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

[Andy]

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

I'll PM out some stuff late today/early tomorrow.

 

[Flopgut]

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

I wasn't trying to sound as snide as I guess my question did, I beg your pardon. I am quite frustrated. About two weeks ago you suggested I start calling national and that I would be pleased with what I learned was going on around this issue. I put two calls into national 9 days ago. I talked to one person in R&I and left a message for a guy with a last name that starts with J. I've followed up every other day since and heard nothing, but I wil continue to try.

Neal, you must feel some frustration with this too? Your collective bargaining reputation is outstanding. You've been put on this panel with a very limited scope and are the only FO. The polling isn't even done and a Fastread goes out telling the membership that ALPA may change the rule in spite of any official polling results. How can that be anything but frustrating? I think Prater wanted to trade on your reputation but really never intended to allow you input.

 

[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

Just got off the phone with ALPA National. Had a very candid discussion with a person familiar with what's going on.

Neal: You got 5 minutes, everybody else knew exactly what they were going for. I'm sorry to say, you've been duped! Prater sought to trade on your reputation and it worked. There's no way you could have known what was going to happen, so don't feel bad. You were the token FO and carried great credibility.

The membership majority favors age 60 retirement. However, factor the "it is going to change so should ALPA be a part of it?" semi-false slant, and the vote is 50/50. That is what ALPA leadership is going to term sufficient cause for them to rule for us!

This could come into effect as early as September this year. There is a possibilty it will be sometime next year, but it's very unlikely to take the full 18-24 months. This recent polling, the BRP, and the latest revelation that the rule may be unilaterally changed by National is nothing more than an effort to expedite the change. Nothing has changed with the membership's support of age 60, they simply re-phrased the question.

Most importantly, I asked "what's coming next, could this grow more lopsided and even more heavily favor more senior members?" Answer: "Yes".

 

[Andy]

This could come into effect as early as September this year. There is a possibilty it will be sometime next year, but it's very unlikely to take the full 18-24 months. This recent polling, the BRP, and the latest revelation that the rule may be unilaterally changed by National is nothing more than an effort to expedite the change. Nothing has changed with the membership's support of age 60, they simply re-phrased the question.

That echoes the conversation that I had a couple of days ago. The only difference that I got was that the phone poll was 52/48 in favor of status quo.

And anyone thinking that ALPA national is not behind the fast track on this is smoking crack. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that this train has already left the station. This will get buried in the FAA Authorization Bill. Whether the Authorization Bill can get implemented before September is up for debate. My guess is that this will take effect early '08.

Interestingly, the airline industry is behind the power curve on this one and the person that I spoke to at national very much doubted that the change could be done 30 days after passage ... and he indicated that everyone's aware of that. I wouldn't be surprised if the FAA asks for a longer implementation time.

 

[learherkjay]

Can some one provide me with an intelligent (ie. no immature rants) on the opposition to raising the retirement age to 65? I guess I just am not understanding why this is a bad thing.

 

[Andy]

Can some one provide me with an intelligent (ie. no immature rants) on the opposition to raising the retirement age to 65? I guess I just am not understanding why this is a bad thing.

I'll try, but like all guys, I'm just a big kid.

1) Safety. The FAA CAMI reports show a definite increase in the number of accidents per flight hour for pilots starting at age 55. It is a U shaped curve (actually, a bowl would probably be a more correct description), where those in their 20s have a high accident rate which tapers off in the 30s and remains fairly constant until 55, where a rise is seen.
I could get into the medical differences in other countries along with the generally poorer health of US citizens, but I could write for days on the subject. If you compare the average US pilot's health to an Asian/European pilot's health, you'll quickly see that we are a lot less healthy than our international counterparts.

2) Supply/demand. Having pilots fly for an additional 5 years will end up depressing wages due to the supply curve shift to the right. This will result in additional pilot jobs, but at a lower wage scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_demand_curve

The winners in this will be those pilots who are 55-59 when the age changes. Those 50-54 will break even. Anyone under 50 will end up working longer for lower lifetime earnings.

I could go into other reasons, but you asked me to keep it intelligent. Hopefully those answers suffice.

