, "serve." Corporations, like ours, produce a commodity. If customers can't purchase a commodity, we perish.
The government hires servants, corporations hire employees. Never once in my 20 years in the military did I expect a union to represent me. I signed up to serve. Now, living in California, I have no interest in paying any more of my 10% of state income tax to fund any more incompetency or continue to add to an already bankrupt state.
The governor of Wisconsin, whether Republican or not, is right on. You can't write checks you can't cash. We, in the legacy airlines, have certainly bitten the bullet over the last 8 or nine years, while state government employees have seen a 28% increase in income (in CA, for example). This is not a left vs. right thing, this is a fiscally-responsible thing. God bless your parents and their service to Chicago and Illinois. Presently, I'm worried about my job at Delta, my children and their future. Color me a little bit uncertain, but I'm not hanging my future, or theirs, on our union or anything.
Nothing personal New. I just beg to differ.
The government hires servants, corporations hire employees. Never once in my 20 years in the military did I expect a union to represent me. I signed up to serve. Now, living in California, I have no interest in paying any more of my 10% of state income tax to fund any more incompetency or continue to add to an already bankrupt state.
The governor of Wisconsin, whether Republican or not, is right on. You can't write checks you can't cash. We, in the legacy airlines, have certainly bitten the bullet over the last 8 or nine years, while state government employees have seen a 28% increase in income (in CA, for example). This is not a left vs. right thing, this is a fiscally-responsible thing. God bless your parents and their service to Chicago and Illinois. Presently, I'm worried about my job at Delta, my children and their future. Color me a little bit uncertain, but I'm not hanging my future, or theirs, on our union or anything.
Nothing personal New. I just beg to differ.
03-02-2011, 03:38 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 737 Capt
Posts: 1,166
Not to knock sports or entertainment........ But does anybody else find it appalling that we are willing to pay millions to a guy for catching a ball or an actor making a 30 minute sitcom yet have a cow about how much teachers are paid?
03-02-2011, 03:41 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
03-02-2011, 03:45 AM
Kerbal Rocket Surgeon
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DTW 717A
Posts: 1,099
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
