At 09:35 PM 6/22/2002 -0700, Greg Newbold wrote: > Seems to me the flight attendents may be killing the golden goose. > Despite the mayhem caused on Sep 11th, I predict unlicensed flight > attendents could quickly be replaced. Unfortunately they are not in the > professional league of the pilots and machinists. First off, what is an "unlicensed flight attendent" and what makes them unprofessional? Are you referring to the fact that flight attendants don't need to be certified or licensed to do their jobs, unlike pilots and machinists? That might broaden the pool of potential applicants, but it's not like pilots and machinists are in such a constrained labor pool that they control the marketplace. As far as I can tell, all three job categories are employers' markets, not applicants' markets. Furthermore, I don't see why you call flight attendants unprofessional. While horror stories about bad flight attendants abound, they are as trained and professional as many occupations. It's not like you can take any ten people off the street and have them staff the cabin of a 747-400 a few hours later. Tradesmen, such as plumbers and carpenters, aren't licensed either. Should they lose their rights to collective action, too? Coal minors? Are hair dressers more entitled to strike because some states have "cosmetology license boards"? > IMHO the flight attendents, and all other airline groups, should be > focusing on the survivability of the airline and preservation of their > jobs which may include a 5% pay cut. Frankly I suspected management would > ask for 20% to bring their costs down. Airline management teams have cried "Wolf" so often, they're losing credibility. I'm not saying the unions are blameless, nor that they shouldn't agree to wage concessions, but how quickly would those wage concessions be restored, compare to other reductions in cost? >Am I off base? I think you're being simplistic in your analysis and ignoring the history of management/union negotiations over the past few decades. >Greg Nick