Will of ALPA Pilots?

[PCL_128]

I am curious if you or FJ could provide a map to the process?

Maybe not, but I'd certainly be happy to help him out. Time for reps to be held accountable for their actions.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Maybe not, but I'd certainly be happy to help him out. Time for reps to be held accountable for their actions.

I don't think there will be any recall for various reasons...

 

[luckytohaveajob]

He made the threat. I think he can take up for himself. And when an over 60 F/O or Captain tells me he is going to be a scab, I will jack him up too.

And you don't think an over 60 pilot is a scab.

You Baron are the leaders of the next generation of scabs.

 

[Phaedrus]

Yes, of course......

 

[pylut]

I answered it.... maybe in another thread... the leadership can simply choose to go in the direction they see best as the was no majority particaption. However, one could argue that choosing not to vote is a vote for the status quo...

but one could also argue that apathy means indifference on the issue. The only way to be clear or ensure that no one else speaks for another is to be active.

We can keep going around, but it always comes back to membership actvisim as being the key to our effectiveness...



Respectfully, I don't think the apathetic, lack of expereinced and unorganized membership has the political savvy to pull it off....

It would take some reaserch on my part to run an effective recall. I am curious if you or FJ could provide a map to the process?

Here is a crystal clear example of the arrogance associated with alpo. Disregard the membership vote...cause I know better what's good for you. Rez could not be a clearer example of the double talking self serving toothless organization which once actually was interested in the pilots it represented.

alpa must die.

 

[TheBaron]

Yes Andy can stick up for himself, but your ignorant attitude bothers me. Whether you want to work over age 60, or you want to cross a picket line, both are forms of seniority aggression. Guys that can't get this stuff straight need to think about what they're really talking about. Wait and see what comes after this change and what this whole elder crowd actually wants to do and we'll all be wishing it was a simple cross of a picket line.

My ignorant attitude? It must be nice living in your very simple little world. Every older pilot is a greedy ba$tard with 4 ex-wives to support and every younger pilot is an altruistic choir boy only concerned with what is best for his brother pilot. Now take your ball and run home to mommy.

 

[TheBaron]

And you don't think an over 60 pilot is a scab.

You Baron are the leaders of the next generation of scabs.

If the rules change allowing a Part 121 pilot to fly beyond 60, then one who chooses to do so is not a scab. A person that says they will cross the picket line of a legal job action is a scab. See the difference?
Maybe you should address your complaints to ICAO and the US Congress since they are the ones that will ultimately change this rule. Complaining that ALPA isn't doing enough to prevent it (when they can't) is like complaining that Bush didn't do enough to prevent Katrina.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Here is a crystal clear example of the arrogance associated with alpo. Disregard the membership vote...cause I know better what's good for you. Rez could not be a clearer example of the double talking self serving toothless organization which once actually was interested in the pilots it represented.

alpa must die.

The only thing that I know that is good for one pilot and all pilots careers is to get off the bleachers, stop watching others play with your career and become an activist.

Same ol arguement from your camp.. The Will of the Membership! And that is all you want to talk about.. you don't want to talk about minority particaption and you don't want to talk about political ramification of remaining steadfast...

Simply put..all you want to talk about is you. How Age 60 effects you.

Problem is most ALPA members are in this profession for one thing. Number One! Its too bad cause when you got 60,000 members looking out for number one it gets real comeptitive real quick....

 

[N2264J]

Time for reps to be held accountable for their actions.

I don't think there will be any recall for various reasons...

Lewshun is right. Exactly nothing will happen.

As I said before, ALPA had to move fast to get out in front of this thing in order to have any relevancy at all in it's implementation.

Politicians were running away from ALPA on the hill and telling them they no longer had any credibility on this issue.

 

[Neubyfly]

Can someone point me to where I can see the results of the ALPA survey?

 

[PCL_128]

Same ol arguement from your camp.. The Will of the Membership! And that is all you want to talk about.

Umm, yeah, because it's kind of important. Are you saying that the will of the membership is completely irrelevant? I certainly hope not.

 

[fr8doggie]

Can someone point me to where I can see the results of the ALPA survey?

