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.:confused:

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.

I'm guessing that by supporting the retro position, our FedEx ALPA attorneys think we will be protected from future "age discrimination" law suits (even if it never has a chance of ending up in the final legislation). It might save the membership (and maybe even DW personally) major bucks in the long run?

Mark

You can't be serious....

Bunch of crappola FDXLAG. Let's see....BUSH = OIL. Cheney = Haliburton.

2006 largest companies in the world based on PROFITS:

1. EXXON OIL
2. ROYAL DUTCH/SHELL GROUP
4. BP OIL
7. TOTAL OIL (france)
8. CHEVRON
9. CONOCO/PHILLIPS
11. PETRO/CHINA

Don't kid yourself. Bush is paying back all the oil dollars that got his butt into office. That's a big part (not the only) of why we are STILL in Iraq.

Just to put it more in perspective....EXXON NETTED 36 BILLION on 328 BILLION GROSS. That my friend is called payback.

NOT the spokesman for the PEARLDROPS SMILE

Hey, its Mr. Turkeyneck from the FedEx super bowl commercial....

My god....did he swallow a walrus?

Not just saying it.....
 

From my discussions with MEC members, this is not a position we FEDEX ALPA are taking. It is an action! We want to actually influence the law makers (FAA or Congress) to include 60+ FEs (because they aint retired) back to the front seats (assuming 1st class, award bid, pass training)!

Yes, that's correct.

Because the "right thing to do" is to protect their regulatory rights. Oh wait. No, we're supposedly doing this to protect their seniority rights, aren't we? Ohhh... So, we have to change the regs before we can protect the rights that they don't now have. But, the government is already going to change the regs. "With or wiithout us". But, their language won't give them those rights. Gosh..I'm so confused.

That should be our MEC's new slogan. We're going to do this, "WITH OR WITHOUT YOU!.

Seems like I've heard that line before.

I attended the LAX LEC mtg today where Dave Webb attended and had some great comments concerning Age 60. We had a good 2 hours of time to discuss this issue alone and DW was very honest and candid. Had a decent showing with split of CAs and FOs and even a few Over 60 S/Os.

Let me start by saying I'm someone who is very anti-Age 65 and been pretty irate about the way this whole thing was handled. I came away from this mtg feeling better about the Union and the MEC. Some key points

- DW basically regretted the way the communications came out. I still don't really buy the explanation of the so-called acceleration since this fast-track realization started with info from the lobbyists on Apr 2nd and the message traffic that followed including this video was pretty much distributed completely backward.
-If retro passes, no Union support for anything other than a standard Posting with vacancies as far as S/Os moving forward
- FDX ALPA could vote against the Age 60 change but it would do no good as this is sure to pass - made this point over and over. Definite feeling that NWA and IPA are taking easy road on this and not doing what's "right".
- FAA re-authorization has Age 60 rule change written in it and includes verbiage about not allowing 60+ S/Os to the front. Big companies have been able to influence the verbiage for their own age discrimination protection. DW and the MEC are obviously against this verbiage.
- when ICAO had the vote on Age 60 rule change in November, US (and all member states) could either accept the rule or withdraw from ICAO - no other option. Once White House decided to accept the rule the writing was on the wall and it was only a matter of time.
- Real feeling that this will get passed thru legislation - Senate bill could be out as early as Memorial Day and if that happens then House bill will get fast tracked. NPRM is better way but not a great chance that it'll come out this way as everyone knows this will result in a lengthy delay - most numbers thrown around were Winter 09 at earliest if NPRM.
- If it passes, positive for Company is slight increase in over-funded pension plan for a while but huge negatives are increases in disability and insurance from Age 60-65.
- Big concern that if ALPA doesn't "get on board" (Legislature's words) then ALPA would lose seat at table at very slight chance of shaping this rule (basically said we have very little chance of changing the outcome regardless of where we are but zero chance if we don't change our Age 60 stance). Obvious problems are Changes to Medical requirements, Open Skies, Foreign Ownership and duty time/flight time limits.
- Big push was that MEC cannot and does not selectively represent its membership. It must represent all. They will not cave to "mob rule" regardless of any poll outcomes. Giving an inch on seniority will hurt future negotiations. Union has potential to let this turn into big battle that will hurt us in future negotiations.
- Age 65, if it passes, is seen as external event - federal regulation. Question was asked if MEC has considered any adjustments to potential loss of FO earnings/seniority/etc. Although some loss is probably guaranteed, DW refused to predict anything since there are so many unknowns and they defintely are not considering any present or future changes to help mitigate losses to junior members as this was/is an "external event".

