Daniel Larusso

I didn't want to be the first to say it, but yeah that email is certainly an eye opener. Seems like he/ALPA national have already decided themselves what is 'best' for the profession even though 70% of his constituents believe otherwise. "Some seniority-based demographic," is one of the funniest things I've read in a while. From the timeline in the beginning that is meant to set the rule as unfair in the first place, to the attempt to muddy the waters by questioning whether or not 70% of the FDX group really still feels the same about Age 60 that email reeks of sell job. Anyone else notice that the 18-24 month timeline is off as well? Seems that we could have this thing by Nov/Dec 2007 if not earlier. Was the 18-24 month thing a diversion so that the opposition to change would more fragmented? It's also funny to listen to Prater and others continue to evoke UA in 1985 as their rallying cry-they talk about it more than those who were involved. Also it looks like the Herndon boys may want to play along with the feds, because they've weighed the pros and cons of supporting the gov't and recieving indemnification along with the companies vs. a bunch of ****ed of pilots who still have to pay their dues anyway.