Upgrade time at United/Cal
05-28-2012, 11:24 AM
#11
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
Prater ran for MC on the Age 65 platform. He was no innocent bystander. Don't fall for the crap about "we knew we were going to lose so we changed our position". Name ONE other issue where ALPA changed course JUST because they knew they were going to be on the losing side. It doesn't work that way. Prater stacked his Blue Ribbon Death Panel and they took their surveys, skewed the results, and tried to placate the majorty of ALPA pilots who didn't want the age to change. Sure, we WERE going to lose, but ALPA National under Prater was very much for Age 65 from the beginning.
Good post.
05-28-2012, 01:33 PM
#12
Not retiring avatar
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Position: 777 CAP
Posts: 768
Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot
Give thanks where it is due..............GWB SIGNED the legislation, NOT John Prater. GWB wanted it so it was going to be made into law REGARDLESS of what Prater/ALPA wanted. Do you seriously think Prater could have swayed GWB to NOT sign this? Not hardly...........so why throw away money asking for something when you KNOW for a FACT that you're going to lose? Pretty foolish in my eyes.....................
HR 4343 Votes:
Yeas: 231(D)/202(R) Nays: 0 No Vote: 20(D)/21(R)
Passed by Unamimous Consent in Senate: 49(D)/2(I)/49(R)
Bill Sponsor: James Oberstar (D-MN)
05-29-2012, 05:03 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 767 F/O
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by Monkeyfly
In the interest of historical accuracy:
HR 4343 Votes:
Yeas: 231(D)/202(R) Nays: 0 No Vote: 20(D)/21(R)
Passed by Unamimous Consent in Senate: 49(D)/2(I)/49(R)
Bill Sponsor: James Oberstar (D-MN)
HR 4343 Votes:
Yeas: 231(D)/202(R) Nays: 0 No Vote: 20(D)/21(R)
Passed by Unamimous Consent in Senate: 49(D)/2(I)/49(R)
Bill Sponsor: James Oberstar (D-MN)
GWB didn't HAVE to sign it, knuckle head. It passed with a veto proof margin (somebody was cutting class during eighth grade civics : )
05-30-2012, 04:09 AM
#16
HOSED BY PBS AGAIN
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,713
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
.......... Sure, we WERE going to lose,...............
05-30-2012, 05:58 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: 73Nb // FA-18
Posts: 102
Bob Brand, thank you very much for that chart! It spells it out about as specifically as possible. Does that chart assume that all the furloughed pilots accept recall back to United? It probably wouldn't impact the #'s too much but a small impact nonetheless.
Thanks again!
Thanks again!
05-30-2012, 06:04 AM
#18
Retired
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Position: Capt B777
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by MCFlyer
Bob Brand, thank you very much for that chart! It spells it out about as specifically as possible. Does that chart assume that all the furloughed pilots accept recall back to United? It probably wouldn't impact the #'s too much but a small impact nonetheless.
Thanks again!
Thanks again!
Bob
05-30-2012, 06:20 AM
#19
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot
So why the big push to waste money defending it then? If you're going to fight a nuclear (or nucular if you so wish) war with a rubber band gun you're an idiot.
05-30-2012, 09:01 AM
#20
HOSED BY PBS AGAIN
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,713
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
Are you saying Prater and ALPA national DIDN'T want the change? I'd love to see that opinion stated, because they most DEFINTELY did. It had nothing to do with not wanting to spend the money. They know it, and I know it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MrBigAir
Aviation Law
21
11-06-2008 08:00 AM