 

[learherkjay]

Andy,

Thanks for the "intelligent" response. I suppose it is the not seeing the forest through the trees syndrome in my opinion. As an individual pilot (especially with today's life expectancies); I would think everyone would want the option to work past 60. Nobody says you can't retire early, but it seems for those who are interested, it is an extra 5 years of income into your bank and into your retirement fund - extra wealth building or maintaining until you have to start drawing retirement. While I can see the argument in the list that you gave me, it seems to me that the arguments you provided are collective group think; as for the individual pilot - raising the age seems to be mostly a reward versus a cost.

 

[BoilerUP]

While I can see the argument in the list that you gave me, it seems to me that the arguments you provided are collective group think; as for the individual pilot - raising the age seems to be mostly a reward versus a cost.

Changing the retirement age from 60 to 65 provides a career windfall to those 55-59 pilots Andy mentioned. They will have benefited their entire careers from the seniority advancement Age 60 provided, only to gain 5 more years at the top those before them didn't have, at the expense of those on furlough and those making their way up through the ranks.

 

[Andy]

As an individual pilot (especially with today's life expectancies); I would think everyone would want the option to work past 60. Nobody says you can't retire early, but it seems for those who are interested, it is an extra 5 years of income into your bank and into your retirement fund - extra wealth building or maintaining until you have to start drawing retirement. While I can see the argument in the list that you gave me, it seems to me that the arguments you provided are collective group think; as for the individual pilot - raising the age seems to be mostly a reward versus a cost.

You are failing to understand the economic impact of the supply curve shift. You are falsely assuming that your company will pay you the same wages as you now receive. The concessionary contract pattern will continue due to the oversupply of pilots which will result in lower lifetime earnings for those under the age of 50.
Mark my words, the management of airlines will exploit this change which will result in lower wages and retirement contributions. As an individual, you do not operate outside of the economic forces of the group as a whole. It's truly a pity that most pilots are unable to comprehend this fact.
I would think that, after watching legacy carriers drag down the wage scales to that of the LCCs that most pilots would catch on to this.

 

[Flopgut]

Learherkjay:

First of all, it IS a safety issue.

Pitfalls that are closer to becoming reality:

1: We are going to have a difficult time with collective bargaining. Mgts are going to be able to say "you just got a million dollar raise, you don't need any more $!" And some will get a million dollar raise. A senior CAL retiree with the number of years right now, that I would have at age 60, leaves with a minimum of 250k more than I would get. Go to 65: That disparity grows to well over 500k. This is a worse disparity at some airlines; Huge transfer of wealth to the senior members on the part of the junior.

2: Disability ins will be decimated. It will still work for the senior guys, junior ones will foot the bill and then see it disappear.

3: Lots of guys are going to leave on time. The ones who made a plan and stuck to it, kept a back up plan, and were reasonable are going to retire. The ones that stay will be the chronically broke types who are going to use this as another chance to get another bubba mansion and wife number 3 or 4. The ones that stay are going to want more, standby for age 70. That is going to be to our detriment big time.

3: 65 will end up becoming normal retirement age. Go at 60 and it will cost you.

 

[Flopgut]

I'll tell you what guys and gals, there is going to be two different ALPAs after this deal happens. It's going to be clearly split and one side is going to have to work against the other. The more junior ones can't fall into the trap of thinking the association is going to help them. The "association" is the more senior contingent. The sooner we figure out they are only going to help themselves the better. We need our own reps, PAC, MEC...everything!

It's not unlike how the age 60 rule came into being. The oldsters at AA weren't going to be able to fly the jets so they came up with age 60 retirement. The old guys now may be able to fly the jets, but they are NOT equal to the task of effective collective bargaining in this environment, only bargaining for themselves! That's just one more aspect where age 60 retirement is just as appropriate today, as it was back then. Renewal is an important thing, and we're about to put it on hold.

 

[learherkjay]

Okay, thanks to everyone for offering up those thoughts on age 65. I have only been in this business for three years and we have no furloughees at my company; so I can see how that would be a negative development in pay and future earnings. Also, I think your type of retirement plan at your company has a large affect on whether you are pro or con; just my opinion. I can see disability insurance changing too, so that is a good point. I suppose the health issue is one I have difficulty with. With Open Skies happening, I have a hard time with foreign guys flying more often in our skies that are older than our guys. As far as health, I lived overseas for 4 years and flew to many countries; I wouldn't say that "across the board" foreign pilots are healthier than American pilots. So, I don't buy the "health" argument, but I do feel more educated about the pay side of the argument and the overall economic slippery slope. I suppose, like anything in life, nothing is black and white, only shades of grey. Thanks to everyone for their input.

