This past week Boeing announced that the youngest B-52 in service with the USAF had reached 50 years of age.
That’s right folks, the YOUNGEST aircraft in the USAF B-52 fleet has been flying for half a century. 76 B-52’s remain in the USAF fleet. The B-52 got its designation because it first flew in 1952.
It doesn’t end there, though – the B-52 fleet is expected to remain in service past 2040. That means some of the planes will have been flying for 80 years. It is conceivable that someone might fly into combat on the exact same bird their great grandfather flew on deterrence patrol. The 2040 date, for that matter, assumes that the retirement of the fleet (once scheduled for LAST CENTURY) isn’t pushed out AGAIN.
Why is the USAF flying such elderly aircraft? Well, let’s first note that while the B-52’s are the extreme for combat aircraft, they’re hardly the only aging birds in the fleet. In fact, the average age of the USAF’s 5,000+ aircraft is 23 years. For comparison, during Vietnam the average age was nine years.
The last KC-135, still the backbone of the aerial refueling fleet, rolled off the lines in 1965. There are still over 400 in inventory, including 183 assigned to active units. They are supplemented by a mere 60 of the ‘modern’ (last built 1987) KC-10. The FIRST delivery of the replacement, the KC-46 which I’m working on, is still years away.
The F-15 first flew in the 1970’s. The latest model, the F-15E, dates from the 1980’s… and is still in production for overseas customers though the last one for the USAF was built in 2001.
The C-130 first flew in the 1950’s.
OK, I think you get the picture.
But still… why are we flying 50 year old bombers? Well, for one thing, if we just retired them we’d lose 40% of the heavy bomber fleet. Aside from the B-52 there are only 20 B-2’s (1990’s) and about ninety B-1’s (1980’s) in service with NOTHING in the pipeline. OK, there’s the ‘next generation bomber’ or whatever we’re calling it now, but that’s essentially a blank sheet of paper with the earliest forecast delivery in the 2020’s.
Not all is doom and gloom! The F-35 is brand new. So new that although it first flew in 2006 it still isn’t cleared for operational use.
OK, maybe all is doom and gloom. Do we need a mandatory retirement age for airplanes?
Monday, October 29, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
Interesting and Slightly Creepy
A friend sent me a link to this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&
It is titled "How Companies Learn Your Secrets" and is primarily about retailers (using Target as an example) using data mining and targeted promotions to make people better customers. Notably, figuring out when a woman is starting her 2nd trimester based on what she buys and sending her tailored coupon offers to change her shopping habits. While the reporter didn't have access to the data he needed to prove it works (in fairness, he admits this) it sure seems to based on what he presented. Slightly creepy.
Underlying that, however, it is about learned behavior - what the author calls the cue-routine-reward loop. This is the interesting part.
We've all heard about muscle memory. We all know how hard it can be to break a habit, and how often even after we 'break' it we regress. Our brain is capable of being programed to do certain tasks (even complex ones) without much or any conscious thought. The reporter used backing out of your driveway as an example - when you first learn to drive backing up is hard; lots of actions to perform in the correct order. If you've been driving for years you probably back out of the driveway without thinking about it. I sure do. Once you have you get a tiny mental 'reward' - stress of backing up drops off and you're on your way. Cue: getting in the car. Routine: back out. Reward: hard part done, into drive and go! Yay!
To break bad habits it helps to recognize both the cue and the reward, while what we naturally focus on is the routine. If we just change the routine and fail to recognize the cue or provide a reward, we'll probably repeat the old routine if presented with the cue.
The human brain is also interesting... and slightly creepy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&
It is titled "How Companies Learn Your Secrets" and is primarily about retailers (using Target as an example) using data mining and targeted promotions to make people better customers. Notably, figuring out when a woman is starting her 2nd trimester based on what she buys and sending her tailored coupon offers to change her shopping habits. While the reporter didn't have access to the data he needed to prove it works (in fairness, he admits this) it sure seems to based on what he presented. Slightly creepy.
