Esse site utiliza cookies. Ao usá-lo e continuar a navegar, você concorda com isso.
Ignorar
Você sabia que o rastreamento de voos da FlightAware é patrocinado por anúncios?
Você pode nos ajudar a manter o FlightAware gratuito, permitindo anúncios de FlightAware.com. Trabalhamos muito para manter nossa publicidade relevante e discreta para criar uma ótima experiência. É rápido e fácil permitir anúncios no FlightAware ou, caso prefira, considere nossas contas premium.
Ignorar
Back to Squawk list
  • 26

NY Times editorial about Boeing and the National Labor Relations Board

Enviado há
 
Boeing 787 aft section arrived at the SC facility on Monday...work begins on assembling the plant's first 787. Given the NLRB complaint, will the first be the last? (www.nytimes.com) Mais...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


rick737
richard weiss 0
Boeing could move operations to China and avoid the NLRB. That seems to be what the B.O. administration wants. If we keep the trend started by this president we'll be flipping eachothers burgers in 20 years
preacher1
preacher1 0
Hell Richard, in 20 years we want be able to buy a burger!!!!! It is a sad day that in every part of our society, that a discussion, regardless of subject, can't hardly go on without some mention of government interference or outright blundering.
chris13
Chris Bryant 0
Wow. I'm shocked that one of the major media outlets that serves as a chief dogwasher for the Democratic Party is actually daring to criticize that party. Makes me almost hopeful.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Well, it's one thing to give favor to the unions when you are in power but that is just a tad on the blatant side, and I am just like the writer, They are an independent agency but besides appointing most of them, I believe the Pres can control them if he wants to. Heck of it is, when he says something like that, people know its a bald faced lie.
canuck44
canuck44 0
Richard is right, China or Mexico will be the next move, at least to the extent that a major message will be sent. Boeing is already making noises about the future of 737 production moving from Renton.

However, calling the NLRB an independent agency is an oxymoron. These are unelected, unconfirmed appointed individuals who serve at the pleasure of the President. They are exercising his policy of turning over the economy to the unions. We saw this in the automobile bailout where the bondholders were just stiffed and their interests given to the UAW...and now Obama wonders why none will invest in America having taken the bondholders money and given it away to his cronies.

Look for the NLRB to be defunded and reined in the upcoming budget this October...the FCC just saw the writing on the wall dropping the "net neutrality" game...the NLRB and the EPA are next and they will be tightly leashed with a Presidential change.
evbutler
Ev Butler 0
John, truer words were never spoken. If a company can't operate freely in the land of the free, I wouldn't blame them for going to Mexico, where the NLRB has no authority or control.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Well, unions or not, he gives no more damn about those 5000 SC workers than he did the 20,000 that are out of work due to the offshore drilling moratorium in the Gulf. I just hope they all remember him in 2012
AND VOTE ACCORDINGLY!
tedegen
Thomas Degen 0
Take a look. It is starting. Delta just announced a plan for a joint MRO with Aeromexico in Mexico.
samdini0
Sammy Francois 0
I can't get over the nature of the uninformed comments on this board. Sometimes it's just fun to bash Obama even though there's not an ounce of truth to what is being said. Obama acted accordingly and the NLRB acted accordingly as well. Boeing is looking to send jobs to places where the hands building the planes are not nearly as experienced as Puget Sound. This isn't the first article I've read and the author at the New York times is badly misinformed.

see this comment from the article for the truth beind this:
Oh Joe,

How wrong you got it buddy! I worked on some of the critical tooling for the 787. Your reader, Dravid Joseph is exactly correct. The delays were all due to Boeing's decision to send production overseas. It handed the technology to build the wings, and fuselage to its competitors (including the chinese) in so doing. I was on hand in a factory in Japan watching as Boeing machinists who had put together every aircraft since the 747 literally trained 20 something Japanese engineers how to put together an airplane wing.

Why did Boeing do it? Partly they needed the partners to make the investments in the huge gamble they were undertaking-building an all up carbon fiber aircraft, the first of its kind. Partly they wanted to take advantage of cheaper labor. And critically, they needed sales quick. Buy putting up factories in certain countries, large sales of the new aircraft could be locked in. To people outside the aircraft industry who are unfamiliar with the degree to which it remains nationalized around the world this may sound surprising. But, take a look at who the first customer was for the 787-ANA- and you'll see it's true.

