They had a reason to do that... a seat at the table so they could get some reasonable guard-rails baked into the legislation. Such as people under age 65 who had already retired were not entitled to return with seniority intact.

I was somewhat concerned this last time that they appeared to not be engaging the opposition... if the legislation had gotten through it might have been half-baked in some ways.

The way I remember last time alpa was opposed to 65 after a vote (that I participated in) failed something like 60-40. Then several legacies lost pensions. Another vote (that I didn’t participate in) passed. That’s why they were then in support. It was a while ago so I could be wrong?

They did and you do

This is just like the majority of the American working population saying I don’t get that pay, that benefit, that retirement. Unions are bad! Every time a union contract comes up in the news.

Just because we are facing a threat doesn’t mean we should point the gun at an ally.

I get older and these crotchety old *******s stay the same age

Again, I guess I missed where they alsed us the question, in order to determine “the vast majority.”

I do recall them telling me that I oppose it.

Again, you were surveyed and you do oppose it

I may oppose it, or I may not, but I was defintely never asked. Only told, but that’s the way ALPA works.

Again, you were asked. If you chose to delete the email that’s on you

😂 okay, skippy. Thanks for taking the ALPA stance of telling me what I do, and don’t, want. Along with what I have, and have not recieved. I’ll be sure to ask you and ALPA what else I need. Hey, can you tell me what date I was sent this email, and why it’s not in my ALPA folder of my email account? Thanks


Telling someone about their personal info is a good way of saying you’re a narcissist, without saying you’re a narcissist.