Sleepy,

We have heard the union's drivel about why the environment has changed. Blah, blah, blah. If you haven't noticed, our government can't agree anything right now, so why do you assume this legislation is a slam dunk?

And what is so wrong about the Age 65 coming through legislative means? Why is a NPRM any better? The only thing I can think of is that it might take longer. A change is a change. And what if Congress allows retired members the right to come back? As you guys say, "we want to what is right."

Maybe if ALPA gets to shape the rule in the NPRM process we can have retroactivity! Great! Our retirement, both A and B fund are protected. We will have to give up some contract improvements next time just to allow for a normal retirement at 60, but what is the NPRM process going to do about that?

I can't see ALPA doing squat to "shape" the process. And, for me, the beef really isn't with ALPA national. I have a problem with FDX ALPA choosing to vote against our wishes. We know we are overwhelmingly against a change to the rule, so DW should vote his membership's desires. I still see the ALPA Executive Board approving a change to their stance (as if it wasn't Prater's wish all along), but that isn't the point.

I hope a recall is started, I will certainly vote to recall DW......