For myself, I like the idea, when I get on an airplane, that it is being built by people who have made aircraft production a life's work, rather than a McJob. But I've seen how the sausage is made and know that at 20 thousand feet every rivet counts. I know that those delays in production were being caused by faulty parts that had to be corrected on the shop floor in Seattle by those long time union machinists you're complaining at. Sorry, Joe. But you got this one dead wrong.
rick737
richard weiss 0
So Sammy are you saying the workers of South Carolina, Japan, and China are not trainable? Is that snobery from our west coast? Be reminded the finest corporate jet in the world is built down the road in Savannah Ga. It's quality rivals any aircraft built in the world, bar none. The fact that a machine is built in a location away from the mother plant does not make it poor quality. If QA is directed by the gurus in Renton the quality will be identical. This whole exercise is just a pay back to unions who funded the manchild president's campaign. That is as clear as the optically correct window in front of the 787.
canuck44
canuck44 0
Sammy...consider AirBus builds in France...by your ancestors...
preacher1
preacher1 0
Well said Richard, and he should also be reminded that the SC folks speak Enlish(genuine American Southernese)
samdini0
Sammy Francois 0
@Richard - Nearly anyone is trainable. I'm not arguing that point. The point I'm arguing is that the article has some holes and I don't think the writer properly researched or was badly misinformed as to what is happening at Boeing. The knee jerk reaction is to blame the President for his policies when in reality, the President (whether it be this one or the one before him) exerts little control in that realm. The NLRB is a completely independent board and exerts its own power within that sphere of influence.

Building a plane, Richard, is far more complicated than building an lcd screen for a tv and I'd venture to say there's more at risk if something goes wrong. Why tinker with it when you have generations of workers in an area who are knowledgeable and entirely capable of building a stellar plane? The sake of higher profit margins? That's just downright moronic.

Airbus has to contend with unions that are far more restrictive than Boeing, yet and still they get the job done. Maybe their management figured something out that we haven't or MAYBE the EU and France to a greater extent has nationalized and subsidized a company where we here in the US let free enterprise reign.

The bottomline is the author of the article displays a lack of knowledge when it comes to the airplane manufacturing industry (credentials notwithstanding) and is clueless as to what the NLRB does and how the executive branch is connected through it.

@John Airbus builds in France and his heavily supported by a Socialist (by American standards) regime.
preacher1
preacher1 0
@sammy & @Richard: Sammy, I got to agree with Richard on trainable workers in SC. The ill fitting parts were caused by lack of QC oversight by Boeing and granted, Renton had to straighten them out as, at that time, Renton was all there was. As far as SC, as Richard says, just down the road at Savannah GA they build and have built for years the finest Corp. jet in the world. Why have so many fortune 500 companies not only located plants but their HQ as well in the South? Why, because they like the country, the people, and they want to be free to run their business as they see fit, not how some union group wants them to and hold them hostage like a spoiled child if they don't get their way. Companies are in business to make a profit, not to owe somebody a lifetime living. I don't see on here where you are from or what type, if any, certificate you hold but you sound like somebody that is scared of losing his job, and the statement about the NLRB being totally independent is either ignorance on your part or just pure bull$%#@. It may be supposed to be but it lives and dies by the President.
evbutler
Ev Butler 0
Assembly line operations aren't exactly rocket science. Repetitive operations are easy to teach and learn. It is the QA at the site that counts. Rote memory jobs are hard to screw up, The engineers are the important folks. Assemblers can be taught. I have taught hundreds to do motion jobs. Each person at each operation do the same procedure every day. Laborers don't have to have AF credentials. The important planning is done by technicaal people with credentials who supervise the actual workers. I see no problem with training workers to do assembly line work. The vast majority of workers at the Washington factory have no credentials. They were trained to do one particukar function correctly. I see no reason why they to payhave union dues just to have a job in a right to work state.


