Author Topic: Delta in Deep (Read 1606 times)

beet1e · « **Reply #45 on:** January 24, 2005, 01:13:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
beet1e, I think you have just shown why a socialist monoploy created by a government is a bad thing. How many market created monopolies can you think of? How many socialist government ones can you think of?

If you're talking about British Airways and their unfair competition against easyJet, it has nothing to do with socialist government or market created monopolies. EasyJet did not exist until 1995, but British Airways has been a private company since 1987. And it isn't a monopoly. It just wishes it was.

Thrawn · « **Reply #46 on:** January 24, 2005, 01:20:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
If you're talking about British Airways and their unfair competition against easyJet, it has nothing to do with socialist government or market created monopolies. EasyJet did not exist until 1995, but British Airways has been a private company since 1987. And it isn't a monopoly. It just wishes it was.

But British Airways did have a socialist monoploy which is the reason it's in a position where it can use it's power to try and break EasyJet.

beet1e · « **Reply #47 on:** January 24, 2005, 02:10:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
But British Airways did have a socialist monoploy which is the reason it's in a position where it can use it's power to try and break EasyJet.

No, and no. British Airways never was a "socialist" monopoly. We've always had other carriers as well, such as Britannia Airways and British Midland, both of which existed back in the 1960s. And the attempts by British Airways to break easyJet were unfair and illegal trading practices - as were their attempts to procure Virgin Atlantic business. It has nothing to do with "socialism" or "monopolies". As a matter of fact, both cases occurred in the 1990s - long after BA was privatised - during the Thatcher government. Whatever anyone thinks of that government, it most certainly was not socialist!

Toad · « **Reply #48 on:** January 24, 2005, 02:35:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by cpxxx
Even the pilots have to pay for their own uniforms and medicals.

The company never paid for any of my uniforms and it wasn't until the last contract that you could even submit your medical as meeting part of your deductible; they didn't really pay for them.

So, this certainly isn't unique to Ryanair.

Dago · « **Reply #49 on:** January 24, 2005, 03:03:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
The company never paid for any of my uniforms and it wasn't until the last contract that you could even submit your medical as meeting part of your deductible; they didn't really pay for them.

So, this certainly isn't unique to Ryanair.

That is what I was thinking.

dago

Thrawn · « **Reply #50 on:** January 24, 2005, 03:45:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
No, and no. British Airways never was a "socialist" monopoly. We've always had other carriers as well, such as Britannia Airways and British Midland, both of which existed back in the 1960s.

So, were those other carriers allowed to fly routes where BA was given a monoploy by the government?

Quote

And the attempts by British Airways to break easyJet were unfair and illegal trading practices - as were their attempts to procure Virgin Atlantic business.

That's what we are discussing, wither or not those actions should be illegal.

beet1e · « **Reply #51 on:** January 24, 2005, 04:42:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
So, were those other carriers allowed to fly routes where BA was given a monoploy by the government?

I am not aware of any routes being "given a monopoly" by the British government, whilst excluding other British carriers. Are you?

Thrawn · « **Reply #52 on:** January 24, 2005, 10:26:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
I am not aware of any routes being "given a monopoly" by the British government, whilst excluding other British carriers. Are you?

Of course. But once again you are confusing "being" with "been".

beet1e · « **Reply #53 on:** January 25, 2005, 02:38:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
Of course. But once again you are confusing "being" with "been".

No, this is the first time, and no - "being given a monopoly" does not necessarily relate to the present or even the recent past. Eg. "I am aware of germany being defeated in WW2" is a valid statement, even though it happened long ago.

But please do enlighten me. Give details of the routes, and name the other carriers that were barred from flying those routes so that they could be preserved for British Airways, and I'll find out what I can.

I'll be away today and tonight, so I'll get back to you tomorrow if I've heard from you by then.

TP

Lazerus · « **Reply #54 on:** January 25, 2005, 04:47:42 AM »

I typed a long explanation, but erased it for a simpler presentation.

One of the leading contributors to US airliners loss of profitability is the legal blackmail of the airlines by the unions. Wages that don't match the market.