Overall it was a good meeting. I was surprised at how much information comes out during these meetings that is not openly discussed in any minutes, briefs, emails that I've seen. DW comes across as extremely knowledgeable and generally persuasive. I wish the communications on this whole thing would have come out differently. I'm still upset over the entire thing but am no longer one of the guys yelling for a recall.

P.S. FDXLAG - your comments on GOP vs Dems are so stupid it's difficult to even offer a retort that you would understand. Let's just say that the ALPA PAC gives 25% of its money to pro-pilot labor GOP and 75% of its money to pro-pilot Dems - that's just the way the political entities that are a lot smarter than you or I believe. Vote however you want but don't be confused on who your vote supports and who it definitely doesn't.

Thanks Tuck! Good Recap.
Call me dense (among other things), but How are We giving in on seniority when we are talking about an external federal regulation event??
And How does being the victim of this external federal regulation turn into a battle and hurt us in future negotiations?? We aren't writing the rules.

I agree. We are a commuter pilot group and it's a shame in this technological environment that we can't make this type of information available as transcripts, streaming audio or perhaps even video.

.

Yes serious.

After 2010 Capital Gains tax rates increased to 20%.
Dividends taxed at your tax rate from 15%.
IRA deductions cut in half (over 50).
All other provisions of the "Bush Tax Cut" sunset.

Couple that with the AMT and I am looking at serious tax increase in 2011.

You said billionaires vote republican I said rich and poor vote democrat whats the difference?

What part of if Labor is your only concern vote democrat is difficult for you to understand or respond to? Seems to me I am agreeing with you.

And don't forget your "B-Fund" will be gone on the next contract:

See the Age 65 discussion threads: http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=59

I wasn't there, but according to TUCK -- DW said that some of the corporations have influenced the legislation!! Did they have to favor the rule change to have influence? This is what we have been told is required! I am still calling BS on that part of this deal!

Oh, and enjoy this:

http://www.eeoc.gov/foia/letters/200...faa60rule.html

Tuck: Thanks for the recap. Nothing really new, DW and the MEC just keep repeating the same info. You can either believe it or not. I don't doubt that they believe what they are saying, but I don't personally believe that our support (or lack there of) will have any difference on the outcome of age 60.

Either way, there will be some to get a windfall while everyone else gets hosed.

I think they lose some of their credibility by claiming that the legislation could be passed in the Senate by Memorial Day and then also claiming that would influence how quickly the House would approve their bill. There are still funding bills for FY07 that haven't passed and those agencies are operating under a continuing resolution. Happens almost every year. That legislation is not a slam dunk and they are saying that is in order to bolster their strategy. Their assertion that this is going to happen at lighting speed is only offering a false hope for those who will hit 60 this year. Of course I could be wrong (I'll wager on about 5 mins for Foxhunter to weigh in and call me a scab or KKK member again) but I still think it highly unlikely that this bill will go through as quickly as they are saying.

FJ

Thanks for the great info Tuck. Very helpful. Apparently, DW has the charisma to help us work thru this hard time in our union. But it doesn't change the facts for me.

The statements above appear to be contradictions. When an issue is supported that is great for retirees or the most senior dudes (at the expense of junior dudes and their "peripheral" issues), they cry we must support all in the union. This is not the first time this has happened.

Yes, I agree, this is an external event. So lets not waste our political blue chips by pushing for a retroactive solution. We will have less power on other, more important and lasting issues.

It's enlightening to know that if DW gets his way he also has no desire to work anything positive for the junior folks because it is an external issue. I figured as much.

