Issue Privatisation

GulfCharlie

Comrade Commissar
#1
The key event was the budget sequester, which imposed furloughs on controllers, closed the FAA Academy, and threatened the closure of 189 contract towers. In response, A4A, NATCA, and AOPA all requested new discussions with the BRT working group, and at a meeting in the BRT conference room in May 2013, leaders of all three groups told us that a nonprofit, stakeholder-governed corporation similar to Nav Canada was their preferred option. It was only after some further work by the BRT working group over the summer of 2013 that Gov. Engler and several working group members briefed Chairman Shuster on its recommendations, and received an enthusiastic response.

The Eno Center working group was launched that summer, initially without knowledge of what the BRT group had been doing. Eno brought together about 16 stakeholder organizations for monthly meetings from mid-2013 to mid-2015. This broader group of stakeholders agreed on corporatization, but could not reach consensus between a government corporation model (as in Germany and New Zealand) and a private, nonprofit model as in Canada, so it concluded that both were workable options.

I’ve summarized this history to demonstrate that the current push for ATC corporatization did not originate with the airlines; it originated with the working group created by Gov. Engler at Business Roundtable. That group included a former FAA Administrator, a former Chief Operating Officer of the FAA Air Traffic Organization, two former U.S. DOT senior officials, and several consultants.
 
#2
If the options are furloughs, sequesters, the academy closing, and shutting down contract towers that our brothers and sisters work at vs. a non-profit corporation then the second one would be my preferred option too.

I'm curious how reading that document can lead one to be even more against exploring other options.
 
#3
Prior to the 2014 Convention (when privatization was stricken), the language in the constitution was:

PSC-2 Contracting Facilities (4/06)

The National Office shall spare no reasonable expense in the protection, continuation, and growth of all bargaining unit positions, and shall offer all lawful resistance to out-sourcing, privatization and/or contracting out.

These meetings, where NATCA was involved and making recommendations for privatization, occurred in 2013.
 
#4
Prior to the 2014 Convention (when privatization was stricken), the language in the constitution was:

PSC-2 Contracting Facilities (4/06)

The National Office shall spare no reasonable expense in the protection, continuation, and growth of all bargaining unit positions, and shall offer all lawful resistance to out-sourcing, privatization and/or contracting out.

These meetings, where NATCA was involved and making recommendations for privatization, occurred in 2013.
This. In addition to that the way privatization was sold to us was false. We were told that it was inevitable and they are coming for us, and that Chairman Shuster wasn't going to let up on privatization. When in reality we were driving it the whole time. My only question is why? Why was it necessary to feed us a line.? Why not be honest?
 

GulfCharlie

Comrade Commissar
#5
This. In addition to that the way privatization was sold to us was false. We were told that it was inevitable and they are coming for us, and that Chairman Shuster wasn't going to let up on privatization. When in reality we were driving it the whole time. My only question is why? Why was it necessary to feed us a line.? Why not be honest?
This observation and my questions exactly. I mean it wasn’t even approved to be explored in 2014 so why were they even driving for it?
 
#6
If the options are furloughs, sequesters, the academy closing, and shutting down contract towers that our brothers and sisters work at vs. a non-profit corporation then the second one would be my preferred option too.

I'm curious how reading that document can lead one to be even more against exploring other options.
I personally was on board with the privatization push in the fashion that it was sold to me by the leadership. I still am not opposed to the discussion either. I am concerned now in the transparency from the leadership. If they pushed it from the start and sold it differently then that is concerning and has nothing to do with anyone’s support of privatization.
 
#8
This. In addition to that the way privatization was sold to us was false. We were told that it was inevitable and they are coming for us, and that Chairman Shuster wasn't going to let up on privatization. When in reality we were driving it the whole time. My only question is why? Why was it necessary to feed us a line.? Why not be honest?
Iircc, didnt the original email sent out by NATCA after Shuster introduced the legislation act like it was a surprise and they "were reviewing its contents" when in fact they had helped draft it?
 

GulfCharlie

Comrade Commissar
#10
Iircc, didnt the original email sent out by NATCA after Shuster introduced the legislation act like it was a surprise and they "were reviewing its contents" when in fact they had helped draft it?
To me this is a MAJOR breach in trust of our leadership, the whole way this was portrayed, packaged, and sold to the membership is nothing short of a lie. If they deceived us with this, the next question is what else have they done?
 