Is it alpo or ALPA? The results are available on the FDX/ALPA website. I assume that you are an ALPA member? If so they should be available on your own MEC's website.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Umm, yeah, because it's kind of important. Are you saying that the will of the membership is completely irrelevant? I certainly hope not.

Sure it is relevant... in fact the membership stated that if the change was inevitable then they wanted ALPA to be a part of the process... hows that for complying with the membership...

In addition, do you expect discussions on FI to be one sided? IOW: the Will of the Membership [now officially WOTM] camp seems to be quite biased... I haven't seen an objective arguement for Age60.. which goes to show that those angry that ALPA is defying the WOTM are really in it just for them. They aren't custodians of the profession, rather political entities of only themselves...

 

[pylut]

The only thing that I know that is good for one pilot and all pilots careers is to get off the bleachers, stop watching others play with your career and become an activist.

Same ol arguement from your camp.. The Will of the Membership! And that is all you want to talk about.. you don't want to talk about minority particaption and you don't want to talk about political ramification of remaining steadfast...

Simply put..all you want to talk about is you. How Age 60 effects you.

Problem is most ALPA members are in this profession for one thing. Number One! Its too bad cause when you got 60,000 members looking out for number one it gets real comeptitive real quick....

You are a hypocrit. You ask for participation then disregard the participants.

Same old argument, how age 60 effects me? Sorry wrong again. Where in my argument did I even mention being against age 60? I'm discussing how far alpo has strayed from being a labor union, not age 60.

 

[PCL_128]

Sure it is relevant... in fact the membership stated that if the change was inevitable then they wanted ALPA to be a part of the process... hows that for complying with the membership...

Even I answered yes to that question on the survey! Who wouldn't? That's the whole point of the question: get the answer that you can twist later to make your argument to the EB to get the policy changed. Prater played this very well. The problem is that being "a part of the process" does not mean changing ALPA's official stance against Age-65. You can be a part of the process without agreeing with the rule change. Case in point: PCL ALPA is opposed to PBS, but the Scheduling Committee still talks with the company about PBS so as to avoid any huge problems when the company violates the contract and imposes the new system anyway. You don't have to support the new rule just to have a voice in the process. That's what the membership is saying, but Prater isn't listening because he isn't hearing what he wants to hear.

I haven't seen an objective arguement for Age60

There have been years worth of posts on this board that argue objective points against Age-65. I won't rehash them now, because you've heard my opinions on this issue many times.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

You are a hypocrit. You ask for participation then disregard the participants.

Opps sorry I meant a majority particaption...

Same old argument, how age 60 effects me? Sorry wrong again. Where in my argument did I even mention being against age 60? I'm discussing how far alpo has strayed from being a labor union, not age 60.

Ok... how has ALPA strayed from being a labor union... Let me have it...

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Even I answered yes to that question on the survey! Who wouldn't? That's the whole point of the question: get the answer that you can twist later to make your argument to the EB to get the policy changed. Prater played this very well. The problem is that being "a part of the process" does not mean changing ALPA's official stance against Age-65. You can be a part of the process without agreeing with the rule change. Case in point: PCL ALPA is opposed to PBS, but the Scheduling Committee still talks with the company about PBS so as to avoid any huge problems when the company violates the contract and imposes the new system anyway. You don't have to support the new rule just to have a voice in the process. That's what the membership is saying, but Prater isn't listening because he isn't hearing what he wants to hear.

Wow that is not really a deep analogy....

Except that Pinnacle and PCL have to work together....

The FAA, DOT, WH, ICAO etc.. don't have to invite ALPA to the table of change. And as long as guys keep pouting and screaming, ALPA will not get invited....

There have been years worth of posts on this board that argue objective points against Age-65. I won't rehash them now, because you've heard my opinions on this issue many times.

Sorry... you must have misunderstood....

There have been no objective arguements for Age60 as to why ALPA is disregarding the membership. No road map has been effectively argued that ALPA can successfully oppose age65 and remain effective for its membership and as a political entity on CapHill

 

[PCL_128]

Wow that is not really a deep analogy....

Except that Pinnacle and PCL have to work together....