Underlying that, however, it is about learned behavior - what the author calls the cue-routine-reward loop. This is the interesting part.
We've all heard about muscle memory. We all know how hard it can be to break a habit, and how often even after we 'break' it we regress. Our brain is capable of being programed to do certain tasks (even complex ones) without much or any conscious thought. The reporter used backing out of your driveway as an example - when you first learn to drive backing up is hard; lots of actions to perform in the correct order. If you've been driving for years you probably back out of the driveway without thinking about it. I sure do. Once you have you get a tiny mental 'reward' - stress of backing up drops off and you're on your way. Cue: getting in the car. Routine: back out. Reward: hard part done, into drive and go! Yay!
To break bad habits it helps to recognize both the cue and the reward, while what we naturally focus on is the routine. If we just change the routine and fail to recognize the cue or provide a reward, we'll probably repeat the old routine if presented with the cue.
The human brain is also interesting... and slightly creepy.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Arming the Future Enemy
Some people want the .gov to take our tax dollars, buy weapons civilians couldn’t legally buy ourselves, and send the weapons to Syrian rebels. Great plan, right?
Well, in their defense, there is quite a lot of precedent.
We sent arms and advisers to Afghan rebels who were fighting the Soviets. A quarter of a century later they were used against us when we invaded after 9/11.
We sent arms and advisers to Libyan rebels who were fighting the Libyan government. Less than a year later some of those same rebels killed our ambassador to the country and several other embassy personnel.
But those were anomalies, right? Most of the time it works?
We sent arms and advisers to the Vietnamese resistance against the Japanese in WWII. They became the Viet Cong. (OK, there I’ll agree we were doing the right thing at the time – what’s the road to Hell paved with again?)
Anyone seeing a pattern here? The results vary, sure, but it never works out for us.
The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. No more, no less. (Thank you, Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates.)
If you take in a stray dog, feed it, care for it, and love it, it will not turn on you. This is the major difference between a man and a dog.
Alright, so the US has a terrible track record for the results of arming rebels. That the only problem?
Not even close.
The only thing we truly know about the rebels is that they are willing to fight their own government. But we’re willing to send them weapons that we’re NOT willing to sell to people who’ve demonstrated their loyalty to our own government. Something here is very, very wrong. Why is an Islamic fundamentalist at most one degree of separation away from a terrorist more trustworthy than an honorably discharged veteran of the US military? Why give weapons to the former but refuse to sell them to the latter?
Would US citizens even want them? Short answer: yes. Longer answer: yes, yes, yes, please! Just look at the sky-high prices pre-ban automatic weapons are sold for, regardless of their condition or utility. Those prices are high because there’s a very limited supply and, despite some truly obnoxious Federal roadblocks, high demand. There’s also a lot of people like me who can’t justify spending $5,000 for a weapon which is in current production and sells to the .gov for $1,000. And did I mention the obnoxious roadblocks? Then there’s things like SAMs, mortars, and rocket launchers (which, yes, we have sent in the past and will probably be sending to Syria soon) that are all but impossible to legally own.
But they’re dangerous!
Indeed. Rebels we’ve sold weapons to have killed a large number of US soldiers over the years. The weapons they use have proved that they are dangerous. Oh, that wasn’t what you meant? You meant they’d be dangerous here? Well, I’m not sure why US citizens dying here is worse than US citizens dying overseas, but let’s take a look.
Let’s look at our own history and see if we can find heavy weapons owned by individuals. We don’t have to go very far – in fact without private ownership of the heaviest weapons then available (cannon) our nation probably wouldn’t exist.
Of course, private weapons weren't all we fought with. The French crown sent us weapons. Then when their people rebelled against them a few years later we... generally were supportive of the rebels.
So sending weapons to rebels isn't just a problem for us.
Well, in their defense, there is quite a lot of precedent.