GulfCharlie

Comrade Commissar
#11
Here was the original email:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,


At 11:30 a.m. EST today, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA-9) will unveil an FAA reauthorization bill at a press conference on Capitol Hill. NATCA received a copy of the bill and has given its language a complete and very rigorous review. We have looked at every single word and pored over every detail and proposal. We have specifically focused on what protects our members’ rights, pay, benefits, and retirement, and what ensures the safety of the National Airspace System (NAS) while also addressing the current problem of providing a stable and predictable funding stream to operate and improve a 24/7 safety function.


After extremely careful review, consideration, and deliberation, we have reached a decision: NATCA supports this bill.


We applaud the very hard work that the Committee has done to think outside the box and come up with a comprehensive bill that addresses the concerns we have shared with them. While the legislation currently addresses NATCA’s primary issues of concern, we want to emphasize that today is only the beginning stage of the legislative process.


Part of that process will soon include a proposal by Committee Ranking Member Peter DeFazio (D-OR-4). The Ranking Member will propose an alternate model for ensuring a stable, predictable funding stream for the FAA, while at the same time protecting employees and ensuring the safety of the NAS. We appreciate the effort he and his staff have made and look forward to giving that proposal’s language the same complete and rigorous review.


We want to assure you that we treat this decision with extraordinary care and precision. In reviewing this bill, we found that it is in alignment with all of our organization’s policies, practices, and principles. We made sure that we could clearly see how this bill will protect the NAS and allow it to continue to grow.


Last year, we told you – and stated publicly – that any proposed restructuring of the FAA and its funding mechanism through FAA reauthorization legislation must achieve these four things:


1. Safety and efficiency must remain the top priorities;

2. Stable, predictable funding must adequately support air traffic control services, staffing, hiring and training, long-term modernization projects, preventative maintenance, and ongoing modernization to the physical infrastructure;

3. Robust and continued growth of the aviation system is ensured; and

4. A dynamic aviation system that continues to provide services to all segments of the aviation community, from commercial passenger carriers and cargo haulers, to business jets, to general aviation, from the major airports to those in rural America.


We can tell you that this bill achieves each of these four things.


This legislation proposes a federally-chartered, not-for-profit corporation to operate the NAS. We want to be very clear on this point: this is NOT a for-profit model. As we’ve said throughout this process, that would be something we would oppose. Many voices in the public discussion of this issue, including the news media, will continue to use the word privatization to describe this bill. But to us, privatization has always meant a profit motive where safety is not the top priority. That definition does NOT fit this bill today. We support this bill because it does make safety the top priority.


It is equally important that any proposed change does not harm our members. After carefully looking at the language, this bill does protect our workforce - including your pay, benefits, retirement, and collective bargaining rights. If this bill, as written today, becomes law, employees will be kept whole.


Finally, we want to reiterate that this bill is just one step in the lawmaking process. As you all know, language in proposed legislation is often changed or amended at various points throughout the legislative process. We will continue to vigorously and carefully review this legislation at all times and push for its improvement. If at any time there are changes to this bill, we will immediately examine them to ensure the bill continues to align with our organization’s policies, practices, and principles. We reserve the right to withhold our support if any changes cause the bill to violate our principles.


We will continue to keep you informed on all developments as this process unfolds.


In solidarity,


The NATCA Executive Board
 

GulfCharlie

Comrade Commissar
#12
This was sent 07/23/15

Headlines, Headlines, Headlines!!!!

Air-traffic control union chief: Privatization possible, but funding crucial

While the above headline isn’t exactly accurate, it is not as bad as some that have come out indicating we support ATC privatization. The headline, of course, is the most important part of an article. Busy people keep their lives manageable by deciding almost instantly whether something is worth their time. It's the headline's job to entice them, engage them, and capture their attention so that they ignore all other distractions to read the article. Without a headline that pulls the reader in, the article just won’t be read. And, in today’s market where online readership equals advertising dollars, the clicks matter.


With that said let’s get into the meat of the issue with a simple Q & A….


Q: What does NATCA oppose?


A: At this point NATCA opposes the two extremes of the issue: maintaining the status quo and for-profit privatization. Because we don’t know all of the specifics of the soon-to-be-introduced FAA Reauthorization Bill (the legislative vehicle where any likely change will occur), we cannot take a position, either supporting or opposing.


