Milei goes to war with Argentina’s airline unions

[Rich One]

Clarin reports today that The Aerolineas Argentina. Pilots Union has requested Brazilian Airlines like Gol not to express interest on buying Aerolineas Argentinas. Claiming that it would damage Brazilian Airlines futures and Brazilian Pilots Unions. This action is clearly against the Arg. Unions bylaws.

 

[Vagrant Violet]

Is there anyone / anything that Milei hasn't gone to "war" with or doesn't plan on going to war with? It seems like he believes doing something is the same thing as accomplishing something (positive, for the people and the country).

I think the word we’re looking for is “pugnacious.” That and “pernicious.”

(Why, yes, I was an English/education major at university )

All jokes aside, I sadly but truthfully agree with JeffR’s observation. Not a good look

 

[LuckyLuke]

More ideological crap. Note from the article "In 2023, the company received no money from the Treasury". There are caveats, but still, why the urgency? It's hate, only that.

Milei wants to turn every disagreement into a personalized conflict. It's not about the economy, that's a red herring. For him, the university protests are about rectors earning too much (everyone else sees that Argentina has top class universities and would like to keep them), and the Aerolineas protests are about excessive pilots' privileges (the Aerolineas staff say they're motivated more by their 80% devalued salaries). Milei and his troll army, led by Adorni, are truly disgusting specimens, fomenting hate at every opportunity.

Remember also that Milei performs more somersaults than a pancake. In his campaign I believe there was mention of converting Aerolineas into an employee-owned airline (something similar to Varig, I naively imagined). Now it's just his hate-filled "screw all of them" ranting discourse.

I read recently that 8 provinces with about 10% of the population are served only by Aerolineas. I assume, at a loss. Milei will effectively give up sovereignty over large parts of the country. As he has already done with the Malvinas islands, of course.

It's impossible to leave ideology out of what resources a government is required to distribute and to which beneficiaries. Is a federal government's mandate required to operate an airline and provide flights to far flung low populations areas at tax payer expense? Do tax receipts justify such an expense?

One thing that never ceases to amaze me about the duality of Argentine politics is the endless clamor for public benefits while everybody is complicit in blatant tax evasion in virtually every sector. It's a staggering loss of confidence of the public sector that really feels like a semi-failed state.

Forget the classification of taxes, regressive vs progressive, graduating vs flat, income taxes vs consumption taxes, wealth tax vs capital gains tax. Every single tax will be avoided in this country, regardless of it's purported ideology or benefit.

 

[FrankPintor]

It's impossible to leave ideology out of what resources a government is required to distribute and to which beneficiaries. Is a federal government's mandate required to operate an airline and provide flights to far flung low populations areas at tax payer expense? Do tax receipts justify such an expense?

One thing that never ceases to amaze me about the duality of Argentine politics is the endless clamor for public benefits while everybody is complicit in blatant tax evasion in virtually every sector. It's a staggering loss of confidence of the public sector that really feels like a semi-failed state.

Forget the classification of taxes, regressive vs progressive, graduating vs flat, income taxes vs consumption taxes, wealth tax vs capital gains tax. Every single tax will be avoided in this country, regardless of it's purported ideology or benefit.

Yes, an ideology guides every political party and government. You raise a good point, and I'll give you the example of the evacuation of the Blasket Islands off the south coast of Ireland in 1953, when a poor and isolated government decided it wasn't possible to maintain the community on the islands, especially in winter. It caused a national trauma, also because one of the best known authors in the Irish language was born there. Today, I think, a different decision might be made, as indeed has happened with the even more remote Tory Island off the north coast. Governments of both right and left tendencies see value in maintaining communities in remote areas (maybe you saw the news item today about Bolivians planting crops on the wrong side of the border with Argentina?).

For sure some sort of cost-benefit analysis must be performed, even if the benefits are partly intangible. Cutting off 8 provinces and 10% of the population of Argentina would have a major impact on the viability of those areas. Maybe they don't need daily air services, maybe one or three flights a week would do. Applying a chainsaw is, to me, simply stupid. And the costs can be included in the price of the concession, when and if Aerolineas is privatized.

One things that amazes me about Argentina (but in a positive way) is how inclusive it is. Everyone gets to go to school, vote, get basic health services, wherever they live.

 

[FrankPintor]

Likewise with your "misspellings" smart arse.

But genuinely wondering what has Milei done to give up large parts of the islands??? @FrankPintor
You just spout stuff then try to act smart by not backing it up with anything tangible, like the written version of verbal diarrhea.

I see our @Jimbob is an absolute charmer

Jimbo, I have no idea what you're blathering about with "large parts of the islands". I understand you enjoy living here in Buenos Aires, so perhaps you'd like to familiarize yourself with what is still the official Argentinian position (and, I would expect, the position of most Argentines), and not continue your existence as an ignoramus in a country you don't understand:

"On January 3, 1833, the Malvinas Islands were illegally occupied by British forces who expelled the Argentine population and authorities established there legitimately, to replace them with British subjects. The illegitimate occupation of the Malvinas Islands was immediately protested by the Argentine authorities at that time and was never consented to by any Argentine government. Throughout the 188 years of usurpation, Argentina uninterruptedly maintained the firm claim for the exercise of sovereignty over the islands".

