Deny NAI

[IKE]

Not my best effort...I'm going to have to raise my game before I go back to staff work...

I'm a little rusty on identifying logical fallacies - straw man maybe?

Anyhow, under capitalism, the military is one means by which the government performs its only valid purpose: defense of individual rights. The way in which we're compensated is almost certainly a matter of expedience (it's too hard to think about doing it any other way). I accept the socialist-esque style of military life because I want to defend constitutional principles, not because I like being paid the same as every other LT.

No, goverment per se is not the problem, but central planning, socialism, fascism, entitlements, protectionism, etc. are.

 

[IRfly]

The idea that the only valid purpose of government is to protect individual rights is an extremist one. Not sure where it came from--certainly not the U.S. Constitution...

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

[azguy]

Edit: And if there's one thing I love, it's someone who works for the government, who's on a fixed salary not determined by performance, who never pays for any medical treatment, who shops at government stores, either lives in government housing or uses a government subsidy for housing, and who (hopefully) espouses a leadership ethic of something similar to "Mission First, People Always" calling himself a "capitalist." Someone should make a meme out of that.

You're fucking insane. So we should privately fund the military? And no one in the military can possibly understand the free market? And unions are great for the economy? Does that sum it up?

 

[IRfly]

You're fucking insane. So we should privately fund the military? And no one in the military can possibly understand the free market? And unions are great for the economy? Does that sum it up?

Er...that's what you got out of my post?

Suddenly your descriptions of yourself as a "capitalist" and Obama as a trade protectionist make a lot more sense.

 

[IKE]

The idea that the only valid purpose of government is to protect individual rights is an extremist one...

Extremism and truth are not correlated.

Heliocentrism, General Relativity, and Christianity were all extremist views. Atheism, capitalism, and skepticism about global warming are all extremist views now. So what?

 

[azguy]

Er...that's what you got out of my post?

Suddenly your descriptions of yourself as a "capitalist" and Obama as a trade protectionist make a lot more sense.

Let me reiterate nice and slow for you... Do you think that someone on active duty can't criticize unions and other social programs? That's what you're "witty" meme suggests... Care to clarify?

 

[IRfly]

Extremism and truth are not correlated.

Heliocentrism, General Relativity, and Christianity were all extremist views. Atheism, capitalism, and skepticism about global warming are all extremist views now. So what?

So, I reject your extremist premise that the only purpose of government is to protect individual rights. The U.S. Constitution, it turns out, also rejects your extremist premise.

No, goverment per se is not the problem, but central planning, socialism, fascism, entitlements, protectionism, etc. are.

I agree that some of these can be quite problematic at times. But this is lot of words with big and, in some cases, varied meanings. Not worth writing a book about here.

 

[IRfly]

Let me reiterate nice and slow for you... Do you think that someone on active duty can't criticize unions and other social programs? That's what you're "witty" meme suggests... Care to clarify?

Thanks, I like it when people type nice and slow for me. I'm surprised the (pretty shitty) meme hurt your feelings so badly. But I looked at it again and didn't see anything about unions, social programs, Keynesian vs. Chicago economics, etc. So in spite of your going nice and slow for me, I still don't understand where you got privatized military (although that's kind of a thing these days), military can't understand economics, blah blah

BUT...Since you asked so nicely, I'm happy to tell you what I think about people on active duty criticizing unions and other social programs. Of course they can! Bonus points if they know what the fuck they're talking about.

And it's very clear that you STILL have not gone to teh googles and figured out what TPA is, how it relates to TTIP and TPP, and what the Obama administration's position is. If you had, you probably would have typed nice and slowly something like, "Geez, IRFly, I didn't know that the Obama administration has gone through bruising battles in Congress, fighting both his own party and the opposition, in order to push for the biggest free trade deals in the history of the world. Thanks for pointing that out so I don't sound like an ignorant jackass in the future when I discuss the Obama administration's relationship with unions and positions on trade and protectionism."

Aaaaaand...Back on topic...

http://www.businessinsider.com/norwegian-air-international-america-boeing-2016-4

 

[azguy]

Thanks, I like it when people type nice and slow for me. I'm surprised the (pretty shitty) meme hurt your feelings so badly. But I looked at it again and didn't see anything about unions, social programs, Keynesian vs. Chicago economics, etc. So in spite of your going nice and slow for me, I still don't understand where you got privatized military (although that's kind of a thing these days), military can't understand economics, blah blah

BUT...Since you asked so nicely, I'm happy to tell you what I think about people on active duty criticizing unions and other social programs. Of course they can! Bonus points if they know what the fuck they're talking about.

And it's very clear that you STILL have not gone to teh googles and figured out what TPA is, how it relates to TTIP and TPP, and what the Obama administration's position is. If you had, you probably would have typed nice and slowly something like, "Geez, IRFly, I didn't know that the Obama administration has gone through bruising battles in Congress, fighting both his own party and the opposition, in order to push for the biggest free trade deals in the history of the world. Thanks for pointing that out so I don't sound like an ignorant jackass in the future when I discuss the Obama administration's relationship with unions and positions on trade and protectionism."

