Dear FNG,
Paul and a "minority" of pilots within SWAPA have been focused exclusively on Age 60, you are correct. The term "minority" though is a misnomer I believe as it would imply that something less than a majority of SWAPA members had no influence into the direction of SWAPA on the issue. In fact over the last 7 years, SWAPA has had two votes on the issue, both were in the 60-40% range of those voting who supported age 60 changes. I didn't say that 60-40% of all members supported change, just those who bothered to vote. As is always the case, I believe those who were present & didn't vote aren't in a position to complain and that for folks to claim that "SWAPA" is in favor of changing the Age 60 rule would be accurate, based upon the votes....just as it is fair to say an elected official was elected and represents the "will of the people" who voted. Only in contract balloting is participation high enough to make the statement 100% accurate.
However, for the nearly 1500 (5300 on property now) pilots who have been hired since the last vote (2003, same results with about the same level of participation by the general membership) the argument can be made that another vote is needed. That is a very salient point but merely because another vote might occur, I don't believe it represents a seminal shift in how the membership feels about it, at least from those that are polled. I hope those individuals who wish to have another vote pass their thoughts to their elected association officials for actions or take up the cause and petition for a change; all are reasonable options and would be well received by your representatives and executives.
For Paul or anyone to lead a charge on any issue could be construed as a "minority" of a few....most bills in congress or eventual laws are "minority" laws. Most "majorities" are satisfied for others to do the legwork and trudge up the hill. It could be said a "minority" has the right to speak its piece also for if another vote was to occur & the results were the same or even more in favor of change, would you expect those on the minority side to remain silent?
I applaud anyone who has the passion to fight for something, particularly if it is in DC where the obstacles are the greatest to overcome policy/law and pursues it with the zest and zeal Paul has and others. Not all causes are worthy of this passion as those on the other side would argue....so be it but to disparage the individual vs. debating the issue & its merits trivializes the efforts of those who have worked hard in the past for the "majority" when in fact the "majority" was happy to let other "minorities" fight for them. I applaud the proponents of both sides of the arguement and hope the debate will be settled soon in order to remove a divisive issue in the minds of some.