The head honchos at the NLRB are beholding to BHO for their existence. Union contributions, notwithstanding.
canuck44
canuck44 0
LOL, Ev...my point exactly...although Sammy either ignored or missed the AngloCanadian reference.
rick737
richard weiss 0
I know Sammy, it's complicated. Here's what's complicated. A legacy company that exports more product than any company in America want's to conduct business as directed by their board of directors. In Washington, DC the central planners at the White House don't see any benefit for their regime in that free enterprise philosophy. So, What's a manchild president to do. Oh yeah, he called the lackies at NLRB and asked them how they enjoy their fat cat government jobs. He then mentions that Boeing is not towing the line on the fact that we believe labor should run companies. And maybe be should gin up a charge or two to put them back in line. Kinda like Bill Clinton did to Bill Gates when he refused to take the shake down for a big campaign contribution. Clinton tried to break up Microsoft with antitrust laws. Clinton lost in the courts, but he did accomplish one thing. He forced Microsoft to spend billions to defend themselves. Before that event, Microsoft spent very little on lobbying, now it spends billions. Yeah right, Sammy those big mean corporations need to put on a leash by the liberals that hate them. The question you have never answered, Sammy, why do you think the central planners in DC can do a better job of running Boeing than Boeing?
samdini0
Sammy Francois 0
Richard. Again. I don't challenge nor argue the point that DC should stay out of the affairs of business so long as they're not competing unfairly, illegally, or using a monopoly to crush the competition (hence the Microsoft litigation). I don't even argue the point that Boeing has a right to move jobs wherever the company sees fit. That is the nature of free enterprise and its a beautiful thing. Believe me I know. If my workers started unionizing I'd have a problem paying their wages if they sought an increase.

The point I am making, just to stay on topic, is that the NYTimes article is flawed in terms of the facts. That's all. Political leanings, personal credentials, liberals vs conservatives vs godknowswhat; feelings toward this President, past presidents, future presidents... completely irrelevant. The point is: the article is flawed.
linbb
linbb 0
Let them build where they want as long as its on our shores. Boeing and the rank and file union people have suffered at the hands of there union holding strikes that in the long run very seldom do they win due to lost wages during the strike. Boeing lost orders had to pay peneltys due to late deliverys. So who won? The union bosses are the only ones who won. Bama stay out of it NLRB get your head out of your south end and learn from your mistakes before all the good that you did goes down the round hole in the floor.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Sammy: you are probably one of those that would never accept being proven wrong if it was as plain as the nose on your face so I will not argue with you, other than to say I totally disagree with you on your feelings about the article. I believe the article is pretty much on the mark and factual. That's my story and I'm stckin' to it.
jimquinndallas
Jim Quinn 0
Mercedes, BMW and a number of other high-quality automobiles are built in the southern states. I like the idea that I can go to work and not have to worry about some union chieftain telling me that I have to go out on strike and not cross a picket line in order to feed my family and that I can also drive my own car onto a facility without worrying about some knuckle-dragger throwing a brick through my car window... Just saying...
deboyd
David Boyd 0
The current admin really does not have a concept of "free" enterprise. I work for a top of the line business jet company and now see 1/3 less people working here due to our "improved" economy. At this rate, my job may be Mexico within the next 2 years. Its really sad that we need a second language to exist in our own country! Heck, my company even offers a second language course through Roseta Stone!
upchucked
C. WESLEY GRADY 0
The NLRB is governed by a five-person board and a General Counsel, all of whom are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate. Board members are appointed to five-year terms and the General Counsel is appointed to a four-year term. The General Counsel acts as a prosecutor and the Board acts as an appellate judicial body from decisions of administrative law judges.

Understand that the members are not appointed by just one President in his or her first term. When President Obama took office, there were five members serving on the board as well as the General Counsel. As those terms expire they are filled by the President. When President Bush took office, the members had all been appointed by President Clinton, and likewise when President Obama took office, all the members had been appointed by President Bush. They are appointed by the President, much like Federal Judges, but once appointed they are not subject to any guidance or instruction of the President.

President Obama designated Wilma B. Liebman to be Chairman of the NLRB on January 20, 2009. Wilma B. Liebman has served as a Member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) since November 14, 1997. She was first appointed by President Clinton and confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term that expired on December 16, 2002. She was reappointed by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate to a second term that will expire on August 27, 2007. She was again reappointed by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate to a third term that will expire on August 27, 2012.