Charon · « **Reply #55 on:** January 25, 2005, 09:41:11 AM »

Quote

It doesn't force the drivers to do anything. They choose to continue working in that field, you know that freedom thing again. If they feel like they aren't getting proper wages considering thier time and resources they invested into the trade then they can leave it. Younger people that once considered trucking don't get into it. I imagine because of regulation there was an over supply of labour in the field, as it was more profitable for the trucker. So truckers leave or don't enter the field, supply drops, demand goes up, wages go up.

That is exactly what is happening in trucking today. There is poised to be a HUGE driver shortage due to far fewer new drivers (pay/hours/image), new anti-terrorist regulations/background checks (cutting some existing drivers) and an aging base of existing drivers. The trucking industry seems to have realized that, but they are a bit on the backside of the wave. Not a bad field to get into in the near future.

Charon

Toad · « **Reply #56 on:** January 25, 2005, 09:42:17 AM »

Here's an even simpler presentation.

When I joined DAL in 1980 we had about 8 Vice Presidents.

When I left DAL in 2003 we had about 40+ Vice Presidents.

We were not 5X larger in '03 than '80; we were about 2X larger.

cpxxx · « **Reply #57 on:** January 25, 2005, 12:05:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
The company never paid for any of my uniforms and it wasn't until the last contract that you could even submit your medical as meeting part of your deductible; they didn't really pay for them.

So, this certainly isn't unique to Ryanair.

Well maybe Toad, but check out this site. Ryanair is non union but that may change because of this kind of thing being perpetrated by the management.

Watch out this is one possible future for airline pilots in low cost carriers. I can back up most of it as I have several friends flying for Ryanair.

http://www.ryan-be-fair.org/news/halfmilhits.htm

Toad · « **Reply #58 on:** January 25, 2005, 12:41:48 PM »

From your source:

Quote

From flight crew:

"pilots working in the company be it 1 month or 15 years now have to pay all expenses whilst being converted from the 200 on to the 800. They have to pay their own transport (including airfares - as they are off duty), food and accommodation for the duration of their conversion training 4-6 weeks and during line training. And also sign a 2 year bond.

I never had to pay for any of my training once I was hired. I bought some training (Citation ATP) prior to getting hired.

Paying for training is pretty bad, I agree. However, everytime you see some dolt wearing a "Will Fly For Food" T-shirt you can understand how they get away from it.

Quote

Also bear in mind that they will not be paid sector pay whilst training either - this will bring the cost directly to the pilot of over 4000.

I have no idea what "sector pay" is but it sounds like they're getting a double hit on pay in this deal.

Quote

What other company would send an employee away for training and expect them to pay for their own transport, food and accommodation on top of all the other annual expenses now incurred.

Just about every flying operation that thinks they can get away with it. Lots of the commuter lines do it here.

Quote

They have reached a new low in employee relations"

It's been some time since employees were viewed as assets. They are now viewed as liabilities. This leads directly to "new lows" in employee relations.

Quote

"Contracts within Ryanair arnt worth the paper they are printed on. The company changes the terms as they see fit and if you dont like it you can leave. Its a disgrace. The ONLY thing that drives Ryanair is its persuit of the almighty dollar. A business should care about its employies Ryanair doesnt at all. All they care about is that they are cheap. We (Flight Deck) have have veiled threats as to what will hapen if we

In this, Ryanair is EXACTLY like every other airline right now. It's why the Unions exist. The only thing worse than a Union is ..... no Union.

Any contract is only as good as the Union's "Contract Administration" committee. The company will always try to cheat; you have to be willing to take them to Grievance and Arbitration on every single violation or before you know it... you have no contract.

So, again, I see little difference in Ryanair and all the rest at present.

Thrawn · « **Reply #59 on:** January 25, 2005, 10:40:52 PM »

Hey beet1e, BA was given a monopoly over routes by your government.

DO...YOU...UNDERSTAND...THIS?

DO...YOU...WANT...TO...ARGUE. ..THE...POINT...?