August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[767one]

So I guess this means you are okay with all representatives of Congress (and all their staffers) being given a waiver for having to adhere to the "law of the land" and enroll in the ACA. My strong feelings are if it's so great, why are they also not willing to participate in this program? They knowingly excluded themselves. Also, I'm no fan of either political party, but if big business and major political contributors are granted waivers for one year... why not the average Joe, i.e. the American citizens?... which was one of the pieces of legislation sent to the Senate by the House... and was promptly shot down by Reid.

Actually those representatives and staffers are given a waiver on many issues that you and I pay for. ACA is but a very small part of that. Our politicians have become part of the aristocracy and are much better that you and I. I'm not a fan of ACA but we have to realize that is only the tip of the iceberg. I wouldn't shut down the government over ACA when the bigger issue is that our elected reps (Dems and Rebublican) have put themselves above those they are supposed to represent. They should not have one thing more than the citizens they purport to represent. Their pensions should be no more secure than our pensions and their medical care should be the same as ours all the way to the presidency. If the government runs out of funds then why not do to their pensions the same as they allowed to be done to ours?

All the best,

Bob

 

[CallawayGolf]

Trader

I find the last few posts you have made to be interesting. Perhaps you will concede that those of us who consider longevity to be a foundational and self evident principle in the context of unionism should at the very least be acknowledged as holding a legitimate point of view, regardless of what an arbitrator rules.

'84

Breaking a contractual agreement which harms the other party does not square with the moral law, unless the other party - of their own volition - mutually agrees to modify the original terms of the agreement.

There's a substantial difference between disobeying an immoral law that you had nothing to do with coming into existence and breaking a contract which was freely entered into by two or more parties for the parties mutual benefit. The terms of such an agreement are clearly stated up front and you (collectively) were under no obligation to accept the terms of the contract.

 

[Res Judicata]

My rights are inalienable and not dependant on who sits on the Supreme Court at the time.

The Supreme Court can rule that I don't have the right to bear arms but that don't make it so.

That's the way it is.

Really? So the opinion of one human being is superior to another's because you like the sound of it? What rights are inalienable? When that was written, did it apply to anyone that wasn't a wealthy white land owner? Are you fking high? What country do you think you live in? Eurodisney? The republicans are pulling a USAPA because they think it will improve their lives at he expense of others...fully disregarding the law,( you know, the accepted process).

 

[traderjake]

I find the last few posts you have made to be interesting. Perhaps you will concede that those of us who consider longevity to be a foundational and self evident principle in the context of unionism should at the very least be acknowledged as holding a legitimate point of view, regardless of what an arbitrator rules.

You mean multiple arbitrators in multiple arbitrations?

The point of view is legitimate.

The reneging on a mutually agreed upon arbitration process is not moral IMO.

As a group we took action based on the majority view we'll see if we get punished or not (maybe by a judge, maybe by another arbitrator).

 

[767one]

Only the ones that I agree are just and Constitutional.

In his “letter from Birmingham jail” Martin Luther King jr. writes

“One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”

“A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.“

http://themoderatevo...1JtQLzqwedEM.99

While I don't want to minimize Dr Kings contributions to society I would have to question whose moral law are you referring to? I don't know if they are written somewhere or if they are the same in every person. There are many morals and like it or not many Gods because there are quite a few religions.

All the best,

Bob

 

[end_of_alpa]

Really? So the opinion of one human being is superior to another's because you like the sound of it? What rights are inalienable? When that was written, did it apply to anyone that wasn't a wealthy white land owner? Are you fking high? What country do you think you live in? Eurodisney? The republicans are pulling a USAPA because they think it will improve their lives at he expense of others...fully disregarding the law,( you know, the accepted process).

Take from the rich and give to the poor, right "Robin Hood"? Spoken like a true liberal Democrat..."Robbin" and therefore a "Hood".

 

[CallawayGolf]

Really? So the opinion of one human being is superior to another's because you like the sound of it? What rights are inalienable? When that was written, did it apply to anyone that wasn't a wealthy white land owner? Are you fking high? What country do you think you live in? Eurodisney? The republicans are pulling a USAPA because they think it will improve their lives at he expense of others...fully disregarding the law,( you know, the accepted process).

What law are the "Republicans" not obeying? The took an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution (not that anyone in D.C. knows what that means) and are only obligated to vote in such a way that does not violate that oath. If someone ran on a platform of opposing and defunding Obamacare at all costs and were elected by their constituents to do just that, what law are they breaking? The Constitution is quite clear that all spending/budget legislation is to originate in the House. The House passed a spending bill which is exactly what they are Constitutionally required to do. The Senate and the Executive branch on the other hand, are precluded from doing the same and there is a reason for that as intended by the founding fathers... namely because the House of Representatives are significantly closer to the "will of the people" as they are in smaller districts than the Senate or the POTUS and they are up for re-election ever two years not four or six.