Craig Becker was sworn in as a Board Member on April 05, 2010, following his recess appointment by President Obama.

Craig Becker has served as Associate General Counsel to both the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations. He graduated summa cum laude from Yale College in 1978 and received his J.D. in 1981 from Yale Law School where he was an Editor of the Yale Law Journal. After law school he clerked for the Honorable Donald P. Lay, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. For 28 years, he practiced and taught labor law. He was a Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law between 1989 and 1994 and has also taught at the University of Chicago and Georgetown Law Schools. He has published numerous articles on labor and employment law in scholarly journals, including the Harvard Law Review and Chicago Law Review, and has argued labor and employment cases in virtually every federal court of appeals and before the United States Supreme Court.

Mark Gaston Pearce was sworn in as a Board Member on April 07, 2010, following his recess appointment by President Obama.

Mark Gaston Pearce was a founding partner of the Buffalo, New York law firm of Creighton, Pearce, Johnsen & Giroux, where he practiced union side labor and employment law before state and federal courts and agencies. In 2008, he was appointed to the New York State Industrial Board of Appeals, an independent quasi-judicial agency responsible for review of certain rulings and compliance orders of the NY Department of Labor in matters including wage and hour law. Pearce has taught at Cornell University's School of Industrial Labor Relations Extension, and is a Fellow in the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers. Prior to 2002, Pearce practiced union side labor and employment law at Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury & Cambria LLP. From 1979 to 1994, he was an attorney and District Trial Specialist for the NLRB in Buffalo, NY. Pearce received his J.D. from State University of New York, and his B.A. from Cornell University.

Brian Hayes was sworn in as a Board Member on June 29, 2010 by Sen. Mike Enzi at his offices in the Russell Building. He had most recently served as Republican Labor Policy Director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Before joining the Senate staff, Mr. Hayes was in private practice for 25 years representing management clients in labor and employment law.

He began his legal career as a clerk for the NLRB's Chief Administrative Law Judge, and later served as counsel to the Board Chairman. He is a member of the Massachusetts and District of Columbia bars, and the American Bar Association and its Labor and Employment Law Section. Mr. Hayes earned his undergraduate degree from Boston College and his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center. Mr. Hayes was confirmed by the Senate on June 22, 2010 to a term that ends on December 16, 2012.

The General Counsel, appointed by the President to a 4-year term, is independent from the Board and is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of unfair labor practice cases and for the general supervision of the NLRB field offices in the processing of cases. Lafe Solomon, a career NLRB attorney, was named Acting General Counsel by President Obama as of June 21, 2010. The Agency's top investigative and prosecutorial position, the General Counsel has supervisory authority over all Regional Offices and guides policy on issuing complaints, seeking injunctions, and enforcing the Board's decisions. Mr. Solomon's appointment as General Counsel has been pending Senate confirmation since 2009. He is serving as Acting General Counsel pending full confirmation.

There is one vacancy.

The NLRB is an independent federal agency that decides unfair labor practice and representation cases under the National Labor Relations Act. A predecessor organization, the National Labor Board, was established by the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933, an act that was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court. The NLRB was established by Executive Order 6763 on June 29, 1934.