Aaaaaand...Back on topic...

http://www.businessinsider.com/norwegian-air-international-america-boeing-2016-4

To be very clear... I'm probably one of the more moderate guys you'll ever meet. Not a big (Bill) Clinton or Obama fan at all, but I'm all about NAFTA, TTIP, TPP, and probably about any free trade agreement you can find. I do enjoy the irony of a bunch of ex-military, conservative Republicans that cling to their pro-government, ALPA union, which is what my first two comments in this thread were alluding to.

In terms of they NAI- I like to travel to Europe; and I'd love to do it for half the current price of airfare, which is what NAI is quoting.

I, frankly, don't care how much American pilots and flight attendants are paid. If you think that makes me a douche; I'd ask whether you also support McDonalds burger flippers making $15/hr?

 

[IRfly]

Do you understand that the Obama administration has fought tooth and nail, almost unreservedly, for the reduction of trade barriers, and in so doing has taken fire from all sides of the political spectrum?

And if you do understand that, why do you find this decision by the Department of Transportation surprising?

 

[azguy]

Dude - if you haven't been able to ascertain yet - that comment was probably due smily face.

My question for you -- why are you opposed to the reduction of trade barriers/free trade?

 

[IRfly]

Not buying it. You said you were surprised by the Obama admin's actions, and then repeated that you were surprised. C'mon...Just admit that today you learned that Obama isn't the commie protectionist that you thought he was.

And that you walked into a forum full of union airline pilots and told them to go f*ck themselves so that you could save a little coin the next time you want to go visit socialist Europe.

 

[azguy]

Not buying it. You said you were surprised by the Obama admin's actions, and then repeated that you were surprised. C'mon...Just admit that today you learned that Obama isn't the commie protectionist that you thought he was.

And that you walked into a forum full of union airline pilots and told them to go f*ck themselves so that you could save a little coin the next time you want to go visit socialist Europe.

So democratic presidents have a couple decades of history, at this point, of going against their own union overlords to do what's best for the country. They always take a beating for it from the left. Hilary is still taking shit for Bill signing NAFTA 20 years ago. But I've got to give credit where it's due, Clinton and Obama were both able to put their union agenda aside to do the right thing.

This isn't an airline forum, as far as I know, it's a forum of naval officers. And as I mentioned, it's not "a little coin," NAI is quoting hundreds of dollars of savings for a Trans-Atlantic flight. Multiply that savings by all of the people that fly those routes every day, week, year. I think that savings, and economic win, is well worth the lost wages of the airline crews; being objective, don't you agree?

 

[Flash]

...And as I mentioned, it's not "a little coin," NAI is quoting hundreds of dollars of savings for a Trans-Atlantic flight. Multiply that savings by all of the people that fly those routes every day, week, year. I think that savings, and economic win, is well worth the lost wages of the airline crews; being objective, don't you agree?

The airline industry is a pretty rare one in which the laborers, in this case the pilots, have to be very highly trained and skilled and as a result are very hard to replace with competent personnel. The quality of the pilots can have huge impact on the operation of the company unlike any other, if they aren't good the main cargo (people) can be killed. And again, unlike almost any other industry, it can have an outsized impact on the company (regulatory, financial, etc.) and its survival. The quality of the pilots is held to a high standard in the US and western Europe and it is evident in the accident rate for the airlines in those regions, especially when compared to many airlines in other parts of the world. I can point to scores of accidents, many of them very recent, where inadequate training, inexperience and standards cost hundreds of passengers and crew their lives and the vast majority of those more recent accidents were in countries and airlines that are substandard.

The scheme that NAI has set up is one that is ripe for the development of substandard pilots with minimal training and qualifications and the subsequent safety issues that will almost certainly result. The average paying passenger isn't going to care until one of their airplanes falls out of the sky but the chances of that happening with the type of aircrew NAI is planning to employ are a lot higher than I would be comfortable with.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

The airline industry is a pretty rare one in which the laborers, in this case the pilots, have to be very highly trained and skilled and as a result are very hard to replace with competent personnel. The quality of the pilots can have huge impact on the operation of the company unlike any other, if they aren't good the main cargo (people) can be killed. And again, unlike almost any other industry, it can have an outsized impact on the company (regulatory, financial, etc.) and its survival. The quality of the pilots is held to a high standard in the US and western Europe and it is evident in the accident rate for the airlines in those regions, especially when compared to many airlines in other parts of the world. I can point to scores of accidents, many of them very recent, where inadequate training, inexperience and standards cost hundreds of passengers and crew their lives and the vast majority of those more recent accidents were in countries and airlines that are substandard.

The scheme that NAI has set up is one that is ripe for the development of substandard pilots with minimal training and qualifications and the subsequent safety issues that will almost certainly result. The average paying passenger isn't going to care until one of their airplanes falls out of the sky but the chances of that happening with the type of aircrew NAI is planning to employ are a lot higher than I would be comfortable with.

Yeah but I get to be crammed in with a bunch of other people looking to save a hundred bucks on an airline that doesn't play by the same rules our government forces our airlines to adhere to. Free trade, right?