Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
You're giving ALPA a pass on this and you shouldn't. You can have plenty of influence on legislation even if you oppose it. That's what all this lobby money and our "top notch" lawyers are supposed to provide!
ALPA should have maintained a strong stance against 65 and made that very clear to every legislator. But you can also say to them: "If you decide to vote against our position, we will absolutely need (fill in the blank) or you may not count on our continued support." That's how you do it.
To say that ALPA had to cave in so that they could influence the legislation is to excuse their duplicitous behavior.
Carl
Carl;
I agree. ALPA does not need to be on the winning side of an issue all of the time. Age 65 and these new lower limits are proof positive of that. Fight it, back it up with the facts you have, and if you lose, then so be it.
Lee better take note of that. I would hope/bet that he changes our position.
Prater's positions on a variety of issues always amazes me.