 

[lostplnetairman]

Changing the retirement age from 60 to 65 provides a career windfall to those 55-59 pilots Andy mentioned. They will have benefited their entire careers from the seniority advancement Age 60 provided, only to gain 5 more years at the top those before them didn't have, at the expense of those on furlough and those making their way up through the ranks.

Except for those that never got the chance to advance due to company failures...There are a whole lot of pilots who were forced to bounce around from one failed carrier to another who are perfectly healthy. They saved what they could, by law, but would need to work to 65 to accrue more and be eligible for Medicare. So do you lump them in with the United 30 year pilots complaining?

 

[The Prussian]

Don't go away yet, Learhercjay....

Changing the retirement age from 60 to 65 provides a career windfall to those 55-59 pilots Andy mentioned. They will have benefited their entire careers from the seniority advancement Age 60 provided, only to gain 5 more years at the top those before them didn't have, at the expense of those on furlough and those making their way up through the ranks.

Windfall....schmindfal l!!!!! When I got hired, there were lots of guys in front of me on the seniority list who were already millionaires. Their timing was great, and I thought- good for them...their timing was great, and in this industry, timing can be everything. I didn't begrudge them that, nor do I now.
But, we need to put class envy aside.
Presently, I see some union diehards trying to protect the vestige of a world that is fast vanishing. For me, I would love to see a world that is protected from the ills and hurts of the real world. Whether some of us call that nirvana the Railway Labor Act, or something else,...I think everybody needs to
open their eyes to what reality is. The reality is that many, if not most of ALPA's pilots have lost very sizable percentages of their pensions due to the harsh realities of free market competition. And whether anyone wants to open their eyes and recognize that fact or not...those forces that were
set in place back in 1978 are still in force, and not abating anytime soon....if ever.
Therefore....IMHO, though it is a harsh reality, those of us that recognize those facts, and adjust their game plans to accomodate these new realities are the ones to benefit the soonest. To disregard these new forces and realities is to do so at your own peril. Therefore, I think it behooves
the pilot community as a whole, to embrace this new reality and adopt a policy that accepts the concept of additional earning years as a very beneficial option, if needed.

 

[Flopgut]

Windfall....schmindfal l!!!!! When I got hired, there were lots of guys in front of me on the seniority list who were already millionaires. Their timing was great, and I thought- good for them...their timing was great, and in this industry, timing can be everything. I didn't begrudge them that, nor do I now.
But, we need to put class envy aside.
Presently, I see some union diehards trying to protect the vestige of a world that is fast vanishing. For me, I would love to see a world that is protected from the ills and hurts of the real world. Whether some of us call that nirvana the Railway Labor Act, or something else,...I think everybody needs to
open their eyes to what reality is. The reality is that many, if not most of ALPA's pilots have lost very sizable percentages of their pensions due to the harsh realities of free market competition. And whether anyone wants to open their eyes and recognise that fact or not...those forces that were
set in place back in 1978 are still in force, and not abating anytime soon....if ever.
Therefore....IMHO, though it is a harsh reality, those of us that recognize those facts, and adjust their game plans to accomodate these new realities are the ones to benefit the soonest. To disregard these new forces and realities is to do so at your own peril. Therefore, I think it behooves
the pilot community as a whole, to embrace this new reality and adopt a policy that accepts the concept of additional earning years as a very beneficial option, if needed.

You are NWA, right? Are you telling me you never begrudged anyone anything? Why do you guys have red, green and pink [or whatever] book? Yeah, you guys are tolerant allright?!

I'm really tired of hearing about class envy. Are we all NOT doing the same job? This is more like a failed work action than anything else. A minority of pilots are vying for seniority they have no claim to. Please tell me when a pilot group has not begrudged a group of replacement workers? I don't recall them being "embraced" at NWA, did I miss something?