We sent arms and advisers to Afghan rebels who were fighting the Soviets. A quarter of a century later they were used against us when we invaded after 9/11.
We sent arms and advisers to Libyan rebels who were fighting the Libyan government. Less than a year later some of those same rebels killed our ambassador to the country and several other embassy personnel.
But those were anomalies, right? Most of the time it works?
We sent arms and advisers to the Vietnamese resistance against the Japanese in WWII. They became the Viet Cong. (OK, there I’ll agree we were doing the right thing at the time – what’s the road to Hell paved with again?)
Anyone seeing a pattern here? The results vary, sure, but it never works out for us.
The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. No more, no less. (Thank you, Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates.)
If you take in a stray dog, feed it, care for it, and love it, it will not turn on you. This is the major difference between a man and a dog.
Alright, so the US has a terrible track record for the results of arming rebels. That the only problem?
Not even close.
The only thing we truly know about the rebels is that they are willing to fight their own government. But we’re willing to send them weapons that we’re NOT willing to sell to people who’ve demonstrated their loyalty to our own government. Something here is very, very wrong. Why is an Islamic fundamentalist at most one degree of separation away from a terrorist more trustworthy than an honorably discharged veteran of the US military? Why give weapons to the former but refuse to sell them to the latter?
Would US citizens even want them? Short answer: yes. Longer answer: yes, yes, yes, please! Just look at the sky-high prices pre-ban automatic weapons are sold for, regardless of their condition or utility. Those prices are high because there’s a very limited supply and, despite some truly obnoxious Federal roadblocks, high demand. There’s also a lot of people like me who can’t justify spending $5,000 for a weapon which is in current production and sells to the .gov for $1,000. And did I mention the obnoxious roadblocks? Then there’s things like SAMs, mortars, and rocket launchers (which, yes, we have sent in the past and will probably be sending to Syria soon) that are all but impossible to legally own.
But they’re dangerous!
Indeed. Rebels we’ve sold weapons to have killed a large number of US soldiers over the years. The weapons they use have proved that they are dangerous. Oh, that wasn’t what you meant? You meant they’d be dangerous here? Well, I’m not sure why US citizens dying here is worse than US citizens dying overseas, but let’s take a look.
Let’s look at our own history and see if we can find heavy weapons owned by individuals. We don’t have to go very far – in fact without private ownership of the heaviest weapons then available (cannon) our nation probably wouldn’t exist.
Of course, private weapons weren't all we fought with. The French crown sent us weapons. Then when their people rebelled against them a few years later we... generally were supportive of the rebels.
So sending weapons to rebels isn't just a problem for us.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
From the Rear Echelon: Midhaven Ithra
Midhaven ran a small Ithra, but a fun one. Lunch was provided both days by a highly skilled kitchen crew.
First class Saturday morning I took an English Country Dance class and managed not to damage anyone. One of the dances was a circle dance which included several parts where all the guys move into the center and clap which we hammed up increasingly as we went through it. The ladies rotated between laughing at us and rolling their eyes at us.
Second class was persona development – the instructor spent part of it In Persona. Yes, she earned the Capital Letter Form. She’s a 12th century Moorish woman and simply did not acknowledge the males in the class who were not family. She expressed sympathy for women who had no children, and shock at the one who’s husband helped raise their children. She promised to pray for several people including me.
Saturday afternoon I took two classes on the new heraldry rules and submission process because I really, really, need to get moving on registering my name and device. I was, after all, given my AoA over two years ago (and by the hand of no less than then-Queen Miranda!). Luckily it doesn’t seem like much has changed and the few changes will probably make it easier or at least no harder.
Sunday I took a class entitled “Madonnas, Sluts, and Ladies” about female roles in period. This was a fascinating study of not just what the roles were, but why they were that way and how they came to be that way. I would like to emphasize that the SCA is very different from period in its ideas on gender roles, though we retain many of the more attractive parts (chivalry and such).