I figure that since it is an external event we should go with the NWA or IPA position. I'm not buying that we are doing the right thing. If we were really interested in doing the "right thing" to bring over 60 folks to the front retroactively, we would have changed position on age 60 a few years ago or push now for for retirees to come back.

The right thing is taking care of our retirees or over 60 guys. We do that now. Some stay on as SO a long time to hang out with their friends on trips. The over 60 SOs take their massive vacation, drop a few trips and use a little sick time. I'm very glad to help them enjoy a few more years at FedEx. Over 60 from most carriers means retirement with no hope of return and a tough new life at Netjets if they want to keep flying. But enough is enough. When we kill thousands of younger guys for it, I draw the line. Like DW I say we should support all in the union, not just the most senior 300.

And it is still drawn no matter how smooth and convincing DW tries to be.

Indeed

Here's the deal. We all know what the "older" crowd who wants to see this pass get: 5 more years in the seat.

They do not want you (those junior to them) to have the right to investigate or discuss how thier desire will watershed onto everyone else.

Things like:

--Being junior for 5 more years

--Losing upgrades as 5 more years is added to the cycle

--Pay loss due to upgrades

--Destruction of the Unions as a cohesive force as they try to reconcile the desires of the few with the career expextations of the main body

--Seat senority/bidding loss as retirements bog down for 5 years

--"B Funds" going away on future contracts

And of course this jem:

http://www.eeoc.gov/foia/letters/200...faa60rule.html
Yeah--it's already in the works.

Food for thought:

http://www.raf-upper-heyford.org/GeezerAv8r.jpg

is that foxhunter or jetjok?????????????????????

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuck
- Big push was that MEC cannot and does not selectively represent its membership. It must represent all. They will not cave to "mob rule" regardless of any poll outcomes. Giving an inch on seniority will hurt future negotiations. Union has potential to let this turn into big battle that will hurt us in future negotiations.

- Age 65, if it passes, is seen as external event - federal regulation. Question was asked if MEC has considered any adjustments to potential loss of FO earnings/seniority/etc. Although some loss is probably guaranteed, DW refused to predict anything since there are so many unknowns and they defintely are not considering any present or future changes to help mitigate losses to junior members as this was/is an "external event".

Originally Posted by Gunter.
The statements above appear to be contradictions. When an issue is supported that is great for retirees or the most senior dudes (at the expense of junior dudes and their "peripheral" issues), they cry we must support all in the union. This is not the first time this has happened.

I have to agree - I remember a few months back when "the needs of the many didn't outweigh the needs of the few" when about 130 junior S/Os didn't get the union to go to bat for them (in fact rolled over) for passover pay, even when it seemed that was the right thing to do. As much as I would like to believe DW, and I agree that we need to be unified, I still remember...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Actually that is what a F/O awaiting to upgrade will look like in a few years.

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/sh...t=12866&page=8

Tuck,
I believe this is amusing of DW. You state he says that the IPA is taking the easy way out (with two EEOC complaints <ng>). Then, there is contradictory statements "Age 65, if it passes, is seen as external event - federal regulation" and "FDX ALPA could vote against the Age 60 change but it would do no good as this is sure to pass - made this point over and over."

So if it is sure to pass, and an external event, then why stir up literal hatred in the IPA with an "official" stance that is extraordinarily devisive? We do have a committee that is tasked to deal with it's passage, when done. That is fair to all IPA members. If ALPA "doesn't "get on board" (Legislature's words) then ALPA would lose seat at table at very slight chance of shaping this rule" the IPA with 2800 members would stand a zero chance regardless of our position. So, it is not an easy way out. (again, we are getting EEOC complaints filed against the IPA) but definitely a smart one. DW's own words "Age 65, if it passes, is seen as external event - federal regulation" suggests little impact we can muster, UPS can, but they have lots of influence and resources relative to us hourly employees.

Lets first define things:

ALPA can't vote "for "or "Against" the Age change. They do not have any voting authority in the House or Senate. They can Offically oppose or support pending legislation on the Hill. I beleive it has already been explained why ALPA is considering no longer opposing any change to Age 60.