Reformers have entered the market with thier own rules and enforced them on others. SWA has no A plan, so now [almost] no one does. That is one example. What is absent is our own reformers in the ALPA realm. Our most senior and allegedly esteemed members are not ahead of the curve. They are NOT thinking, they are reacting and coping, nothing more. And they won't! Until someone in ALPA starts thinking no age limit is going to suffice!

We have some tough work ahead of us in this business. We need renewal and members with new standards and philosophies that can be our own reformers. UAL and PW is a perfect example. He exiled half the list into low cost oblivion in a failed attempt to save the UAL A plan. I don't know anyone at UAL that did not realize that wasn't going to work. (No surprise that most of the UAL types I know are junior) Nothing personal, but when you screw up that bad, you've got to go! You've got to have some gall to think you could hit your fellow pilots up for some more relief after that. But they shamlessly support the notion that they have the right to work to 65 and enjoy unprecedented seniority (save crossing a picket line).

Reality is this: pilots have lost pensions before. They have dealt with it. I'm tired of saying it, but it happened in my family. I've understood, and lived with, this harsh reality since day 1 in this business. No one cared when my fathers pension was gone (and we were flat BROKE BTW). Why should I give flying F about theirs? Feel free to pretend you know what that was like (because everybody does anyway). But bear in mind: Many of these guys who took it in the shorts recently were dancing in the streets when my family's mealticket tanked. Giving these guys 5 more years isn't going to teach them anything about reality (trust me). It suspends reality. They just won't be able to deal with 65 either.

 

[The Prussian]

Sorry...guess I broke your 'train' of thought!!?!

 

[BluDevAv8r]

Just got off the phone with ALPA National. Had a very candid discussion with a person familiar with what's going on.

Who did you speak with? If you are uncomfortable posting it in public, PM it to me please.

Neal: You got 5 minutes, everybody else knew exactly what they were going for. I'm sorry to say, you've been duped! Prater sought to trade on your reputation and it worked. There's no way you could have known what was going to happen, so don't feel bad. You were the token FO and carried great credibility.

When I said 5 minutes, I meant that each of the 7 of us gave our personal opinions and then we moved on. Are you saying that you spoke with the other 6 people on the BRP and they are all working outside of the mission of the BRP to affect this change? If so, please provide a source and evidence for such a statement.

-Neal

 

[BluDevAv8r]

I wasn't trying to sound as snide as I guess my question did, I beg your pardon. I am quite frustrated. About two weeks ago you suggested I start calling national and that I would be pleased with what I learned was going on around this issue. I put two calls into national 9 days ago. I talked to one person in R&I and left a message for a guy with a last name that starts with J. I've followed up every other day since and heard nothing, but I wil continue to try.

Neal, you must feel some frustration with this too? Your collective bargaining reputation is outstanding. You've been put on this panel with a very limited scope and are the only FO. The polling isn't even done and a Fastread goes out telling the membership that ALPA may change the rule in spite of any official polling results. How can that be anything but frustrating? I think Prater wanted to trade on your reputation but really never intended to allow you input.

I know you are frustrated. Many pilots are. I'm frustrated by certain things with the politics (congress, etc) but not by my direct interaction on the BRP. Again, the BRP's mission and our actions have nothing to do with this possible change to ALPA policy, etc. My input has been taken...but the input has been on negotiations issues and communications issues going forward IF this change sees the light of day. It isn't the BRP's mandate to push (or not push) for any sort of change. Nothing in our presentation to the EC (and soon to the EB) will even talk about the merits (or lack thereof) of a change.

-Neal

 

[humuakalaka]

learherkjay...

This is a MUCH more complicated issue than simply giving yourself the option to work past age 60. That is one of the pro-65 crowd's favorite arguments; "it gives you the option to work to 65...nobody will force you to work past 60."

This issue has much to do with the time value of money. If you understand the idea that a dollar earned today is worth more than a dollar earned twenty years from now, then you know what I mean. For junior FO's at my airline, the difference in money saved at age 60 is $1.3 million. That's A LOT of money. In other words, if today's FO's were to upgrade on time vs taking a significant delay due to age 65 coming into place, they would be $1.3 million ahead of where they will be at age 60 as a result of the retirement age being extended. When you compare apples to apples (total earnings and savings at age 60), today's FO's will be well behind where they would have been without age 65.

The net effect of this impact on earnings is to essentially force today's FO's to have to work past age 60. It is true that no one will force you legislatively to work past age 60. However, for all practical purposes, you will be forced financially to work until age 65.