  1. Status Quo - We have repeatedly sent updates to members, have stated in speeches, and have explained in panel discussions that defending the “status quo” is not an option. The status quo is riddled with funding uncertainty.

  1. Annual appropriations - Congress has not passed a Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) Appropriations bill since 2006. Instead, the FAA has been funded either with short-term spending bills known as continuing resolutions (CRs), larger omnibus funding packages, or a combination of the two. Additionally, due to the controversial nature of funding bills, we almost had a full government shutdown in April 2011 and did have a 16-day shutdown in October 2013. Unfortunately, we will see another shutdown, unless there is an agreement on a funding bill—THUD or CR—by October 1.

    1. If the THUD bill is signed into law, we will still experience significant cuts in the Facilities & Equipment (F&E) budget. This will negatively affect modernization of facilities and maintenance of facilities and equipment. The operations budget is virtually flat, which could affect hiring even if it does not cause furloughs. The President issued a veto threat because he opposes sequester-level caps being written into appropriations bills.

    2. If a CR is signed into law, FAA will be funded at FY15 dollars, which would leave operations funding short. This would likely require a hiring freeze for some lines of business, including the ATO, and could also lead to facility closures.

The bottom line is that the two likely appropriations bills do nothing to solve the problems of unstable and unpredictable funding, and could actually make things significantly worse. This fiscal uncertainty has made it difficult for the FAA to make any long-term commitments for spending on modernization programs, hiring, facility maintenance, training, and certification of new and updated aircraft, among other things.


  1. Sequester - Sequestration is set to take effect again on October 1. Cuts to the FAA operations budget are projected to be much worse than in 2013. Maintenance delays and hiring freezes were put into place in 2013, and with those cuts, there was still a $253 million shortfall in the operations budget. That deficit forced the FAA to furlough every employee for one day per pay period for 11 pay periods. As you recall, we were able to rally, advocate, and work with Congress to pass a law allowing the Administrator to move $253 million from Airport Improvement Programs (AIP) budget to plug the shortfall in the operations budget and end the furloughs. Sequester is a 10-year budget process though, and FY16 is only year four. FY13’s sequester cuts led to the furloughs, threats of tower closures, a nine-month hiring freeze, delayed maintenance, and FAA’s withdrawal from modernization activities. Congress and the White House reached a budget agreement to delay sequester cuts in FY14 and FY15. If sequester funding levels are applied to FY16, there will be system capacity issues resulting from reduced staffing, furloughs, equipment outages, and other FAA-implemented cuts.

The current state of the FAA, and our status as government employees, is certainly not the status quo we advocated for and defended in the 90s. With that said, our preferred position is to remain government employees in an agency or structure safeguarded from the threat of sequester, government shutdowns, and short-term funding bills (CRs). We seek a funding system that is predictable and allows for hiring, training, modernizing, and infrastructure improvements—not one that burdens the NAS with furloughs, staffing shortfalls, tower closures, and aging equipment and buildings.


Privatization For Profit – We have had to be clear in our opposition to any model that derives profits from ATC services, like we saw with Lockheed Martin and the Flight Service Option (AFSS), or the contract towers run by Serco, Midwest, and RVA. The media and others continue to describe a federally chartered not-for-profit corporatization (a model like NavCanada’s) as privatization. These two systems are significantly different.

Q: What does NATCA support?


A: A seat at the table and a voice in any discussion about the system. We believe we have better opportunities to meet the needs of the system and our membership by properly advocating for key elements that need to be addressed in any of the scenarios.


  1. Enhanced Status Quo Model - In this model, governance would remain within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), but changes would be needed to address the manner in which the FAA is funded without changing it structurally.

  1. Government Corporation or Independent Agency - This model would pull the entire FAA—or parts of the FAA—out of DOT, and create a government corporation or independent agency. The government corporation model would require the formation of a governing board that includes stakeholders and government officials. This model would leave air traffic control functions within the government, but would remove them from the DOT.

  1. Not-For-Profit Corporate Model - This model would also require the formation of a governing board, which would include stakeholders and government officials. An example of this would be NavCanada, whose board has three directors elected by the government of Canada. In this model, safety oversight and regulatory functions would remain within the FAA.

We have done our best to prepare for any scenario. We have advocated for all of the following pieces to be included in any change, although some would not be necessary depending on what model, if any, becomes law.

