WOW. Nice set. I used to ride dirt bikes with my son, but he just moved off to college. It's a 2010 Fury. Love it!

You're making some great points in general, but not about Age 65.

I think most people here act as if ALPA wrote laws. They forget we are only lobbying one side of an argument, and the deep pockets lobby for the industry. Instead of marveling at the fact we've been able to have our a$$ handed to us in terms of critical issues like cabotage and foreign ownership, and that we're in the room when rules are written, people decry every rule that doesn't go exactly our way as a giant cave-in.

When it comes to Age 65, however, Prater campaigned on it, and he got it delivered. Woerth got his instruction when on the ARC, and abstained. Actually f'n abstained! And so the rule passed. Prater/Woerth betrayed the wishes of the pilot group in this regard. There is nothing good about that example, and I stopped backing the PAC as Prater got elected. I can resume contributions now.

Like I said early on in this thread, ALPA sees its growth in members and in dues at the regionals. ALPA's growth is what's critical to its survival...not your growth or my growth.

Carl

Carl, tell me how that math works in your world. Why would ALPA prefer a $50/hr pilot who will pay $1/hr in dues to fly a 76 seater, rather than a $150/hr pilot who will pay $3/hr in dues?

Is that some of that new math I've been hearing about?

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

No kidding. What I think Carl is missing though, is that this is ALPA with Prater, the guy that got defeated. Also the guy that brought us Age 65, and the guy that's trying to get us 10 hours flight time per day. I know it's conventional "wisdom" around these parts that LM is just going a management stooge, and will just do it bigger and better. But maybe, just maybe, the LM that was Chairman as this MEC led us through BK, the JV's and the merger isn't quite the idiotic boot-licker some suggest. Obviously, he's not as smart as us here on APC, but maybe, just maybe, he gets a chance to run the union now.

So maybe, just maybe, we focus on trying to send a message to our reps about the direction we want from National on the 500/1,500 hour discussion, and the 10-hour block limit on FTDT regs, and the commuting language in that NPRM. I know it might detract from our APC duties, but maybe we're supposed to, you know, give guidance to our reps, and give a chance to work to this representational system we're not even intelligent nough... to use because we're too busy whining about the fact it doesn't work.

Alright, I have to admit it...that was funny.

Carl

In that specific example I completely agree. Prater/Woerth circumvented the pilots as payback for the support Prater received in his election. He was a one-trick poney, and this was his trick: tap 65 times at the ARC. I say poney, but it's more like a one trick-donkey. A dumb a$$, so to speak.

Carl;
It is not all about money. One of ALPA's tenants is to represent all pilots. Getting pilot groups to join from all ranks backs that up. It is basic trade unionism. Crazy I know.

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.