Listening to the pro age 65 crowd's arguments without a very skeptical ear is akin to trusting a used car salesman.

 

[learherkjay]

Well, for sure, I have never been accused of being smart (government education), hence me asking for the con argument to raising the age to 65. As a young FO (only 34) I generally see getting to work 5 more years as a good thing, but I know I don't have the whole picture. Yes, things are complicated and more importantly timing is everything. While, the age 65 does make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer - this if for a limited pilot population. Yes, I know a lot of variables come into play - but I am seeing the scope of who this affects. If you are at an airline that is not hiring, you have furloughees, and have limited growth, raising the age definitely affects your bottom line. If you are at a growing airline and are a lot younger, then I think your bottom line is affected less (perhaps even negligible when adding the 5 years of extra income in the mix). Then again, today's growing airlines could be tomorrow's BK queen. What about the young FO yet to be hired? If the age limit raises then the guys 5-10 years out from being hired, will have the ability to make more money in this industry over their career. So, I am still a little confused as to which side (pro or con) actually benefits the universal American (not the airline, the pilot) pilot group, future pilots included.

 

[kwick]

The age 65 rule will mean at least a billion dollars additional income for the pilot group, as a whole. Probably, a lot more. The airline fleet is projected to double by 2020, so there is plenty of opportunity for everyone. And Learherkjay, you're right, it means 5 more years of income. It's the ultimate "Win-Win" situation. Any other profession or industry would jump on this deal in a heart-beat. To be against this is putting your personal issues above the group, as a whole. If your a team-player, and are in reasonably good health, then you stand to gain a lot in terms of total income and increased retirement benefits. It's hard to look long-term when you're in you're thirties, but it looks like common sense is going to prevail to all of our benefit.

 

[vixin]

Not to mention it is worth billions in social security payments for the gov't. Most SWA Captains (and other airline captains) have maxed out or will max out the benefit from SS (like it will be there when I retire). They do this well before 60. Thus they pay SS without getting the additional benefit. Push this to 65 the govt gets more free money. This helps pay the old blue heads that are getting more then they paid into it now.

I say have a Grandfather clause in the 65 debate. The day it goes into effect. If you have a seniority number with an airline you are subject to 60. If you are hired after it goes into effect you can goto 65. We all knew when we were hired what the retirement age was. No animosity this way. Why isnt 65 age discrimmination or 70 heck 85. A 15 year old should be able to get his ATP also. We should have 100 year old firefighters to.

 

[kwick]

Any pilot worth his salt can adapt to change, that's what they pay us for. If you can't you're in the wrong business. Maybe you should be flying a desk. Not everyone is cutout to be an airline pilot.

 

[PCL_128]

Vixin, you've got it half right. Safety, according to the recent Flying magazine article, dictates that we keep the experienced heads in the cockpit. The flying public deserves no less.

Yes, because Flying Magazine is a well-respected medical institution that is capable of accurately determining the effects of aging on the pilot population. [/sarcasm]

 

[vixin]

Any pilot worth his salt can adapt to change, that's what they pay us for. If you can't you're in the wrong business. Maybe you should be flying a desk. Not everyone is cutout to be an airline pilot.

What does my statement have to do with me flying an airplane or flying for an airline? I can answer that....NOTHING! This is one of the dumbest statements I have read. I adapt just fine. Just saying it would cut down on the animosity. Lets adapt and have 100 year old firefighters and policemen.

I have flown with plenty of retired airline pilots. I can think of 1 maybe 2 that should have continued flying after 60. The first 1 was and is as sharp as a tack. The other was and you could see a huge decline in his abilities year after year. There were plenty that you had to babysit. Now I am not saying I couldnt and didnt learn from some of these guys. I have and always will be very open to learning anything from anybody. Whether its a low time FO or a high time retired airline pilot. The fact is I have seen plenty of retired guys that just should not have been flying on a regular basis.

 

[kwick]

Maybe read the article, wise guy. It quotes the most recent studies.

 

[Flopgut]

Who did you speak with? If you are uncomfortable posting it in public, PM it to me please.