Cooking for large groups (basically about the difference between cooking for five in a fully stocked modern kitchen and cooking for fifty in the middle of nowhere) and another class on heraldry rounded out the event.
I was in quite august company for Sunday lunch – my table included a duchess, a baroness, and a double peer (knight and pelican) – more the crowd I’d expect at head table at a feast than eating with me. All three of them were people I knew at least fairly well and respected highly. I’m inherently a respecter of hierarchies, and know my place in the SCA (low, though by no means the bottom and with considerable potential to rise). Actually as of writing this I’m #5,708 on the Kingdom Order of Precedence (out of 6,129).
First class Saturday morning I took an English Country Dance class and managed not to damage anyone. One of the dances was a circle dance which included several parts where all the guys move into the center and clap which we hammed up increasingly as we went through it. The ladies rotated between laughing at us and rolling their eyes at us.
Second class was persona development – the instructor spent part of it In Persona. Yes, she earned the Capital Letter Form. She’s a 12th century Moorish woman and simply did not acknowledge the males in the class who were not family. She expressed sympathy for women who had no children, and shock at the one who’s husband helped raise their children. She promised to pray for several people including me.
Saturday afternoon I took two classes on the new heraldry rules and submission process because I really, really, need to get moving on registering my name and device. I was, after all, given my AoA over two years ago (and by the hand of no less than then-Queen Miranda!). Luckily it doesn’t seem like much has changed and the few changes will probably make it easier or at least no harder.
Sunday I took a class entitled “Madonnas, Sluts, and Ladies” about female roles in period. This was a fascinating study of not just what the roles were, but why they were that way and how they came to be that way. I would like to emphasize that the SCA is very different from period in its ideas on gender roles, though we retain many of the more attractive parts (chivalry and such).
Cooking for large groups (basically about the difference between cooking for five in a fully stocked modern kitchen and cooking for fifty in the middle of nowhere) and another class on heraldry rounded out the event.
I was in quite august company for Sunday lunch – my table included a duchess, a baroness, and a double peer (knight and pelican) – more the crowd I’d expect at head table at a feast than eating with me. All three of them were people I knew at least fairly well and respected highly. I’m inherently a respecter of hierarchies, and know my place in the SCA (low, though by no means the bottom and with considerable potential to rise). Actually as of writing this I’m #5,708 on the Kingdom Order of Precedence (out of 6,129).
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
From the Children's Crusade
This past weekend was Banner War. Normally, this is where the various households of the Barony compete with each other. This year there was an unusual (I’m going to guess unprecedented) entry: Youth Armored Combat.
In the SCA, we train our children from an early age to kill. Starting out well before their teens with glorified pool noodles called ‘boffers’, and working up to scaled-down versions of adult armor and weapons, the next generation of knights get an early start. Youth Armored Combat is the ‘upper level’ of this progression, one step shy of adult heavy combat.
I suppose some people may find this disturbing, but I frankly find it quite refreshing, as while exact results vary YAC members tend to be better people than the general run of children these days. Sure, they hit people with sticks – but only if the people being hit have sticks too. There is also a great deal to be said for conditioning children to come to a screeching halt at the command “HOLD!”
YAC, understandably, gained considerable support from both households and mercenaries (I joined their cause for a glass of wine and a cookie), and based on Saturday evening’s court were well on their way to winning the war.
I spent much of Saturday working on my mon die and making my first bunch (small bead). The former went quite well thanks to some guidance from Master Raymond, the latter proved quite tricky.
While there are many ways to make punches here’s the one I’m using. You start with concrete nails (chosen because they are readily available steel chunks in about the right size and shape). Heat to cherry-red at the tip then let cool to soften them. Easy. Now using files and sandpaper form the tip into the right shape. Very, very hard. This is handwork to a higher standard than many machine processes will produce – the goal is a perfectly hemispherical head of just the right size. Still working on this. Once the shape is right (do a gentle test punch on soft metal), harden with the torch (tip to cherry red again and quench), clean, and then temper (heat back from the tip until it is just turning yellow and quench). This will produce a punch hard enough to use on your die without wearing down too quickly.
