The vote should come out in sept?

 

From the RAA letter to Congress….

A bipartisan group of Senate Commerce Committee Members have worked with stakeholders, constituents, airports, and community leaders to draft sound amendments to address the pilot shortage. These measures have the support and votes needed to pass in the Committee. Unfortunately, the Air Line Pilot Association (ALPA) opposes them, and the Senate Majority Leader will not allow the mark-up to be scheduled until these issues are resolved.


Look for an FAA Reauthorization extension bill to kick the can down the road for a few months… meanwhile, those age 65 retirements will keep flowing like a warm cup of Joe. Back the PAC!!

 

have you seen the cost of healthcare for anyone who 'retires' at any age???

 

One is eligible for Medicare at age 65. The price of medicare doesn't change after that age; it becomes based on your earnings 2 years previous.

 

IIRC the senate committee stated that their intent was to adopt the HR language, modified for some specific senate needs.

That was the basis of the negotiations in the committee. I would tend to assume most language will be as-is in the HR, unless somebody specifically changes it. Tammy has already agreed to 67 (in exchange for keeping the ATP rule intact).

Is somebody going to come out of left field and throw a monkey wrench in a bi-partisan re-authorization, pizzing off their own party leadership in the process? The way things *typically* work is that you hash out your issues *before* it gets out of committee. Most business doesn't get done on the floor, it's done in the offices, halls, restaurants, bars, weekend retreats, etc. Just like corporate America.


While you can get some press by taking a very public stand on the floor *after* everything is agreed to, you will annoy your own party, and if too many people do that, nothing ever gets done. It happens though, ex. the one guy holding up all mil leadership confirmations over an unrelated issue.

It's not totally out of the question though, since given the current senate makeup, it would only take one senator to apply the brakes. Is there one senator who hates age 67 that badly? Kind of doubt it, most don't know a thing about it or care. Tammy (ex mil pilot) does know and care, but she had to compromise to avoid what she considered a greater evil.

 

I could be wrong but it seems improbable to me that the majority leader would hold up the entire re-authorization over ALPA? We're not that powerful, and are very small compared to other unions. They're going to the mat for pilots but not rail workers???

And some on the left think of us as rich people who have no business with a union. They won't say that out loud of course, but they won't back us with the same passion as say the Hospitality Workers (much different demographic).


That could happen but I doubt it will be over age 67. If you want congressional intervention, I'd go direct to your congress-critters. Not alpa form letters, but write one yourself, and call their offices and talk to whoever will answer.

 

Also... ALPA *should* be planning for and lobbying for appropriate language to control the fallout if it does pass. That's what they did last time, at the last minute.

I'm not sure that ALPA will just stay outside on the sidewalk protesting and let it all go down without their input.. there might already be some coordination occurring along those lines. National should have the expertise to strike that balance; there's a reason they're inside the beltway and not in OKC.

Senate leadership isn't going to let ALPA wag the dog, but they might invite them to the table. That would be prudent, like last time.

 

Dems not getting along particularly well with unions these days...

https://www.newsnationnow.com/automo...r-trump-biden/

 

But Dems are pro union!!!! Right? Right!?!?

 

As pro-union as it gets, unfortunately. Both parties have leaned heavily into social advocacy over actual politics over the past decade, but the Rs still maintain a healthy pro-business tilt.

Very few would claim republicans to be the “pro-union party”. Actually, a “blue collar” worker today is about half as likely to be in a labor union than he was 40 years ago, so (my opinion) even your average Joe is more likely to see labor unions as greedy & pampered- essentially wanting untenable pay/benefits packages (where have we heard that before?) for doing the same work he has to do for far less. Ironically, expanding labor unions would mean more opportunities for him (rising tide), but I think fewer Americans see it that way today than in the past, which helps to explain how Rs have been able to increase their appeal to middle/low income Americans while outwardly supporting pro-corporate & pro-wealthy economic policies.