Now, lets all get back to blaming President Obama because Boeing decided to do something that the then General Counsel, appointed by President Bush, decided was in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Well sounds like BHO has a couple of appointees there + the general counsel(although unconfirmed, still there)as well as the potential for 1 more anyway. N-a-ah, he ain't got no influence; hell, let's blame it on Bush. Everything is his fault anyway.
upchucked
C. WESLEY GRADY 0
So, you are saying that during the Bush years all the decisions were in favor of the employer? That Bush directed this agency on when to file cases and how to find? Get real, here. The agency is independent and the President of the United States has more important things to do than get involved in the day to day operations of independent agencies. And, I guarantee you that the first time any President tried to tell the NLRB what to do, it would be all over the papers the next edition.
linbb
linbb 0
There are companys large and small that the union went on strike against them and there answere was to ignore the strike hire people to replace the strikers and keep right on going to this day. No one stepped in and did anything about it the strikers lost there jobs that some had for years lost all of there retirement when the company looted the system and still nothing done about it. But let Boeing keep all of the jobs and add to them in the Seattle area build a new plant somewhere else and look the great BAMA comes to save those who were not hurt and hurt those who need the jobs lets see have we gained anything by this action? Yes the lawers and those who pander to the unions have. Get rid of the BAMA
preacher1
preacher1 0
Well, that's why this is all over the papers Wesley.
evbutler
Ev Butler 0
Mr. Grady, I disagree with your statement. Much is done under the cover of confidentiality. NLRB owes its very existence to the politicians, whose very positions need union money. It's a quid pro quo. I have been in appointed gov't positions for over 40 years and know of what I speak. Much of the communications between appointees and their patrons is top secret. The communications are not even known by the appointee's employees. No agency is independent of political influence, except on paper. Defy the patron and watch your budget get cut. Get real, folks.
rick737
richard weiss 0
Wesley, by your own admission, you acknowledge that 4 of the 5 members are either B.O.'s appointees or re-appointees. Doesn't that make the case you argue against? Or, are you saying that one member of the NLRB, the general counsel has overridden the entire board? Either way this situation still can't pass the smell test. Secondly, if you think for a minute that a phone call from the president to an a political appointee doesn't have a chilling effect on an independant board member, you are sadly mistaken. If Boeing can drag this case out in the courts until 2013 when B.O. is sent to the golf course, watch how quickly it is settled. Americans don't like government intrusion. This is just that.
mike100369
Michael Eby 0
Holy crap! Have you guys read the comments for this article on the NYT site? Sounds like all the Soviet Politburo had a say on that thread.

My grandfather worked as a middle-manager at Boeing-Wichita during the 1950's and 60's. Yes, the company could be tough with its customers, employees and regulators, but the path the company climbed to become the country's largest exporter is one that needs repeating. Just read Joe Sutter's book on the creation of the 747 and then try to find another company willing to take that risk in today's environment. DC will never know how productive members of our society get things done and create value. Boeing, while far from perfect, can serve as an example to other business leaders, like myself.

That the executive branch pleads for job creation while not even addressing this issue is a fine example of hypocrisy. Excuse my Gen-X cynicism, but the notion that the NLRB is an "independent arbriter" unaffected by political whims is delusional. NLRB, under the tacit approval of the President, is taking their stand to solidify Obama's base and help raise union campaign funds for his futile effort in 2012. They like the power of telling a "greedy business" what they can and can't do. The one comment on which their decision is based is a poor excuse to dictate their worldview to a private company who has millions at stake.

How can the NLRB's actions in this case be even remotely legal? How can a private business be told where they can relocate and what is acceptable to do? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to try on my grey burlap suit and work on a collective farm just yet.

Capital has to have confidence in the market and political environment before it's invested. No amount of new-age economic policy will ever change that fact. Capital will never invest to just create jobs; it seeks the highest return which leads to innovation and progress. Not even the leftist Warren Buffett invests in something with no prospect of a return, but generates "jobs".

I'm glad to see others so worked up about this as I am. It's strangely not a major issue in the current campaign or a focus of media concern. Why are no Republican candidates (or even Obama's Democratic primary challenger, when she appears) hammering this home every minute until it sinks in with someone?

Bush, Obama, whoever appointed the board members, I don't give a damn. It's the principle that government feels empowered to interfere in a perfectly legal business decision makes it a problem for me.

It boils down to power and money. That's it. Until the unions and left-wingers understand globalization is a reality and we'll never go back to the "good-old-days" of job security and big pensions (how's GM and Chrysler doing anyways?), they'll continue to block progress under the flimsiest of guises to create their utopia. Their views would probably be pretty revolutionary in the 1840's with the need to build windmills, railroads and all.