I competed in the Vox Off after a number of years of meaning to without getting around to it. Vox Off is voice heraldry in its various forms – court, field, town cry, and presentation. Each contestant is given a number of pieces to read (getting about 30 seconds prior to starting to speak to review the material for each) at various distances from the judges (5 to 40 yards). You are graded on how well you could be understood, your pronunciation of proper names (including the odd Welsh or Gaelic one to trip you up), your general tone and style (different for the different forms) and in the case of field heraldry what you say. Field heraldry is acting as an announcer for a tournament. Each fighter generally writes their name and title(s) on a card and hands it to you. You then get to figure out how to properly announce them and in what order (“Duke Sir Sharpsword, Sergeant to Baroness Wisdom” gets announced as “Duke Sharpsword” and needs to be introduced before “Count Bigshield”). The material ranges from perfectly serious (actual award presentations) to humorous (fencers being advised not to trip over their own lace and ruffles while entering the field) to fiendishly difficult (Norse and Middle English passages). Two of us read the oath Tolkien used for Gondor’s knights of the Citadel (used by some SCA groups as an oath of fealty). I had to read section of a Norse Edas (translated to modern English; they’re not THAT evil) in a format I’d never encountered before. As you may have gathered, the contest is as much about finding and training new heralds as it is about seeing who can speak loudly and clearly. Three of us entered, and I came out the winner! Being a veteran bard was a big help. I thus was able to score three warpoints for YAC. Total of five points to YAC and one to Redstone for Vox.
Redstone also put their banner up, as did a few other houses whose names I didn’t get. Methelstede helped run YACs entry, and Red Plague was, surprisingly enough, absent.
Overall, much more successful than the real children’s crusade. Not that that was a high bar to reach…
In the SCA, we train our children from an early age to kill. Starting out well before their teens with glorified pool noodles called ‘boffers’, and working up to scaled-down versions of adult armor and weapons, the next generation of knights get an early start. Youth Armored Combat is the ‘upper level’ of this progression, one step shy of adult heavy combat.
I suppose some people may find this disturbing, but I frankly find it quite refreshing, as while exact results vary YAC members tend to be better people than the general run of children these days. Sure, they hit people with sticks – but only if the people being hit have sticks too. There is also a great deal to be said for conditioning children to come to a screeching halt at the command “HOLD!”
YAC, understandably, gained considerable support from both households and mercenaries (I joined their cause for a glass of wine and a cookie), and based on Saturday evening’s court were well on their way to winning the war.
I spent much of Saturday working on my mon die and making my first bunch (small bead). The former went quite well thanks to some guidance from Master Raymond, the latter proved quite tricky.
While there are many ways to make punches here’s the one I’m using. You start with concrete nails (chosen because they are readily available steel chunks in about the right size and shape). Heat to cherry-red at the tip then let cool to soften them. Easy. Now using files and sandpaper form the tip into the right shape. Very, very hard. This is handwork to a higher standard than many machine processes will produce – the goal is a perfectly hemispherical head of just the right size. Still working on this. Once the shape is right (do a gentle test punch on soft metal), harden with the torch (tip to cherry red again and quench), clean, and then temper (heat back from the tip until it is just turning yellow and quench). This will produce a punch hard enough to use on your die without wearing down too quickly.
