From the ALPA Age 60 Website...

[Purpledog]

Just went to ALPA's crewroom and couldn't find anything about an online poll. If it's there it's hidden pretty well. It must only be available to over 50, non-furloughed, non-apprentice members.

 

[Flopgut]

Captain Prater set up the BRP on his own to study the effects of the possible change to the retirement age. He doesn't need EB/BOD approval to set up ad hoc committees such as this one. The BRP has nothing to do with the policy choice of whether or not ALPA should or shouldn't support Age 60. As for his or ALPA's policy versus APA's reaction to the NPRM, that isn't a question I can answer as I'm just a worker bee in this one. You'd have to direct that one to Captain Prater himself even though I'm sure I could guess what his response would be.



ALPA's involvement or lack of, is a classic "danged if you do and danged if you don't" situation. Some pilots will be upset if we aren't involved saying we were reactionary and others will be upset that we are involved saying that we should be hands off. You won't be able to please 66,000 pilots.



Actually, the work that the BRP is doing with R&I, E&FA, and Representation is exactly what you are suggesting...."covering our 6 on the CBA issues."

-Neal

I don't know Neal. I don't think you're "covering our 6" too well. You're just reacting, they are in the driver's seat. There is a complete lack of organic, forward thinking out of ALPA. It's the same broken record in that regard. It should not be hard for a sophisticated and well funded union like ALPA to make a political play. But, as always, we're going to end up making the FA union look smart?!

The fact that Captain Prater answers an NPRM with a BRP, instead of simply doing what the APA did and then withdrawing input, when it was abundantly clear what the membership's MAJORITY wanted, goes against every reason unions exist. The BRP will enable oversight to say we had input, and therefore we agree to it, even though that's NOT what our union should be doing. What if this were a different issue, like foreign control? He has just shown them how to get anything past us! Put a few dollars in front of the more senior types who happen to be running the show and they'll get whatever they want!

This is a huge issue Neal. This gets botched and we will all end up with less than half of what we ever hoped for out of this. The only way to fix it will be with new representation.

I think there might be a disconnect of responsibility on Captain Prater's part. I like the guy, so it's been hard for me to recognize.

 

[Andy]

Just went to ALPA's crewroom and couldn't find anything about an online poll. If it's there it's hidden pretty well. It must only be available to over 50, non-furloughed, non-apprentice members.

It's buried in the right hand column of page 7 of the report. Nice. Open the .pdf and do a search for web-based.

 

[Huggyu2]

OK, I don't know the intricacies of this issue like y'all do. Let me ask you this: what would it take to get overwhelming support from those folks that don't support it? What give-and-take issue would you want? What can the airlines, or the gov't, give to make it a fair deal for the pilot community?

 

[Andy]

From the Blue Ribbon Report (which was mailed to all pilots' homes):

“The panel has developed a communications plan to
educate the members on the FAA’s NPRM process
and how ALPA is preparing to respond to it, including
a Web-based survey that will run through the​

month of April."

If you want a good resource, go to http://crewroom.alpa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=2265 which is the ALPA Blue Ribbon Panel Web Page.

And to that end, you will hear a LOT more about this survey when it goes live next week. As close to 100% participation is going to be critical.

I previously skimmed the Report. Your reference is buried on page 7.

I can't speak for Captain Prater but beyond some campaign material I don't recall him ever speaking out against ALPA policy on this issue. As a matter of fact, I know he hasn't. And what actions has he taken to promote the change? Again, the EB and BOD set policy on this issue.

As for the EB and BOD, the EB meets in May and will take action one way or the other at that point in time.

Prater is pulling a Petain/Vichy government - collaborating with the enemy. He has publicly stated that he is in favor of a change to age 60 both in print and on video. He has agreed to work with the FAA on implementation of this change. Meanwhile the EB and BOD sit back and allow this to happen.
Follow this link: https://crewroom.alpa.org/DesktopMo...View.aspx?itemid=6613&ModuleId=1068&TabId=202
Click on the video. Go to 3:27 into the video. Listen to what Prater says about his conversation with a couple of United pilots. He IS speaking out in opposition to the age 60 rule.

His stance reminds me of Clayton Williams' attitude toward rape (ran for TX governor against Kay Bailey Hutchison). "Speaking of the weather, he said it was like rape: There's nothing to do but sit back and enjoy it."

