so explain this to me. As soon as the Dems take over congress this becomes fast tracked legislation and not done thru the NMPR and you want to vote Dem?

 

Sounds like a vast right wing conspiracy,,if you ask me.

 

In a word Politics..........

I won't argue our once Democratic Allies in the House and Senate have flipped flopped on the issue. But we didn't have any Republicans on our side on this issue that I am aware.

Now that the EEOC is involved with AGE 60 and with the Political posturing for the Presidential race in 2008, no side wants to be seen as supporting AGE discrimination.

The Administration, not the House or the Senate, agreed to OPEN SKiies with the EU and is pushing for the same with Pacific Rim nations. They further agreed to allow ICAO Pilots of Foreign Airlines to Fly into and out of the US.
This fact is probably the single biggest nail in the Coffin to stop any change in the AGE 60 rule.

Remember also that the current Administration wants (and tried unsuccessfully so far) to single handidly change the rules on Foreign ownership without any input or say from Congress

 

LAG and others -

Be pro - Republican. BUT, don't do so AND try to convince or explain that they are better for our careers. NOBODY really buys that, even other R's. Many I know are Republican because they are ANTI- labor.

Republicans = Anti-labor

Pilots= labor


Republicans also = many other beliefs, but that one is the one that relates to our careers!

 

Puuleeese,

For how long???

 

Say what you will regarding blame amongst the two parties in congress but this is fact. In the last 6
years, two Senate votes on a change
were defeated and the 2006 effort to
raise the upper age limit within the
appropriations process never fully
materialized before the final adjournment
of the 109th Congress.

 

4 bucks a gallon and on the way up and you want to vote Republican?

 

Tread hijack—back to the original topic.

Since I’ve been in Asia for the last two weeks and missed all the hub turn meetings and other ‘live’ events, I’m left with DW’s message as his official explanation for current events. And I’ve still got a few questions.

Not to be accused of picking sound bites (hopefully), but my questions are about a few things he said:

OK, we know FDX folks don’t condone a change in our Age 60 position. But I believe after this brief explanation campaign, most of us would grudgingly agree that it is probably in our better interest to change for the sake of influence. So how is it we don’t really lose face or credibility?

I’m sure most every airline CBA has similar language to ours that retired, resigned and terminated pilots “shall forfeit all employment and seniority rights”. Our CBA is written with the words “regulated age”. In this case, the government will simply be redefining regulated age to include an effective date for the new provisions-- that’s all. Everyone’s seniority is still intact; the CBA doesn’t have to be amended; the regulations simply place an additional restriction on what job you can hold, just as it does now. I don’t see anything unfair in that, maybe unlucky in timing, but not unfair.

But something must have been ‘lost in translation’, because I don’t understand how we disenfranchise ourselves when “regulatory changes affect our careers”. We don’t make the regulatory changes; the government does. We are either the beneficiaries or victims of those changes. The proposals so far all say no retroactive pass for anyone over 60, active or otherwise. On a certain date, you either get a pass to 65 or you get a scarlet letter to wear (A=Age).

Seems our MEC is trying to split the retroactivity issue into two parts: active and other. But aren’t our concerns in Washington being ignored? Yet, we are being told, don’t worry because it won’t pass anyway—which part active or other retroactivity? And how do you lose the moral high ground for future company negotiations if we aren’t the ones making the rules changes?

If neither part of retroactivity is going to pass, then why are we wasting time, effort, and Unity on it? If this is some type of ‘posturing’ for future negotiations, it seems to be coming at a heavy price in shaken, if not shattered, trust in the MEC and fractured unity among us.

OK, now for today’s analogy [with subtitles]: Normally when you plant a [position] flag, you normally put it firmly in the ground [of declared majority support, 70%]. In this case, the support is only 30%, which is really a small island. And when you factor in the lack of the support for retroactivity for all pilots over 60 by the FAA, congress and ALPA-wide; our MEC is really planting it’s flag in the middle of an ATOLL [A ringlike coral island and reef that nearly or entirely encloses a lagoon]. Funny thing about atolls, they are most commonly found in very isolated locations.

.

 

Please tell me where anyone tried to convince you Republicans are better for your career. I could make that argument as it relates to economy but that is another thread.

I could point out that democrats are going to cost me another 8K a year in taxes by 2010 (at least) but that is another thread.

I could point out that democrats will remove the cap on Social Security and that will cost me another 12.5% in taxes (on everything over 90K) on top of that 8K but that is another thread.

Check 6 said we are only labor (nothing more) so we should vote labor. I said if you are only labor you should vote labor. Whats wrong with that?

In response to the billionaire republican comment I could have pointed out Soros but I didn't. Republicans are the party of the middle class. The rich and the poor all vote democrat.

I have never made a political comment on this page that wasn't in response to some other usually bogus claim. A lie unchallenged becomes the truth, so I challenge them.

Again if all that is important to you is labor vote democrat. Uncle Teddy will take care of the rest.

 

The green Democrats are responsible for the $4 bucks a gallon. Please note I did not hijack thread only responded to bogus rant.