I competed in the Vox Off after a number of years of meaning to without getting around to it. Vox Off is voice heraldry in its various forms – court, field, town cry, and presentation. Each contestant is given a number of pieces to read (getting about 30 seconds prior to starting to speak to review the material for each) at various distances from the judges (5 to 40 yards). You are graded on how well you could be understood, your pronunciation of proper names (including the odd Welsh or Gaelic one to trip you up), your general tone and style (different for the different forms) and in the case of field heraldry what you say. Field heraldry is acting as an announcer for a tournament. Each fighter generally writes their name and title(s) on a card and hands it to you. You then get to figure out how to properly announce them and in what order (“Duke Sir Sharpsword, Sergeant to Baroness Wisdom” gets announced as “Duke Sharpsword” and needs to be introduced before “Count Bigshield”). The material ranges from perfectly serious (actual award presentations) to humorous (fencers being advised not to trip over their own lace and ruffles while entering the field) to fiendishly difficult (Norse and Middle English passages). Two of us read the oath Tolkien used for Gondor’s knights of the Citadel (used by some SCA groups as an oath of fealty). I had to read section of a Norse Edas (translated to modern English; they’re not THAT evil) in a format I’d never encountered before. As you may have gathered, the contest is as much about finding and training new heralds as it is about seeing who can speak loudly and clearly. Three of us entered, and I came out the winner! Being a veteran bard was a big help. I thus was able to score three warpoints for YAC. Total of five points to YAC and one to Redstone for Vox.
Redstone also put their banner up, as did a few other houses whose names I didn’t get. Methelstede helped run YACs entry, and Red Plague was, surprisingly enough, absent.
Overall, much more successful than the real children’s crusade. Not that that was a high bar to reach…
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Thoughts on the SPEEA Contract
I've never been entirely sure how I feel about being in a union. But I'm in it no matter how I feel.
I have, however, no mixed feelings at all about the current contract - or more accurately Boeing's attitude towards negotiations. I'm reminded of a quote attributed to the Imperial Japanese shortly before WWII "How can we negotiate with you when you won't give us everything we want?"
Boeing told us the contract had 'market leading compensation'... and counted Wal Mart (no, I am NOT kidding) as one of the comparators. As someone who flies on commercial airplanes I'd hope that the engineers who designed them got a little better pay and benefits than people who stock shelves at a superstore. Yes, very evil-capitalist-1% of me. If Boeing had compared us to other aerospace companies and said we had better compensation than them I'd have considered that a highly valid and important point. As soon as you put Wal Mart into the calculation I no longer care what the output is.
Boeing told us it was a great contract with the subtext that it is a lousy economy and we should be happy to be getting anything... but while the economy is indeed lousy and likely to get worse over the next few years Boeing could have half its current orders cancelled, not get any more, and still be able to keep the production lines cranking at full tilt for years. Nor is the contract a great one. If Boeing had come out and said "look guys, the economy is likely to stay bad for years and we're really worried about keeping the company going thanks to our lousy business decisions on the 787 costing us a bundle - would you please take a bad contract now and we'll make it up to you next cycle? By the way we learned our lesson and we'll never run a program that way again?" I'd have been highly sympathetic.
The lion's share of the text of the contract is the same as the last one. So what's the big deal? Well, for one thing, Boeing inserted sentences in several places that essentially say "if this part of the contract ever conflicts with Boeing policy the policy wins." So if Boeing wants to completely rewrite the medical benefits in the middle of the contract (hey, they've never tried to do that before... oh wait they did) there's nothing we can do about it. Boeing has assured us that they "have no plans" to do that. Hey look! A promise that means nothing, since even if they were telling the truth it wouldn't stop them from making plans the day after we sign. For all the force those sections have they might as well be removed entirely.
The US is still involved in the longest running large-scale combat deployment in its history (but we'll be pulling out Real Soon Now! Hey, didn't I hear that four years ago...?). So now is a GREAT time to cut medical benefits for employees on Military Leave - which, for those of you not familiar with the term, has nothing to do with vacation. It means you're a reservist or national guardsman doing your annual active duty requirement or, and here's the reason Boeing's trying to cut benefits, you've been activated to be, say, sent overseas to a war zone in all but name for the 3rd time. Sure, I expect that's costing Boeing a bundle - both in lost work hours and in extra medical claims. I have zero sympathy for the company here. I'd have voted to reject the contract if this was the only thing in it I didn't like. As it is this is just the icing on the cake.