The FAA, DOT, WH, ICAO etc.. don't have to invite ALPA to the table of change. And as long as guys keep pouting and screaming, ALPA will not get invited....

You're ignoring years of history. ALPA has already been invited to the table over and over again, despite its opposition to the rule change. Both Captains Woerth (who is vehemently opposed to a rule change) and Prater have been asked to serve as ARC Chairmen on this issue. ALPA's policy has not impeded access to the process. There's no reason to believe that it would in the future, either.

No road map has been effectively argued that ALPA can successfully oppose age65 and remain effective for its membership and as a political entity on CapHill

The burden of proof is on Prater. So far, he's provided no proof whatsoever that ALPA would be excluded from this process due to the anti-change policy. Every time I've heard him talk about this issue, he always argues the issues of age discrimination, terminated pensions, etc... He never talks about not having access to the process.

 

[stlflyguy]

Ok... how has ALPA strayed from being a labor union... Let me have it...

Find a TWA pilot and ask him...

stlflyguy

 

[Flopgut]

If the rules change allowing a Part 121 pilot to fly beyond 60, then one who chooses to do so is not a scab. A person that says they will cross the picket line of a legal job action is a scab. See the difference?
Maybe you should address your complaints to ICAO and the US Congress since they are the ones that will ultimately change this rule. Complaining that ALPA isn't doing enough to prevent it (when they can't) is like complaining that Bush didn't do enough to prevent Katrina.

A scab is a replacement worker. When some pilot chooses to work past age 60 they are no less a replacement worker than if there were a strike. Doubt it? Just ask the one being replaced!.

What else could this be more like? Is it like a merger? Let's see: One group has aircraft, seats, longevity, and career expectations. That's the under 60 group. The other group, the over 60 crowd, only has longevity. They have no planes or seats and they definitly have no career expectations. Zero! Now, how usually does this get awarded by a judge in this situation? Answer: The over 60 group gets nothing! Bottom of the list, and rightfully so. They have ZERO career expectations. BUT, is that what is happening? Is that the reality? NO! they want full seniority to the detriment of every pilot junior AND senior to them. They want to screw everybody. There's no better example of a replacement worker.

Now think about this a bit, don't just blurt something stupid out again. If you need some help understanding this just ask nicely.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

You're ignoring years of history. ALPA has already been invited to the table over and over again, despite its opposition to the rule change. Both Captains Woerth (who is vehemently opposed to a rule change) and Prater have been asked to serve as ARC Chairmen on this issue. ALPA's policy has not impeded access to the process. There's no reason to believe that it would in the future, either.

Correct, however, untill Jan 2007 the rule change wasn't going to happen. Now it is....

The system of checks and balances is working... Prater saw the need to go forth.. the EB agreed and now the EC.....

This isn't one guy or a star chamber.

The burden of proof is on Prater.

Why?

So far, he's provided no proof whatsoever that ALPA would be excluded from this process due to the anti-change policy. Every time I've heard him talk about this issue, he always argues the issues of age discrimination, terminated pensions, etc... He never talks about not having access to the process.

He never talks about not having access cause ALPA isn't fighting the inevitable...

 

[PCL_128]

Correct, however, untill Jan 2007 the rule change wasn't going to happen. Now it is....

If memory serves, Prater was added to the second ARC after the NPRM intent was announced by the FAA administrator. Again, if you want to convince us that this change in policy is necessary, then you'll have to prove that we won't be allowed to be a party to the process with the current policy.

The system of checks and balances is working... Prater saw the need to go forth.. the EB agreed and now the EC.....

This isn't one guy or a star chamber.

The system of checks and balances will be working when the members rise up and demand that these reps be recalled for ignoring the will of the membership.

Why?

Because he's the one who wants to change a policy that's been in effect for 27 years.

He never talks about not having access cause ALPA isn't fighting the inevitable...

I beg to differ. He's not talking about it because that's not the real reason he's pushing this issue. I think you know that.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

If memory serves, Prater was added to the second ARC after the NPRM intent was announced by the FAA administrator. Again, if you want to convince us that this change in policy is necessary, then you'll have to prove that we won't be allowed to be a party to the process with the current policy.

Or you can prove it will be...

