S. 65 and H.R. 1125 still alive (age 65)

[Andy]

Maybe the Dems should have changed their position on every topic the last many years because the republicans had control of the house and senate and controlled the outcome.

Now you're starting to sound like prater. :angryfire

 

[XJTAv8r]

I think you should call your MEC Chairman Bill Dressler and talk to him about the political issues you bring up if you have concerns. I speak with Bill often and he is very in touch with this issue, etc.

I'm XJT Alumni now (at CAL) I just never bothered to get a new screen name.

The only thing I will say, however, is that there has been a congressional push on this issue for a long time...from guys like Ted Stevens, Robin Hayes, John Mica, and James Inhofe.

If you were a "betting man" what would you say the olds are for the rule to change quickly through Congress verses the slower NPRM? You probably have as good an insight as any, being on the BRP.

 

[BluDevAv8r]

Neal, I'm FULLY aware of the Congressmen who have made this their pet project. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM are members of the GOP. The GOP no longer has control of either house of congress; you might want to do a little research on which party currently controls the various committees in the House and Senate. There are a lot of 'friends of ALPA' on committees (including chairmanship) who have a great deal of influence over this matter. And they've suddenly gotten a change of heart on this matter without ALPA approval? That's a tough sell.

Not all of the co-sponsors to these 2 bills are Republicans...Senator Joe Lieberman for example. Furthermore, I'm well briefed on the various committees in the House and Senate as well as who chairs them. You would be surprised as to what is going on right now in those various committees.

-Neal

 

[BluDevAv8r]

I'm XJT Alumni now (at CAL) I just never bothered to get a new screen name.

Oops, my bad. I just looked at the screename...not the info under it.

If you were a "betting man" what would you say the olds are for the rule to change quickly through Congress verses the slower NPRM? You probably have as good an insight as any, being on the BRP.

This isn't an issue I would want to bet on....but I will say that S.65 and H.R. 1125 are very real and very much going to be discussed in a week or two when the FAA Re-Authorization bill gets marked up by Congress.

-Neal

 

[BluDevAv8r]

The BRP isn't exactly representative of the membership; they look pretty long in the tooth. I'd be curious to know where the BRP stands on any change - my bet is that it's something along the lines of 5-2 in favor of changing to age 65.

You'd actually be wrong in your bet then. But the only time we discussed our personal opinions was in the first 5 minutes of our first meeting. After that we never brought it up again (rightfully so). The BRP is not about the merits of changing the age or not changing the age. That is a common misconception unfortunately. We are just technicians studying the effects of a possible change and what ALPA should do IF the age does in fact change.

-Neal

 

[XJTAv8r]

This isn't an issue I would want to bet on....but I will say that S.65 and H.R. 1125 are very real and very much going to be discussed in a week or two when the FAA Re-Authorization bill gets marked up by Congress.

-Neal

It looks like the best thing to do here is to use our citizen/taxpayer rights and write or e-mail the appropriate Senators and Congressmen on this issue.

Andy, you had a good list of the lawmakers to write to a few months ago. Can you repost it?

 

[Andy]

Not all of the co-sponsors to these 2 bills are Republicans...Senator Joe Lieberman for example. Furthermore, I'm well briefed on the various committees in the House and Senate as well as who chairs them. You would be surprised as to what is going on right now in those various committees.

Neal, you said 'pet project.' Lieberman isn't out there with fire in his belly trying to get this changed. And most co-sponsors take little interest in the bills that they co-sponsor.
Here are S.65's co-sponsors:
Sen Allard, Wayne [CO]
Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT]
Sen Bond, Christopher S. [MO]
Sen Brownback, Sam [KS]
Sen Bunning, Jim [KY]
Sen Cochran, Thad [MS]
Sen Cornyn, John [TX]
Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID]
Sen Crapo, Mike [ID]
Sen Ensign, John [NV]
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI]
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA]
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT]
Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX]
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA]
Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ]
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT]
Sen McCain, John [AZ]
Sen Murkowski, Lisa [AK]
Sen Nelson, Bill [FL]
Sen Salazar, Ken [CO]
Sen Stevens, Ted [AK]
Sen Thomas, Craig [WY]
Sen Vitter, David [LA]
Very few Dems on that list.