 

[traderjake]

Really? So the opinion of one human being is superior to another's because you like the sound of it? What rights are inalienable? When that was written, did it apply to anyone that wasn't a wealthy white land owner? Are you fking high? What country do you think you live in? Eurodisney? The republicans are pulling a USAPA because they think it will improve their lives at he expense of others...fully disregarding the law,( you know, the accepted process).

A liberal lawyer siding with the Democrats, I didn't see that coming.

The law says the the House controls the power of the purse.

You don't like the Constitution much, do you?

How about the Magna Carta, it was written by white men too?

 

[end_of_alpa]

Actually those representatives and staffers are given a waiver on many issues that you and I pay for. ACA is but a very small part of that. Our politicians have become part of the aristocracy and are much better that you and I. I'm not a fan of ACA but we have to realize that is only the tip of the iceberg. I wouldn't shut down the government over ACA when the bigger issue is that our elected reps (Dems and Rebublican) have put themselves above those they are supposed to represent. They should not have one thing more than the citizens they purport to represent. Their pensions should be no more secure than our pensions and their medical care should be the same as ours all the way to the presidency. If the government runs out of funds then why not do to their pensions the same as they allowed to be done to ours?

All the best,

Bob

Nero "fiddles" while Rome (the US) burns. Hope the Republicans stand their ground. The ONLY Democratic President that actually got it right was Kennedy when he said: "And so, my fellow Americans: Ask not what your country can do for you....ask what YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY." We're an entrepreneurial society with a Communist Leader....BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Breaking a contractual agreement which harms the other party does not square with the moral law, unless the other party - of their own volition - mutually agrees to modify the original terms of the agreement.

There's a substantial difference between disobeying an immoral law that you had nothing to do with coming into existence and breaking a contract which was freely entered into by two or more parties for the parties mutual benefit. The terms of such an agreement are clearly stated up front and you (collectively) were under no obligation to accept the terms of the contract.

In your own words (by that I mean the words of your west colleagues in past posts) you WERE willing to modify the terms. You RECOGNIZED where and how the award fell short of what was fair and equitable. You were WILLING to consider modifications in the form of C&RS to mitigate the effects of the Nic. But unfortunately, a solution ( at Wye River and the attempts since) was not to be. I just want you to acknowledge that the Nic was flawed, it was much more than you expected in our merger and it precipitated the righteous indignation that followed.

 

[Reed Richards]

First, something is wrong with the forum, the Water Cooler forum comes up when I select the US Airways forum. Let me try this: There was a dispute between a group (those that passed the ACA) and a dissenting group as to whether the mandate in Obamacare was actually an illegal tax. By birth, as citizens of the USA we are born into a Class that is governed by three branches of government, using checks and balances. The legal “process occurred” and with the surprising help of the Chief Justice the ACA was allowed to proceed. A very disgruntled group of USA class citizens are so unhappy with the award that they seek to change their Representatives in order to repeal the terrible wrong they perceive. But those that wanted the ACA as written say the others are keeping them from enjoying the benefits of the bill by so intensely fighting it tooth and nail. The bill as written indeed benefits some citizens, but there are parts of the bill that also are perceived to be grossly unfair to others. How far do I have to go with this analogy. Anyone? RR

 

[traderjake]

House of Representatives are significantly closer to the "will of the people" as they are in smaller districts than the Senate or the POTUS and they are up for re-election ever two years not four or six.

Exactly.

 

[Phoenix]

You mean multiple arbitrators in multiple arbitrations?

The point of view is legitimate.

The reneging on a mutually agreed upon arbitration process is not moral IMO.

As a group we took action based on the majority view we'll see if we get punished or not (maybe by a judge, maybe by another arbitrator).

Let's put this in terms you understand.... My seniority is an inalienable right. 😀

 

[traderjake]

You mean your longevity?

Now the world makes sense again. 😀

 

[CallawayGolf]

In your own words (by that I mean the words of your west colleagues in past posts) you WERE willing to modify the terms. You RECOGNIZED where and how the award fell short of what was fair and equitable. You were WILLING to consider modifications in the form of C&RS to mitigate the effects of the Nic. But unfortunately, a solution ( at Wye River and the attempts since) was not to be. I just want you to acknowledge that the Nic was flawed, it was much more than you expected in our merger and it precipitated the righteous indignation that followed.

If you are asking my opinion, then the NIC isn't flawed:
* Protect those actively flying WB from being displaced (east only issue) - check;
* Protect NB captains from being displaced - check
* Protect active NB FOs from being displaced by those on furloughed status - check
* Place those on furlough junior to those who are actively holding their employment status and seat position - check.

What's not fair; what's not equitable? What's to renegotiate?