ALPA's Official stance as of today is Still "Opposed" (That might change this week during the Executive Board meeting, but the Stance today is still Opposed)

IPA's position on AGE 60 is "Nuetral" In other words they aren't taking any stance. I believe that is what DW was referring to as the "Easy way" out. BTW Isn't Bob Miller your Union President over age 60? What is his position? AHH I see he is nuetral on what he knows is a done deal.

ALPA could certainly continue to Oppose any change.
I believe that anyone who thinks anyone is going to stop this from happening is Smoking.cr**K, well lets hope the aren't drug tested too soon.

I believe ALPA leaders are merely trying to relay the inevtiable to the memebership. It is very clear that the majority of ALPA members would prefer the rule not change.
It is also clear that most of the ALPA members who prefer the rule not change, realize that it is going to change and they further realize that maybe, just maybe, ALPA might at least be able to steer some of the legislation to soften the blow of what we all know is negative for most of us.

So yes, ALPA leaders could have taken the easy way out and continued to oppose a rule that they know the can't stop. They made a tough call when they announced the effort to explore a change in stategy. Don't you think they knew many members would be angry? They knew it but they are hanging their necks out anyway. I am sure it was a tough call and Time will soon tell if they made the right call. If this rule get legislated this summer...................I can hear the calls now..........Where the Hell is ALPA and what are they doing about this.................Meanwhile the IPA leadership will still be nuetral, how convienent.


BTW what is CAPA (of which IPA is a part) doing with respect to this legislation? What Senators and Congressman do you have working on behalf of CAPA? and other Pilot specific issues? How much in PAC money have you guys raised again? I guess I'd take the easy way out too.

Let's see
SWA is for it
APA is opposed
IPA is Nuetral

RedeyeAV8R,
You really dislike the IPA, :D Here is some things the lowly IPA pressed and push that benefit all of us. I have enclosed some excerpts.
* Cargo airliners were exempted from having to have collision avoidance systems (TCAS). The Independent Pilots Association (IPA) petitioned for rulemaking in 1996.
* Cargo airliners did not have to have escape slides at the entry doors, although some of these doors are up to 20 feet (three stories high) off the ground. The IPA petitioned for rulemaking filed in 1996.

* Cargo airliners were exempted from having to have fire suppression systems in cargo holds, although they are allowed to carry flammable, oxidizing and explosive hazardous materials not allowed on passenger aircraft. IPA comments in Docket 28937 requested fire-suppression capabilities for all cargo holds.

* Airports with only all-cargo operations do not have to have ARFF (Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting) services. The IPA still presses on the Hill for this legislation.

We asked for and rcvd help from ALPA as well as other cargo carriers.
As for CAPA,
"CAPA is a trade association comprised of over 22,000 professional pilots. CAPA's purpose is to address safety, security, legislative and regulatory issues affecting the professional flight deck crew member on matters of common interest to the individual member unions. The five members of CAPA are:
Allied Pilots Association (APA), Independent Pilots Association (IPA),
National Pilots Association (NPA), AirTran,
Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (SWAPA)
Teamsters Local 1224 ABX Air "

So CAPA would appear to be neutral on age 60 since it's members, like ALPA, have differing views. ibid NWA as stated by DW. and yet ALPA is "neutral" at this time.

Not everyone will be ALPA. It won't work at UPS, I didn't deem that, it comes from the membership, just like the SWAPA, APA, Teamsters etc. Other carriers resist any labor organization, JetBlue and Skywest for example. I am amused by the derogatory comments of ALPA towards others.
However, no aviator can objectively deny the many benefits all have gained by those in ALPA over the years either.

Some Hill work :

PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE TRAFFIC ALERT AND COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEMS ON CARGO AIRCRAFT
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1997
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees...hpw105-5_0.htm

Excerpts..
Mr. DUNCAN. The subcommittee will come to order.

We've got some other Members on their way, but we're going to go ahead and get started here on time.