The one piece of good news? The other members of SPEEA agree with me in general even if not in all particulars. Of 21,842 ballots issued (i.e. eligible votes) 15,097 voted to reject - over 69%. Impressive enough by itself, but note that, as is sadly typical in this country, not everyone voted. A hair under 72% did. So over 96% of the votes cast were to reject.
I hope this makes Boeing sit up, pay attention, and either start negotiating in good faith or strip out the offending parts of their proposal (salary pools that beat inflation would be nice, but I don't insist on it). Because I'm as ambivalent about striking as I am about being in a union in the first place... but to preserve medical benefits for men and women in uniform I'll cheerfully walk a picket line.
I have, however, no mixed feelings at all about the current contract - or more accurately Boeing's attitude towards negotiations. I'm reminded of a quote attributed to the Imperial Japanese shortly before WWII "How can we negotiate with you when you won't give us everything we want?"
Boeing told us the contract had 'market leading compensation'... and counted Wal Mart (no, I am NOT kidding) as one of the comparators. As someone who flies on commercial airplanes I'd hope that the engineers who designed them got a little better pay and benefits than people who stock shelves at a superstore. Yes, very evil-capitalist-1% of me. If Boeing had compared us to other aerospace companies and said we had better compensation than them I'd have considered that a highly valid and important point. As soon as you put Wal Mart into the calculation I no longer care what the output is.
Boeing told us it was a great contract with the subtext that it is a lousy economy and we should be happy to be getting anything... but while the economy is indeed lousy and likely to get worse over the next few years Boeing could have half its current orders cancelled, not get any more, and still be able to keep the production lines cranking at full tilt for years. Nor is the contract a great one. If Boeing had come out and said "look guys, the economy is likely to stay bad for years and we're really worried about keeping the company going thanks to our lousy business decisions on the 787 costing us a bundle - would you please take a bad contract now and we'll make it up to you next cycle? By the way we learned our lesson and we'll never run a program that way again?" I'd have been highly sympathetic.
The lion's share of the text of the contract is the same as the last one. So what's the big deal? Well, for one thing, Boeing inserted sentences in several places that essentially say "if this part of the contract ever conflicts with Boeing policy the policy wins." So if Boeing wants to completely rewrite the medical benefits in the middle of the contract (hey, they've never tried to do that before... oh wait they did) there's nothing we can do about it. Boeing has assured us that they "have no plans" to do that. Hey look! A promise that means nothing, since even if they were telling the truth it wouldn't stop them from making plans the day after we sign. For all the force those sections have they might as well be removed entirely.
The US is still involved in the longest running large-scale combat deployment in its history (but we'll be pulling out Real Soon Now! Hey, didn't I hear that four years ago...?). So now is a GREAT time to cut medical benefits for employees on Military Leave - which, for those of you not familiar with the term, has nothing to do with vacation. It means you're a reservist or national guardsman doing your annual active duty requirement or, and here's the reason Boeing's trying to cut benefits, you've been activated to be, say, sent overseas to a war zone in all but name for the 3rd time. Sure, I expect that's costing Boeing a bundle - both in lost work hours and in extra medical claims. I have zero sympathy for the company here. I'd have voted to reject the contract if this was the only thing in it I didn't like. As it is this is just the icing on the cake.
The one piece of good news? The other members of SPEEA agree with me in general even if not in all particulars. Of 21,842 ballots issued (i.e. eligible votes) 15,097 voted to reject - over 69%. Impressive enough by itself, but note that, as is sadly typical in this country, not everyone voted. A hair under 72% did. So over 96% of the votes cast were to reject.
I hope this makes Boeing sit up, pay attention, and either start negotiating in good faith or strip out the offending parts of their proposal (salary pools that beat inflation would be nice, but I don't insist on it). Because I'm as ambivalent about striking as I am about being in a union in the first place... but to preserve medical benefits for men and women in uniform I'll cheerfully walk a picket line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