There are 69 co-sponsors of HR 1125. Again, heavily GOP.

How many co-sponsors take an active role in this? Very few.

As far as committee chairmen, I have heard that Inouye has changed his mind on Age 65. He was one of the most unlikely candidates to change his position and I have to question what off the record conversations that prater has had with Inouye to orchestrate such a radical change. I do not for one second believe that Inouye reversed his position without ALPA national approval.

Neal, again my apologies if I sound like I'm shooting the messenger. I'm just unhappy with the fact that this is suddenly being fast tracked with ALPA clearing the way for the change.

 

[Andy]

Andy, you had a good list of the lawmakers to write to a few months ago. Can you repost it?

Yeah, the target audience will be members of the appropriations subcommittees. Give me a few minutes to compile.

 

[ultrarunner]

"Barring any change in the official ALPA policy, the Association will oppose any NPRM proposal to change the Age 60 rule."

That's easy for ALPA to say since it's HIGHLY probable the change will not occur via a NPRM.

Nice play on words though.

 

[Andy]

Here are the Senate target audience:

Subcommittee on
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

Democratic Subcommittee Members:
·Senator Patty Murray (Chairman) (WA)
·Senator Robert C. Byrd (WV)
·Senator Barbara Mikulski (MD)
·Senator Herb Kohl (WI)
·Senator Richard Durbin (IL)
·Senator Byron Dorgan (ND)
·Senator Patrick Leahy (VT)
·Senator Tom Harkin (IA)
·Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA)
·Senator Tim Johnson (SD)
·Senator Frank Lautenberg (NJ)
Republican Subcommittee Members:
·Senator Christopher Bond (Ranking Member) (MO)
·Senator Richard Shelby (AL)
·Senator Arlen Specter (PA)
·Senator Robert Bennett (UT)
·Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX)
·Senator Sam Brownback (KS)
·Senator Ted Stevens (AK)
·Senator Pete Domenici (NM)
·Senator Lamar Alexander (TN)
·Senator Wayne Allard (CO)


Note that Bond, Hutchison, Brownback, Stevens, Alexander, and Allard (all GOP) are co-sponsors of S. 65, so you’re wasting your time with them. None of the Dems are co-sponsors of S. 65.


The FAA Authorization Bill will be in markup in appropriations subcommittee. This is where the text of S. 65 will be inserted, if it is inserted into the appropriations bill.

 

[XJTAv8r]

Here are the Senate target audience:

Subcommittee on
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

Democratic Subcommittee Members:
·Senator Patty Murray (Chairman) (WA)
·Senator Robert C. Byrd (WV)
·Senator Barbara Mikulski (MD)
·Senator Herb Kohl (WI)
·Senator Richard Durbin (IL)
·Senator Byron Dorgan (ND)
·Senator Patrick Leahy (VT)
·Senator Tom Harkin (IA)
·Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA)
·Senator Tim Johnson (SD)
·Senator Frank Lautenberg (NJ)
Republican Subcommittee Members:
·Senator Christopher Bond (Ranking Member) (MO)
·Senator Richard Shelby (AL)
·Senator Arlen Specter (PA)
·Senator Robert Bennett (UT)
·Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX)
·Senator Sam Brownback (KS)
·Senator Ted Stevens (AK)
·Senator Pete Domenici (NM)
·Senator Lamar Alexander (TN)
·Senator Wayne Allard (CO)


Note that Bond, Hutchison, Brownback, Stevens, Alexander, and Allard (all GOP) are co-sponsors of S. 65, so you’re wasting your time with them. None of the Dems are co-sponsors of S. 65.


The FAA Authorization Bill will be in markup in appropriations subcommittee. This is where the text of S. 65 is likely to be inserted, if it is inserted into the appropriations bill.

Thanks for posting that. Do you also have a copy of that handy template/form letter you posted several months ago?

 

[Flopgut]

Mmm'kay, now we're getting somewhere!