I would like to first say good afternoon and welcome to today's hearing regarding the issue of whether or not traffic alert and collision avoidance systems or TCAS, as it's commonly called, should be required aboard cargo aircraft.....

Currently, TCAS–II is required on commercial aircraft with a passenger seating configuration of more than 30 seats, and TCAS–I, at a minimum, is required on passenger aircraft with 10 to 30 seats.

The subcommittee is aware that the Independent Pilots Association, representing UPS pilots, has filed a petition for rulemaking with the FAA requesting that TCAS–II be required on cargo aircraft.

We have two panels filled with very distinguished witnesses from the Air Force, the Navy, the FAA, the National Transportation Safety Board, and we have a second panel consisting of representatives from the Air Line Pilots Association, the Independent Pilots Association, the Teamsters Airline Division, the Air Freight Association....

...As you've mentioned, we're reviewing a petition for rulemaking filed by the Independent Pilots Association that asks us to mandate the installation of TCAS–II on all transport category aircraft in cargo operations.

....
Mr. DUNCAN. And the petition that was filed that led to this hearing was filed by the Independent Pilots Association, and the next witness will be Captain Andre Dressler, who is a member of the Safety Committee for that association.

Captain Dressler, thank you for being with us.

Captain DRESSLER. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for allowing me to speak to you today on this.

Talking here on behalf of the Independent Pilots Association, we are about 2,100 flight crew members, professional men and women that pilot the aircraft of the United Parcel Service.....


Other Hill issues:
Cargo security post 9/11: See “IPA Lobbies Congress for Tougher Cargo Security.” Aviation Daily,January 6, 2003
FFDO:
how about the view many ALPA pilots had that were cognizant of DW's failure
to support an industry drive that was suppported by all the other labor unions and ALPA pilots who started APSA and the drive to "Petition to ARM PILOTS. This petition has been a coordinated effort between the Airline Pilots’ Security Alliance (APSA), the Allied Pilots Association (APA), the Southwest Airline Pilots Association (SWAPA), the Coalition of Airline Pilots Association (CAPA), and the Independent Pilots Association (IPA)."

Back to age 60:
You posted "IPA's position on AGE 60 is "Nuetral" In other words they aren't taking any stance. I believe that is what DW was referring to as the "Easy way" out. BTW Isn't Bob Miller your Union President over age 60? What is his position? AHH I see he is nuetral on what he knows is a done deal."

The IPA IS preparing the membership, as I stated in the previous post, the IPA has an AGE 60 Implementation Committee, composed of over and under 60 year old crewmembers who are preparing the IPA for implementation contractual issues, just like ALPA is doing. That is not "neutral" to activity, Like ALPA, the IPA isn't voting on this issue either. Bob Miller is one of five Executive Board members. He is one of five votes. Yes, he is over 60. he is not our king or dictator.

You posted "ALPA could certainly continue to Oppose any change.
I believe that anyone who thinks anyone is going to stop this from happening is Smoking.cr**K, well lets hope the aren't drug tested too soon."

We both agree on this :)

That is why the IPA website has posted all the organizations that are interested in change, and 25 other websites to allow individual members to educate themselves on the issues. Info on who to contact in the legislature etc. It is like a CSPAN arrangement. Pro and Con provided. I think that is smart for the IPA.

RedeyeAV8R,
You really dislike the IPA,

Nothing could be further than the Truth. I never said I hated or disliked IPA. I simply sated that IPA is nuetral on AGE 60. What kind of stance is that?
We were once independent as well. We realized that being independent we had little political power on the hill.

Here is some things the lowly IPA pressed and push that benefit all of us. I have enclosed some excerpts.

* Cargo airliners were exempted from having to have collision avoidance systems (TCAS). The Independent Pilots Association (IPA) petitioned for rulemaking in 1996.

* Cargo airliners did not have to have escape slides at the entry doors, although some of these doors are up to 20 feet (three stories high) off the ground. The IPA petitioned for rulemaking filed in 1996.

* Cargo airliners were exempted from having to have fire suppression systems in cargo holds, although they are allowed to carry flammable, oxidizing and explosive hazardous materials not allowed on passenger aircraft. IPA comments in Docket 28937 requested fire-suppression capabilities for all cargo holds.