The system of checks and balances will be working when the members rise up and demand that these reps be recalled for ignoring the will of the membership.

Ha! Look at the other threads... Members refuse to attend LEC meetings...they are resigned to illogical behavior. They believe the leadership has failed but they refuse to do anything about it...

Thus the inefficiences shall continue.... The leadership will do what they think is best, the membership be pissed off.... life goes on... and so..ALPA could be better but it won't...

Because he's the one who wants to change a policy that's been in effect for 27 years.

He or we... the EB and EC..

I beg to differ. He's not talking about it because that's not the real reason he's pushing this issue. I think you know that.

You know the real deal..... Resolutions supporting Age 60 at many MEC's have failed to pass. Some didn't even get seconded....

 

[Vastly Underemp]

ALPA's "overwhelming" support for changing age 60........

Age 60 Survey results:

Do you favor changing Age 60:

Total participants: 18275
For Change: 42.7%
Against: 53.7%
Not Sure: 3.5%
Prefer Not to Say: 0.1%

CAL was 43.6% for, 52.2% against

Can you say BOHICA?

18275 participants out of over 60,000 total membership? Hardly a mandate from the masses.....

 

[PCL_128]

Or you can prove it will be...

History backs me up. You're trying to say that although we've already been allowed at the table up to now, that we won't be in the future. I have facts to back me up (2 ARC Chairmanships and continued access to lawmakers), but you have yet to provide any reference to prove that we won't be able to be involved in the process with the current policy.

Ha! Look at the other threads... Members refuse to attend LEC meetings...they are resigned to illogical behavior. They believe the leadership has failed but they refuse to do anything about it...

No argument there. The membership is a complete and utter failure. Until they are willing to stand up and do something, this behavior will continue from certain reps.

He or we... the EB and EC..

This all originated with Prater. He suckered the EC and EB into it, but this was his baby.

You know the real deal..... Resolutions supporting Age 60 at many MEC's have failed to pass. Some didn't even get seconded....

Hey, at least I tried to do something other than just b!tch on flightinfo.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

This all originated with Prater. He suckered the EC and EB into it, but this was his baby.

C'mon... you are saying that all the EVPs and all the MEC chairmen are suckers?

 

[PCL_128]

C'mon... you are saying that all the EVPs and all the MEC chairmen are suckers?

No, one of the EVPs and 20% of the MEC Chairmen seem to have their backbones firmly intact. The rest ignored the will of the membership and followed Prater right over the cliff. ALPA has enough of a problem with membership participation without Prater hurting perceptions even more with one of the worst political maneuvers I believe I've ever seen.

I still miss Duane.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

No, one of the EVPs and 20% of the MEC Chairmen seem to have their backbones firmly intact. The rest ignored the will of the membership and followed Prater right over the cliff. ALPA has enough of a problem with membership participation without Prater hurting perceptions even more with one of the worst political maneuvers I believe I've ever seen.

I still miss Duane.

You've got a quite a quandry there my friend... a true paradox...

It seems that the membership knows what is going on, but yet they are aloof if not absent... while at the same time the elected reps voted in the wrong President (thanks to the UAL guys) and don't know how to handle the age60 issue....

 

[Freight Dog]

Rez... I don't know about others, but I thought Prater was the man of integrity.

I was wrong.

 

[PCL_128]

It seems that the membership knows what is going on, but yet they are aloof if not absent... while at the same time the elected reps voted in the wrong President (thanks to the UAL guys) and don't know how to handle the age60 issue....

A perfect summary of the present situation. As usual, the problem comes back to the apathetic membership. Their apathy led to a situation where the wrong guy gets elected President and one of our greatest advocates was kicked out, and then when the new guy does something they hate (something he even said he was going to do while running for office), they get angry. And what do they do in response? So far, absolutely nothing! They complain on a message board, but I see no action. Over 400 AAA pilots showed up to the EC meeting in Herndon to protest the arbitration award, but I see no one doing anything about this Age-60 abortion. I'm no longer at an ALPA carrier, so I can't do anything about this situation. It's up to all the other guys like the ones on this board that disagree with what happened. Until you get up and take action, this stuff will continue.