atrdriver
Living in Paradise
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2004
- Posts
- 9,271
You anti-ALPA guys are UFB. First of all, you blame ALPA for a change in the Age 60 rule that was going to happen anyway, whether you, I, or ALPA liked it or not. But it's ALPA's fault. Fine.
Fortunately, ALPA leadership doesn't come to flightinfo.com for legislative advice. Despite having been able to keep Age 60 over the past decade or two, this time ALPA sees the writing on the wall months ago and sees that Age 60 is going to change, like it or not. They realize that they can "fight to the death" and not get a role in the rule making that will ultimately decide how Age 65 is shaped or they can change their position and have a chance of receiving some "gets."
One of the "gets" that ALPA receives for not ridiculously "fighting to the death" is wording in the Age 65 legislation that will prevent guys who have already retired under the Age 60 rule from coming back, which would obviously be pretty bad for all of us.
So now you anti-ALPA guys confuse me. You complain that ALPA didn't "fight to the death" concerning Age 60 and blame ALPA for the change. ALPA wisely didn't "fight to the death" concerning Age 60 so that they could get this wording (among other things) into the legislation to keep the already retired guys from coming back, WHICH IS WORDING THAT ALPA ONLY GOT BECAUSE THEY WERE FORCED TO CHANGE THEIR POSITION ON AGE 60. The only reason you don't have guys flooding back to the seniority list RIGHT NOW is because of the wording ALPA was able to obtain by not foolishly "fighting to the death." But then you complain about that, too!
For those of you who bit**ed about ALPA not "fighting to the death" concerning the rule change, how can you come on here and complain about this protection ALPA was able to fight for ONLY by being forced to change its position on Capital Hill? If ALPA had done things "your way," we'd probably already have even more furloughs as there would have been NOTHING to prevent all of these guys from coming back in the first place. Again, some of you guys are UFB!
You don't seem to understand. While I was pretty pissed off at Prater for rolling on this, I at least understood why it happened. But your "get" that we received, in fact the main one, is that those that were already retired wouldn't be able to come back. Look at the lawsuit. I said at the time it would happen, and people said "no, the wording says they can't." I said some lawyer would take it, and they said no one would because they knew they would lose. Well, here we are, we have our lawsuit, and I would be surprised if those that did retire before the deadline aren't allowed to come back. But no, I'm not mad at ALPA, I'm mad at the whiny, worthless, SOS, greedy pricks that think that their benefiting all those years wasn't good enough, they had to screw the junior guys a few more times before they left.