Let's all join the APA! That way everything will be different! Suddenly, everybody will volunteer, run for office, and become actively involved in legislative efforts. Our PAC will soar like the APA's! Arabs will hug jews! Al Qaeda will surrender on the deck of USS Abraham Lincoln. We'll need supplemental oxygen to cope with the string of breathtaking successes!

(sigh)

ALPA ain't a building. It ain't a logo. It's pilots. It should be all of us, but it's not. It turns out it's only those pilots who get involved. If you ain't gonna get involved until we get the "L" out of ALPA, then you are a telemarketer's wet dream! As you probably know, a large segment of ALPA (Spoiler Alert! APA too!) does nothing but whine about ALPA being unsuccessful in efforts that they have refused to actively support. (adverb highlighted for effect). That is no different than the APA!

Slap a new name and logo on an apathetic pilot group, and they'll still be an apathetic pilot group.

Having been in 2 unions other than ALPA as a pilot myself, and watching my fathers' 25 year ALPA career, I actually think this WOULD change everything. ALPA's history is SO disfunctional I'm not sure the membership can ever be brought together. I thought/hoped we were getting close to being able to go forward with Prater running ALPA, instead it's the same old story. We're half thru re-doing a fairly recent policy poll and the union leadership is already talking about unilaterally changing the policy? Yike! There is no way the poll could change enough to affect the mandate sufficiently to change policy 180 degrees, even with Prater's slat and misdirection.

I'll guarntee you all: This will not be the last change turned windfall these old ba$tards will go for.

BTW: I like the Teamsters.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

I think if the membership says no and the leadership goes against their wishes, we should all join the Allied pilot's association. At least they stand on principle.

I might be crazy...but I thought the APA only represented the pilots of American Airlines.

 

[Flopgut]

You'd actually be wrong in your bet then. But the only time we discussed our personal opinions was in the first 5 minutes of our first meeting. After that we never brought it up again (rightfully so). The BRP is not about the merits of changing the age or not changing the age. That is a common misconception unfortunately. We are just technicians studying the effects of a possible change and what ALPA should do IF the age does in fact change.

-Neal

Neal: You delight in describing the limited nature of the BRP's mission. Is anybody thinking outside the box at national? (I have to ask because no one will return a call to me) Why is the monetary loss of the soon to be retired and pensionless a talking point but the monetary loss of those of us who will suffer the moratorium on advancement this will cause a non issue? What about the effects on collective bargaining? It seems if they were half as interested in answering these sorts of issues, instead of an expedited change, they would gain some support for change.

What if what we were facing was a proposed lowering of the retirement age? (that could happen just as easily now and might be an issue in the future) Is that being addressed?

PS: To pre-empt your response: Oh yes they ARE trying to expedite the change! The discussion has turned to a possible unilateral changing of the policy and the polling isn't even done. That is about as dirty as union business gets. Please give me a straight answer.

 

[BluDevAv8r]

Neal: You delight in describing the limited nature of the BRP's mission. Is anybody thinking outside the box at national? (I have to ask because no one will return a call to me) Why is the monetary loss of the soon to be retired and pensionless a talking point but the monetary loss of those of us who will suffer the moratorium on advancement this will cause a non issue? What about the effects on collective bargaining? It seems if they were half as interested in answering these sorts of issues, instead of an expedited change, they would gain some support for change.

What if what we were facing was a proposed lowering of the retirement age? (that could happen just as easily now and might be an issue in the future) Is that being addressed?

PS: To pre-empt your response: Oh yes they ARE trying to expedite the change! The discussion has turned to a possible unilateral changing of the policy and the polling isn't even done. That is about as dirty as union business gets. Please give me a straight answer.

I don't delight in this at all FlopGut as you know my personal opinion on the issue. The limited scope of the Panel is real. We were tasked with a specific mission and we are accomplishing that mission. The policy and politics of the issue are being dealt with well above my pay grade. Do you know where the CAL MEC is on this issue? Have you talked to Captain Donaldson about where he thinks this issue should go? He will be representing CAL at the Executive Board and voting on this resolution on behalf of all CAL pilots. I suggest you point your frustration in the appropriate place...I'm not the right target unfortunately.

-Neal