* Airports with only all-cargo operations do not have to have ARFF (Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting) services. The IPA still presses on the Hill for this legislation.

All these things are true, but ALPA was also commenting and lobbying on the Hill for the very same things

We asked for and rcvd help from ALPA as well as other cargo carriers.

And help you received my friend.
As for CAPA,
"CAPA is a trade association comprised of over 22,000 professional pilots. CAPA's purpose is to address safety, security, legislative and regulatory issues affecting the professional flight deck crew member on matters of common interest to the individual member unions.

The five members of CAPA are:
Allied Pilots Association (APA), Independent Pilots Association (IPA),
National Pilots Association (NPA), AirTran,
Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (SWAPA)
Teamsters Local 1224 ABX Air "

I am well aware of who CAPA is. You forget Fedex (FPA) was once a Major player in CAPA along with CAL. BTW druing those 1996 lobbying efforts
FPA held the 1st Cargo Air sympsoium in Memphis. FPA footed the entire Bill. CAPA and the other Cargo carriers paid nothing.

So CAPA would appear to be neutral on age 60 since it's members, like ALPA, have differing views. ibid NWA as stated by DW. and yet ALPA is "neutral" at this time.

No CAPA appears divided since the 3 major player all have diferent positions, and BTW ALPA is not Nuetral they are currently opposed at this time. (This might change this week when the Exec Board votes). NWA might vote to continue to oppose it, and maybe one other MEC will as well, but ALPA as a group will vote and the majority opinion will prevail. ALPA will have one opinion. not everyone within ALPA will agree but they will still speak with one voice.

Not everyone will be ALPA. It won't work at UPS, I didn't deem that, it comes from the membership, just like the SWAPA, APA, Teamsters etc. Other carriers resist any labor organization, JetBlue and Skywest for example. I am amused by the derogatory comments of ALPA towards others.
However, no aviator can objectively deny the many benefits all have gained by those in ALPA over the years either.

I don't recall "ALPA " making derogatory remarks towards any labor union.
If you think I have you are mistaken and you misinterpteted my point.
I (we) were once part of a Independent. We wised up and realized we would be better off under one Banner. IPA. SWA and APA would too in my opinion, but that is a choice your folks will have to make.


IPA has done OK for the UPS Pilots

All those things you sight, however, ALPA was already involved in and IPA got involved.

Name one piece of Legilsaltion, that IPA did on it's own (without ALPA also simultaneously pursuing it. You can also throw CAPA into that. That is one of the reasons FPA left CAPA and joined ALPA, because there was never any concientious from within CAPA not to mention any funds to lobby with. The SWAPA guys have been lwanting AGE 60 to go away for for years to cite yet one example.

So in summary, let me leave you with this. I harbor no ill will towards IPA and members of CAPA. We are all professional pilots and all want the same things.
A career, Safe schedules, safe equipment and fair representation.

I was simply pointing out the flaw in your logic of ALPA's stance.
You made a derogatory remark about our MEC Chair and I simply responded.
I made no such doregatory remark about IPA or Bob Miller.
I simply stated a fact, he (and IPA) is Nuetral on Age 60 and he has attained that age.

We will have to agree to disagree on some issues, ;) but in the end, we would be drinking beers together as I have with so many of my ALPA FEDEX buds, we are remarkably similiar groups.

Well, Bill Gates is a big time dem and Warren Buffet was an advisor to John Kerry's 2004 campaign. That's the Ace and King of spades my friend. The poor have been voting for the democrats for 150 years and they are still poor. The richest members of congress are dems and it's been that way for a long time. Labor has supported the dems for a century and their influence is at it's lowest ebb in history. All politicians pander to their base and it really matter who they are or from which party. Our Esteemed Leader (Tony doesn't like "His Excellency") and the MEC are, in fact, politicians. Lastly, every one of us can vote for whomever we damn well please and it's nobody else's business who or why (and for that right, we can thank a lot of folks, starting with the men who showed up at Lexington and Concord)