[QUOTE=TonyC;409831]But it's OK to discard 3% to favor a majority?

Is it unity we want, or just majority rule?

Is there another 3% segment that we can cut out in order to improve the lot of 94%? Why don't we furlough the bottom 10% and make it better for 84%?

Why not cut the pay of 45% so the 55% can get a pay raise? All we need is a simple majority, right?

What segment of our seniority is your preferred target to leave behind?


Have fun in the cockpit when you go down that path."

- TonyC




Tony - come on. I usually enjoy your commentary but you're way off base here. This is a zero sum game. You didn't just fight for these guys with no effect - they had ZERO rights of front seat after age 60 -that was the law. The fact that the FAA's initial proposal was to not grandfather in over age 60 guys was in fact proposed LAW (as was the Congressional proposal). Just like a guy who turns 66 has no right to the front seat anymore. It's a law. Nothing to do with fair or anything else. Now the MEC consciously fought to change that proposed law. There is absolutely zero difference between the MEC fighting to give retro to 61 year olds or if the MEC had fought to change the regulated age to 70 - no difference. 65 was merely arbitrary (please don't tell us about ICAO and Europe again - since when does the US follow European regulations?) just as the grandfathering was.

So this zero sum game ended up with changing the rules in the 9th inning for about 150 guys here at the very negative detriment of about another 1000 here. You can't hide behind empty notions of fairness or minority rights to defend this. It was a wrong decision - I suspect most in the MEC feel this way but it is certainly impossible for any MEC member to EVER admit any error - you are after all, by definition, infallible. Humility is not a quality one looks for in the MEC.