When I said 5 minutes, I meant that each of the 7 of us gave our personal opinions and then we moved on. Are you saying that you spoke with the other 6 people on the BRP and they are all working outside of the mission of the BRP to affect this change? If so, please provide a source and evidence for such a statement.

-Neal

I'm going to decline to tell you who it was. I had a very candid discussion and probably got more info than most.

You were the only FO. Everyone else on that group knew the plan before they started. The BRP and all other associated activity was part of an elaborate scheme to bat the issue around a little bit and see if they could change ALPA's stance on the issue. Looks like it's going to work, doesn't it? Proof? You should need no more proof than to look at ALPA's history in these sorts of instances. ALPA eats their own, and they care about senior type as a first priority. You've done exactly what they wanted you to do. Carry the seemingly harmless message that you were just handling secondary concerns when in fact the opposite is true. They played you perfectly; You still believe you've stayed on mission with the BRP despite the facts we have before us. Stop disagreeing with me and look at where we have arrived.

 

[Flopgut]

Well, for sure, I have never been accused of being smart (government education), hence me asking for the con argument to raising the age to 65. As a young FO (only 34) I generally see getting to work 5 more years as a good thing, but I know I don't have the whole picture. Yes, things are complicated and more importantly timing is everything. While, the age 65 does make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer - this if for a limited pilot population. Yes, I know a lot of variables come into play - but I am seeing the scope of who this affects. If you are at an airline that is not hiring, you have furloughees, and have limited growth, raising the age definitely affects your bottom line. If you are at a growing airline and are a lot younger, then I think your bottom line is affected less (perhaps even negligible when adding the 5 years of extra income in the mix). Then again, today's growing airlines could be tomorrow's BK queen. What about the young FO yet to be hired? If the age limit raises then the guys 5-10 years out from being hired, will have the ability to make more money in this industry over their career. So, I am still a little confused as to which side (pro or con) actually benefits the universal American (not the airline, the pilot) pilot group, future pilots included.

Jay: It's never one thing that puts your airline retirement future in doubt. It's a chain of events that lead to a result. This is one [very large] link in a chain of events that can put our retirements in jeoprody. It's what may come next that we have to worry about. The supply curve Andy speaks of, disability, collective bargaining, time value of wages, are all issues we will have to deal with. And apparantly, those of us in ALPA won't be able to count on our union, and we will all be attached at the hip to a bunch of old senior pilots who will no longer have ANYTHING to worry about! And in fact, these guys aren't going to want to lift a finger to help any flatspotted junior pilot out and place their windfall in doubt.

 

[PCL_128]

I'm going to decline to tell you who it was. I had a very candid discussion and probably got more info than most.

You were the only FO. Everyone else on that group knew the plan before they started. The BRP and all other associated activity was part of an elaborate scheme to bat the issue around a little bit and see if they could change ALPA's stance on the issue. Looks like it's going to work, doesn't it? Proof? You should need no more proof than to look at ALPA's history in these sorts of instances. ALPA eats their own, and they care about senior type as a first priority. You've done exactly what they wanted you to do. Carry the seemingly harmless message that you were just handling secondary concerns when in fact the opposite is true. They played you perfectly; You still believe you've stayed on mission with the BRP despite the facts we have before us. Stop disagreeing with me and look at where we have arrived.

Those are some pretty serious allegations. Especially since you refuse to corroborate them with a source. I call BS.

 

[Flopgut]

Those are some pretty serious allegations. Especially since you refuse to corroborate them with a source. I call BS.

Just look at where we have arrived. I'm not pi$$ed at Neal; we are both frustrated. Some of you guys are not ready to accept how ugly ALPA can get, but it's going to sink in. We can't assume anything.

Scariest thing the guy admitted to me: "could we replace this issue with say, cabotage and see the same thing happen?" [meaning this group of senior pilots sell out the rest of us] His answer: "yes". NOT suggesting or admitting that they going to go seek out this negative sort of thing. But understand, if junior members get between the senior ones and another nice & easy, enormous wad of cash again, this is what is going to happen. And this change is going to occasion many such negative things. How are we going to sustain disability? How are we going to divide up anything we can get out of collective bargaining? What's going to come out of the many lawsuits we will undoubtedly face? Medical changes?

But please, do feel free to not believe me and call BS. I don't care if anybody thinks I'm right. Just interpret the situation and consider where this may take us.