Go Boeing! Jail the NLRB!
dbrooks84
David Brooks 0
I will throw in my 2 cents. As mentioned by others the difficulties Boeing has encountered with the 787 also as affected Airbus too. When Boeing outsourced much of the 787 (reasons are pretty well cover above) the key thing they did not understanding is managing a diverse group of suppliers and partners. With Airbus, one only has to look at the A380s problems that are still ongoing. The A380 has parts in UK (wing and engines), Spain, Germany, Italy, etc. The first 5 or 6 A380s wiring systems did not match up. Again, problems in communicating and managing a diverse group of suppliers was there Achilles heal.
racerman
larry clement 0
Anyone who doesn't think Obama and the NLRB is not out to help the unions must also believe in the tooth fairy. This is the most anti-business administration ever, and they can't understand why businesses don't want to hire new people. BTW, will anyone name a Federal agency that was created to protect or enhance employers?
preacher1
preacher1 0
If all this comment string and feelings like it turn into votes in 2012 there won't be a problem in making a change. Sad part is how many will just bitch and not bother to vote and are we already outnumbered by those getting a handout?
agg1930
agg1930 0
Wayne:You hit it on the head! When we get outnumbered by those getting handouts from the Government, we better be prepared to live in a socialistic country. The so-called "silent mayority" needs to wake up!!!!
Please VOTE in 2012 so that we can really CHANGE this country from the way is going!
evbutler
Ev Butler 0
A statement sent to me by a friend:

"You voted for BHO to prove that you aren't a racist. Now vote him out to prove that you aren't an idiot."

While I realize that no union person will like it, I do! I vote ever time I get the chance. That is about the only freedom we have left and even then one doesn't need photo ID. You may tell the person you are John Doe and if John has died since the last election, you will be given a ballot.
jimquinndallas
Jim Quinn 0
Good point, Ev! Very good point! The libs keep fighting against photo ID... Thank goodness states are finally getting the message from the citizens! And now some states are starting to require the 'pee in a cup' test to be eligible for welfare benefits... I'm in Texas, a 'right to work' state AND a state that has recently voted for photo ID at the polls. Not a bad place... I think the NLRB is WAY out of line on the Boeing SC plant.
rick737
richard weiss 0
Come on Wesley Grady, Tell the 35 people who differ from you how wrong we are. Or will you do like most liberals and proclaim victory, call everyone a racist redneck and leave. Your views are more in line with the Moveon.org crowd.
preacher1
preacher1 0
The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

-Ronald Reagan
bishops90
Brian Bishop 0
Notice that two of BHO's appointments are "recess appointments", meaning that they were made and the nominees sworn in WITHOUT the advice and consent of the Senate. Maybe because he knew they were far too union freindly to get Senate approval, but he needed them there to do his bidding? Just a theory.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Ain't that special!!!!!!!!!!
bishops90
Brian Bishop 0
And it was our friend Mr. Grady who told us about it, it's in his post above!
bishops90
Brian Bishop 0
"Craig Becker was sworn in as a Board Member on April 05, 2010, following his recess appointment by President Obama"

and

"Mark Gaston Pearce was sworn in as a Board Member on April 07, 2010, following his recess appointment by President Obama."

Thanks for the info Wesley - didn't know this! (probably should have)
rick737
richard weiss 0
There's a phrase called malicious prosecution. It normally happens at a local level where a DA is trying to make a name for himself. We see it here at the federal level. This time it's a blatant attempt to keep the union vote for B.O. Is this the way politics will be in this country, regardless of who's in power? Let's wake up everybody. Send a message to our savior president that we will not stand for it. Send an additional message to the future power brokers that we are watching.
evbutler
Ev Butler 0
I am not a BHO fan, believe me. He was in over his head from the start. He didn't have the experience for the job and had a bunch of folks that he owed political obligations. A was a young, inexperienced senator who hadn't even served one term and was the wrong choice for everyone except the power brokers. He owes the union big time. He will pay!! He is paying and will continue to be led by the likes of Reid and Pelosi. IMO, he is a puppet on a string. Inexperienced, in over his head, and easy to mislead. In some ways, I feel for him. He hasn't a clue.
evbutler
Ev Butler 0
In my last post, I hit the wrong key. I hit "A" when I needed to use the word "He" was a young, inexperienced..... My apologies. See, nobody is perfect!!
preacher1
preacher1 0
Ev, I am in total agreement with your last line there. It seems like that he wants to do something different sometimes and then gets his chain yanked to go another way. Either way, we have got to have another change because I sure don't like the change we got.

Entrar

Não tem uma conta? Registre-se agora (gratuito) para funcionalidades personalizáveis, alertas de vôo e mais!