Captain Prater is not assisting the FAA in its change. He is, however, co-chair of the now "dead" ARC (since the sunset date has come and gone), which gave ALPA some influence in the preliminary discussions on this issue. That said, the FAA is still going to do what the FAA wants to do obviously. And the BRP is certainly not assisting the FAA in the change. The BRP's mission is to study the impact on pilot contracts, costs, pilot unity, and safety IF the change is to occur. It is a means to stay ahead of the curve here.

Again, Prater has clearly stated that he wants to work with the FAA on this. This is a completely different course of action than what APA has chosen.

Well your first post implied direct communication with ALPA National and the leadership. Thank you for clarifying. In that case, I agree 100%. These forums are virtual crew rooms and are great ways to disseminate information (sadly misinformation too) and engage other pilots in the issues. But true participation comes in the form of events, LEC meetings, etc.

Poorly written on my part; I do not see this forum as a method to communicate with national. I see this forum as a method to stir up grass roots support.

I realize that you're taking incoming here on behalf of a forked up ALPA national; thanks for posting.

 

[Andy]

OK, I don't know the intricacies of this issue like y'all do. Let me ask you this: what would it take to get overwhelming support from those folks that don't support it? What give-and-take issue would you want? What can the airlines, or the gov't, give to make it a fair deal for the pilot community?

That's the problem; those that lose in this deal are not as passionate about defending the status quo as those that want to change the rule.
The fairest way that I see this happening is with a graduated phase-in. Like a 3 month increase in retirement every year starting in 2010 (it'll take a couple of years to get through the NPRM process).

 

[BluDevAv8r]

Just went to ALPA's crewroom and couldn't find anything about an online poll. If it's there it's hidden pretty well. It must only be available to over 50, non-furloughed, non-apprentice members.

It won't be live until mid next week. You will hear plenty of communication about it when it goes live.

-Neal

 

[Flopgut]

OK, I don't know the intricacies of this issue like y'all do. Let me ask you this: what would it take to get overwhelming support from those folks that don't support it? What give-and-take issue would you want? What can the airlines, or the gov't, give to make it a fair deal for the pilot community?

The ability to retire. Our professional lives are too provisional and we end up rolled back to zero too often. We don't need to work longer if this is still going to be the case.

Pilots who don't support this understand that this is not a solution. It's a bandage. In five years there is going to be an outcry for age 70 retirement if things don't improve.

From a union standpoint: Good decisions and proper leadership is what members hope to see. Forget the exact issue for a moment--Look at what's going on: ALPA leadership has gone mustang on the wishes of the majority! The majority who don't want this changed thought they could count on ALPA support. Is that going to happen again on another issue?

All that being said, the answer to your question is simply: Change the age without taking money and QOL from those who want to retire at 60.

 

[Purpledog]

OK, I don't know the intricacies of this issue like y'all do. Let me ask you this: what would it take to get overwhelming support from those folks that don't support it? What give-and-take issue would you want? What can the airlines, or the gov't, give to make it a fair deal for the pilot community?

Grandfather everyone holding an ATP at implementation. Those that are crying discrimination will have won their battle against age discrimination and those on seniority lists won't be screwed by having to babysit an over 60 pilot.

 

[kwick]

They probably should raise the age to age 65 to match ICAO immediately. I suspect a compromise was reached to delay implementation for about two and a half years. Politics is all about compromise. The real dinosaurs aren't the over sixty guys, they're the younger guys that can't deal with change.

 

[Andy]

The real dinosaurs aren't the over sixty guys, they're the younger guys that can't deal with change.

The ones whose ox will be gored with a change. I suppose that they should just lay back and enjoy it, since there's nothing that the young guys can do about it, eh? Is Clayton Williams one of your idols?

 

[luckytohaveajob]

They probably should raise the age to age 65 to match ICAO immediately. I suspect a compromise was reached to delay implementation for about two and a half years.

The delay is because Congress must pass a law preventing all the recently retired disenfranchised pilots from filing lawsuit after lawsuit, suing the crap out of every company and union who allowed the last five years of retires to be screwed overnight, plus all the pissed off young guys who were cheated.

The only change the FAA could do without Congress would be one that would take a generation to implement, 30 years.

 

[kwick]

I think you owe all women an apology for comparing a law that extends your career for five years to rape. Maybe you should find a good desk job somewhere, for your own best interest and the flying publics.

 

[Phaedrus]

boo hoo. Let's all apologize because that makes everything alright anyway...

 

[Phaedrus]

I'm deeply sorry if that last post offended anybody....