From: https://cancilleria.gob.ar/en/188-y...reaffirms-its-sovereignty-rights-over-islands

There's a lot of history involved, not that you would care or understand. I can offer this:

"The Buenos Aires government declared its independence in 1816. [...] Despite the uncertain political situation in this period, the Argentine version is that 1810 saw the creation of modern Argentina. Furthermore, like the other new States that were forming out of the Spanish Empire in America, it claimed to be the successor to Spain to the whole of the administrative units whereby its territory had formerly been governed by Spain. Thus, the part of the United Provinces which became Argentina was entitled to all lands between the Andes and the Atlantic from the Rio de la Plata to Cape Horn together with the islands of Tierra del Fuego, Staten Island and the Malvinas.

From chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/greig.pdf

My reading leads me to believe that as the Portuguese and Spanish empires crumbled, and decolonization began, there was an understanding among the European powers of the day that the former colonies would inherit their territories intact from the receding empires. Unfortunately, the British meddled, in the Malvinas, in Guayana, in support of a Monroe doctrine that the US wasn't able to enforce, and perhaps most famously in Gibraltar. Sticky fingers everywhere, even as far as the Chagos Islands (soon to be decolonized, one hopes).

You wanted tangible, you got it, twit.

 

[LuckyLuke]

Yes, an ideology guides every political party and government. You raise a good point, and I'll give you the example of the evacuation of the Blasket Islands off the south coast of Ireland in 1953, when a poor and isolated government decided it wasn't possible to maintain the community on the islands, especially in winter. It caused a national trauma, also because one of the best known authors in the Irish language was born there. Today, I think, a different decision might be made, as indeed has happened with the even more remote Tory Island off the north coast. Governments of both right and left tendencies see value in maintaining communities in remote areas (maybe you saw the news item today about Bolivians planting crops on the wrong side of the border with Argentina?).

For sure some sort of cost-benefit analysis must be performed, even if the benefits are partly intangible. Cutting off 8 provinces and 10% of the population of Argentina would have a major impact on the viability of those areas. Maybe they don't need daily air services, maybe one or three flights a week would do. Applying a chainsaw is, to me, simply stupid. And the costs can be included in the price of the concession, when and if Aerolineas is privatized.

One things that amazes me about Argentina (but in a positive way) is how inclusive it is. Everyone gets to go to school, vote, get basic health services, wherever they live.

Interesting story...it reminds of stories I saw regarding Italy and Japan offering free property to those willing to repopulate some of their historical rural towns. Sadly the demographic trend in far flung places isn't kind to cultural preservation.

 

[Redpossum]

I think the word we’re looking for is “pugnacious.” That and “pernicious.”

(Why, yes, I was an English/education major at university )

All jokes aside, I sadly but truthfully agree with JeffR’s observation. Not a good look

Heya, VV, good to see you back!

 

[Jimbob]

I see our @Jimbob is an absolute charmer

Jimbo, I have no idea what you're blathering about with "large parts of the islands". I understand you enjoy living here in Buenos Aires, so perhaps you'd like to familiarize yourself with what is still the official Argentinian position (and, I would expect, the position of most Argentines), and not continue your existence as an ignoramus in a country you don't understand:

"On January 3, 1833, the Malvinas Islands were illegally occupied by British forces who expelled the Argentine population and authorities established there legitimately, to replace them with British subjects. The illegitimate occupation of the Malvinas Islands was immediately protested by the Argentine authorities at that time and was never consented to by any Argentine government. Throughout the 188 years of usurpation, Argentina uninterruptedly maintained the firm claim for the exercise of sovereignty over the islands".

From: https://cancilleria.gob.ar/en/188-y...reaffirms-its-sovereignty-rights-over-islands

There's a lot of history involved, not that you would care or understand. I can offer this:

"The Buenos Aires government declared its independence in 1816. [...] Despite the uncertain political situation in this period, the Argentine version is that 1810 saw the creation of modern Argentina. Furthermore, like the other new States that were forming out of the Spanish Empire in America, it claimed to be the successor to Spain to the whole of the administrative units whereby its territory had formerly been governed by Spain. Thus, the part of the United Provinces which became Argentina was entitled to all lands between the Andes and the Atlantic from the Rio de la Plata to Cape Horn together with the islands of Tierra del Fuego, Staten Island and the Malvinas.

From chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/greig.pdf

My reading leads me to believe that as the Portuguese and Spanish empires crumbled, and decolonization began, there was an understanding among the European powers of the day that the former colonies would inherit their territories intact from the receding empires. Unfortunately, the British meddled, in the Malvinas, in Guayana, in support of a Monroe doctrine that the US wasn't able to enforce, and perhaps most famously in Gibraltar. Sticky fingers everywhere, even as far as the Chagos Islands (soon to be decolonized, one hopes).

You wanted tangible, you got it, twit.

But you seem to have trouble answering the question to which I posed, pertaining to what action by Melei has led to sovereignty being given up:

"Milei will effectively give up sovereignty over large parts of the country. As he has already done with the Malvinas islands, of course."
Frank Pintor - Friday at 6:40 PM

That's what you said, yet when I asked as if I had missed something you come out with some petty insult.

I mean you have now literally just copied and pasted the text from a Google search representing one side of the argument to something that wasn't even asked of you. Something far more complex than you appear to be conscious of.

Now your obnoxious statement about me living here and taking on the official government line whilst then slagging off the overwhelming elected current president just shows you have no morale backbone to the words you spew.

"Charmer, ignorant, twit" calm down, you're wasting your life energy with your angst.