  1. NATCA would continue as the exclusive representative of those represented today, with nation-wide bargaining units. (If there were a split between operations and safety/regulatory, we would continue to represent units in both areas.)

  2. Hybrid Labor Code - FLRA would maintain jurisdiction, but NATCA would have the negotiation rights of a private sector union, to allow NATCA to negotiate those matters covered by statute for the federal workforce but not covered by statute for private sector employees.

  3. Dispute Resolution Process - Grievances would be resolved through mediation, followed by binding arbitration for issues at impasse.

  4. Protections of FERS/CSRS, TSP, Survivor Annuity, and the ability to negotiate pensions in the case of a model outside of government.

  5. Sick leave, annual leave, comp time, and credit hour carry-over.

  6. Pay, compensation, and benefits remain in effect, including COLA to locality where occurring, and the ability to negotiate benefits in the case of a model outside of government.

  7. Collective Bargaining Agreements, orders, rules, practices remain in effect until renegotiated.

  8. Grievances, lawsuits, etc., continue in process.

  9. Workers’ Compensation under the Federal employee program (FECA).

  10. Whistleblower protections.

  11. Liability protection: employee indemnification where acting in the course of their duty.

  12. Process for movement between new entity and regulatory FAA.

  13. Transitional Agreements to deal with the multitude of issues that would arise during any transition. Unresolved issues would be subject to the binding arbitration, dispute resolution process.

    1. Bi-Lateral - Between labor and the new entity

    2. Tri-Partite - Between labor, the new entity, and the safety/regulatory entity.
  14. Labor seats on the governance board.

We will not support—and will aggressively oppose—any bill that does not protect these things, or threatens our ability to exist as a union, negotiate all work rules, pay/benefits, and participate in a fair dispute resolution process. The devil is in the details, and we intend to pore over every detail in the draft bill, when it is finally released.

We continue to discuss these issues with House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster and Ranking Member Peter DeFazio. We will ensure that the Chairman and Ranking Member know how important each item is to us. We have also been cautioning committee leaders that the transition will have to be carefully examined and cannot be done in haste.

Safety will always remain our top priority. We want to see the NAS grow, innovate, modernize, and create jobs. The right kind of change can bring certainty and growth to our nation’s aviation system, and security to the committed professionals who operate it.

We have to be strategic and thorough on any support or opposition. Right now the Congressional committee members want to know what we need. This issue has been around for decades, and if change does not occur now, the issue will be resurrected again sometime in the future. If that happens we will be glad that we already did the work, as future committee leadership might not give us a seat at the table. Having laid the groundwork now will only serve to benefit us in the future, because new committees will likely start from where this one finishes. Our collaboration, expertise, and attention to detail will protect us now and down the line.


We have to learn from the past. We have to be careful when we fight and with whom we fight. We must remember that we have not always been successful, even when our fight is righteous. We lost the contract tower fight, and we endured many years of pay freezes and imposed work rules. Ultimately, we have and continue to organize the Federal Contract Towers. We negotiated a fair contract and worked with Congress to pass a fair dispute resolution procedure to ensure that work and pay rules will never be unilaterally imposed again.


The next Chairman may not give us the time of day, and the next President may not care about us. This is not just about what could happen now, but also about being prepared for what may happen in the future. We need to work with those who will work with us. That means we cannot start from “no.” We can only oppose a bill once we’ve seen everything in it and we know it doesn’t meet our needs. Then our opposition has to be measured and messaged in a way that shows the effect of such a bill on the system, economy, and safety, because many in Congress simply will not prioritize the needs of our workforce.


As you know, the current FAA Authorization expires at the end of September. Given the new expected timeline for introduction of FAA Reauthorization, we anticipate that Congress will have to pass an extension to the current Authorization. Stay tuned to our updates. We will provide more information as soon as it becomes available. Until then, thank you for your dedication and commitment to maintaining the safest, most efficient airspace in the world.
 

GulfCharlie

Comrade Commissar
#13
NATCA Q/A on 02/05/16

If you went anywhere near the breakroom in an ATC facility on Wednesday, or you were on Facebook, you heard a lot of self-proclaimed experts educating everyone around them on the finer points of the FAA reauthorization bill that Chairman Shuster introduced. I also followed these “experts” and I’m here to tell you that their accuracy was exactly what you would expect if you regularly get your news from Facebook or the breakroom. So please allow me to give you a few counterpoints to some of the statements you may have heard.



CLAIM: Our leadership pulled a bait-and-switch. They told us they opposed privatization and then they turn right around and support it.



ANSWER: We have said since day one that we support stable funding, which we have, AND that we oppose "privatization" where it is defined as a for-profit entity. We have stayed true to that since this bill provides stable funding and created a "federally-chartered, not-for-profit corporation". Both sides of the congressional leadership recognize that we need to be out from under the appropriations process since it is so clearly broken. This bill does that AND maintains the list of pay, benefits, perks, right to bargain etc.


I have not come across one member yet that has actually read and/or understood the bill. It’s 273 pages long and in lawyer phraseology. I understood every word in the bill… just not the way they put them together, but I digress. The point is that If you don’t know what’s in the bill, how do you know we are “screwed”, “let down by our leadership”, or that you should even be upset? I propose this. Let’s have a little faith in our leadership. Over the past six years, Paul and Trish have certainly earned that. And if you don’t want to trust them, trust the lawyers we have hired that have “looked at every single word and pored over every detail and proposal. (They) have specifically focused on what protects our members’ rights, pay, benefits, and retirement, and what ensures the safety of the National Airspace System (NAS) while also addressing the current problem of providing a stable and predictable funding stream to operate and improve a 24/7 safety function”. (Source- NATCA’s Official Statement)

Has your buddy in the facility done that? No? Then tell them to turn around and face their scope… just be professional about it please.



CLAIM: I just found out about this yesterday. Why didn’t our leadership keep us informed?


ANSWER: The only way you did not know about this or what our position was is if you didn’t read the updates from the National Office. Our members have complained constantly for years about the bureaucracy of the government, the red-tape, the yearly threat of furlough and shutdowns and so on. Now a bill is introduced that would eliminate all of that while maintaining your rights, pay, benefits, and retirement but we are supposed to oppose it? It’s when organizations do stupid stuff like that that they lose credibility on Capitol Hill. Fortunately, NATCA doesn’t do stupid stuff on Capitol Hill. On the Hill, information is kept private as language is crafted, refined, and negotiated. One way to destroy your relationships on the Hill is to violate trust and protocol which means Joe and Jane Member aren’t going to get personal emails after every congressional meeting to let them know what was said. We elected some really bright people to represent us and that is exactly what they are doing within the confines that they have to work. And they are doing it well. I humbly suggest we show a little faith in ‘em.


CLAIM: Why didn’t we just wait until Ranking Member Defazio proposes his amendments, then we can support his proposal because he’s a Democrat and so we are sure to like his bill better.



ANSWER: Again from NATCA’s official statement, “The Ranking Member (DeFazio) will propose an alternate model for ensuring a stable, predictable funding stream for the FAA, while at the same time protecting employees and ensuring the safety of the NAS. We appreciate the effort he and his staff have made and look forward to giving that proposal’s language the same complete and rigorous review”. Brothers and Sisters, we have to judge each piece of legislation on it's merits, not its author. (Wow, that was bumper sticker quality right there. Some body quote me on this one.)


CLAIM: This is a change and I hate change.


ANSWER: OK, that wasn’t the exact wording, I’m summarizing this member’s concerns but I empathize with the members who feel this way. Here’s the problem. Members were claiming the sky was falling back when we went from Title 5 to Title 49. Yes, there were bumps along the way but it put our members in a better place for collective bargaining and pay. Don’t believe me, go compare yourself to your GS pay scale equivalent and you tell me if you’re better off. Look, change is scary. So you have two ways to go about this. You can perpetrate inaccurate information on social media and/or the breakroom OR you can actually get informed and involved in NATCA’s legislative efforts. Attend the basic legislative class, contact your State Coordinator or NLC member to see how you can be part of the solution. If you can’t explain or understand NATCA’s legislative goals and efforts, go get educated on the subject. Staying ignorant is easy, learning will require a little effort.


CLAIM: Unless we remain a government entity, we are screwed!!!


ANSWER: When a Member of Congress (MoC) comes to you and says, “I want to take you out from under the appropriations process and privatize you” what would you say? A lot of our members, and other Union’s, have said “over my dead body” to which the MoC will say, “so be it”. Do you really think that because you objected that the MoC will just give up right there? Of course not. They will go ahead with their legislation, without your input, just as all the other bad legislation we have fought over the years went forward. So one avenue we could take would be to sit on the sidelines, bury our heads in the sand, and pretend that MoC’s aren’t changing our very careers because that will turn out really well for us right! Another way we could handle this is to educate the MoC on the repercussions of what they are trying to do so that they abandon their original idea for something much better for our profession and the NAS. Then we could continue to work with the MoC’s and feed them information so that everything the membership has now is protected. Guess which route we went?


We didn’t go into this blindly. One thing our leadership did was to go to every country that has gone from being a government agency to another business model recently and collected all of their lessons learned so that we were sure not to make the same mistakes others may have. Ya know one of the surprising things we found out. NOT ONE of those counties would go back to being a government agency if they could. Not one! And that included Great Britain who did try that technique of sitting on the sidelines and refused to participate and got to deal with whatever their Parliament decided to give them. So now, approximately every 3 years, all of the ATC services in jolly ol’ England go up for bid independently of one another. And yet, despite that, the Brit’s still say they wouldn’t go back to being a government agency.



One final, but very important, note. The legislative process is a long one. This bill has only been introduced. It is no where near a president’s signature. There is a lot of work to be done as this bill progresses and gets marked-up/amended. We might have to change our support depending on what those changes are. The bill also has a high potential for dying along the way and never getting to the President for signature. We have very fine Government Affairs staff working on our behalf. Just as it would be foolish for them to tell you how to work traffic, we should probably shy away from telling them how to handle legislation.



Your leadership will be holding telcon’s shortly in order to educate the membership. I’d plan on listening in on one of them.



In Solidarity,


Northwest Mountain Legislative Chair
 

GulfCharlie

Comrade Commissar
#14
Why didn’t we just wait until Ranking Member Defazio proposes his amendments, then we can support his proposal because he’s a Democrat and so we are sure to like his bill better.
ANSWER: Again from NATCA’s official statement, “The Ranking Member (DeFazio) will propose an alternate model for ensuring a stable, predictable funding stream for the FAA, while at the same time protecting employees and ensuring the safety of the NAS. We appreciate the effort he and his staff have made and look forward to giving that proposal’s language the same complete and rigorous review”. Brothers and Sisters, we have to judge each piece of legislation on it's merits, not its author. (Wow, that was bumper sticker quality right there. Some body quote me on this one.)"

I point you to Congressional testimony from 2/10/16.

 

Attachments

GulfCharlie

Comrade Commissar
#15
Again, this is only one controversial issue. There are much more out there and they need to be addressed by all the candidates so the membership can make a informed decision.
 
#16
the images you posted are broken. In all fairness once the Shuster stuff came out they stuck to the narrative and put out tons of information. It was all consistent and made sense. What is upsetting is finding out now that it was all a put on. They told us the boogie man was coming for us, when in reality they created the boogie man. Privatization was not even on the radar (no pun intended) until we put it there. I just want to know why.
 

GulfCharlie

Comrade Commissar
#17
the images you posted are broken. In all fairness once the Shuster stuff came out they stuck to the narrative and put out tons of information. It was all consistent and made sense. What is upsetting is finding out now that it was all a put on. They told us the boogie man was coming for us, when in reality they created the boogie man. Privatization was not even on the radar (no pun intended) until we put it there. I just want to know why.
Try Now buddy.
 
#18
NATCA Q/A on 02/05/16



Has your buddy in the facility done that? No? Then tell them to turn around and face their scope… just be professional about it please.

In Solidarity,


Northwest Mountain Legislative Chair
Seriously who wrote this? Sit around and face your scope was the response? I'm all about members being more informed and reading the material provided by national, but this was the response by the NLC? And it's even more infuriating with the information now present.
 

GulfCharlie

Comrade Commissar
#19
Seriously who wrote this? Sit around and face your scope was the response? I'm all about members being more informed and reading the material provided by national, but this was the response by the NLC? And it's even more infuriating with the information now present.
It sure was. I left his position at the bottom of the email.
 
#20
Iircc, didnt the original email sent out by NATCA after Shuster introduced the legislation act like it was a surprise and they "were reviewing its contents" when in fact they had helped draft it?
I don't think the extent of the involvement with Shuster will ever be known or proven nor do I really care. But selling something to the membership under false information is enough for me.