Alpa President Starting To Show Signs Of Leadership

[PCL_128]

What did he say? Are you suggesting that ALPA could have stood firm against Age60 changes and still been effective on the hill? The political fall out would have been acceptable?

I first asked him if he believed the NPRM could be stopped at this point. His answer was "highly unlikely." He was fairly certain that the NPRM would be going forward this year no matter what. I followed up by asking him whether we could continue to have influence over the rule change while still maintaining our current policy of supporting the Age-60 rule. He was noncommittal on an answer to that. It could go either way, basically. So, I was left to make up my own opinion on how effective we could continue to be. All things considered, I believe it's worth the risk to follow the will of the membership and continue our opposition while still trying to be involved in the process.

Well maybe Prater isn't the guy to be in there? We know how he got there.... (bad UAL bad....) How do you think DW would've handled it?

Maybe? I don't think there's any "maybe" about it. The guy's in way over his head. He doesn't have a clue what he's doing. I said it before the election, and I'll keep saying it for the next 3 years.

I don't have any doubt that Duane would have handled this much better. Duane is far too savvy to make the idiotic mistakes that Prater has. At the very least he would have sent out a hell of a lot more communications to the membership on exactly why the position should be changed. But, I doubt he even favors changing the position in the first place.

I wouldn't say Prater backed doored everythink... there was an info campaign distributed to the membership...

BS. The only "info" was basically a description of what the BRP's job was. No discussion took place on the political situation in Washington. Prater released a short video and that was about it.

Age 60 to me is a big bump in the road.... but to waste too much time on it is futile... Open Skies is the Solid Brick wall that will stop our careers dead in its tracks....

Agreed. But if I can't trust Prater to handle a simple Age-60 issue, how can I trust him to handle the "big issue" of Open Skies?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I first asked him if he believed the NPRM could be stopped at this point. His answer was "highly unlikely." He was fairly certain that the NPRM would be going forward this year no matter what. I followed up by asking him whether we could continue to have influence over the rule change while still maintaining our current policy of supporting the Age-60 rule. He was noncommittal on an answer to that. It could go either way, basically. So, I was left to make up my own opinion on how effective we could continue to be. All things considered, I believe it's worth the risk to follow the will of the membership and continue our opposition while still trying to be involved in the process.

Well.... In order to oppose the NPRM and be effective I think the membership has to be more involved. And the Leadership knows this....

IOW the leadership knows that the best way to handle this Age60 issue is to go with the political flow on CapHill. The membership is the ammo that feeds the leadership gun. Right now if membership is a box of duds and blanks. And the leadership knows this... Sure you've got a few loudmouth firecrackers (the vocal minority) but an effective membership we are not...

So the leadership is being realistic... its knows the limitations of the membership....will prevent the leadership form efectively blocking the NPRM..

Maybe? I don't think there's any "maybe" about it. The guy's in way over his head. He doesn't have a clue what he's doing. I said it before the election, and I'll keep saying it for the next 3 years.

Ultimatey that is the memberships fault... did any one pass a resolution at an LEC meeting endorsing an ALPA president?

I don't have any doubt that Duane would have handled this much better. Duane is far too savvy to make the idiotic mistakes that Prater has. At the very least he would have sent out a hell of a lot more communications to the membership on exactly why the position should be changed. But, I doubt he even favors changing the position in the first place.

Agreed. But most guys have decided to be Duane Haters.... now they have to justify the hate...

BS. The only "info" was basically a description of what the BRP's job was. No discussion took place on the political situation in Washington. Prater released a short video and that was about it.

What about the In Focus Age 60 communications program?

Also...there is the desire for the membership to be self starters and custodians of their own career...ooops sorry... wrong union....wrong lifetime...

Agreed. But if I can't trust Prater to handle a simple Age-60 issue, how can I trust him to handle the "big issue" of Open Skies?

Why does everything come back to the membership.....???:erm:

 

[PCL_128]

Well.... In order to oppose the NPRM and be effective I think the membership has to be more involved. And the Leadership knows this....

Of course, but rather than communicate that to the membership to try to rally them to arms, Prater instead just went ahead and railroaded through a policy change. There's no doubt that the membership needs to be more involved. You and I have always agreed on that. But I've never felt that an apathetic membership gives the leadership the authority to ignore the will of the majority that does participate.

What about the In Focus Age 60 communications program?

You mean the program that Duane oversaw two years ago? The program that resulted in a majority of the membership voting to continue with current policy? The polling that Duane actually listened to?

Yeah, I remember that program, and it was an excellent educational tool. A true shame that Prater didn't see the need to do something similar this time.

 

[Full of LUV]

Well.... In order to oppose the NPRM and be effective I think the membership has to be more involved. And the Leadership knows this....

IOW the leadership knows that the best way to handle this Age60 issue is to go with the political flow on CapHill. The membership is the ammo that feeds the leadership gun. Right now if membership is a box of duds and blanks. And the leadership knows this... Sure you've got a few loudmouth firecrackers (the vocal minority) but an effective membership we are not...

So the leadership is being realistic... its knows the limitations of the membership....will prevent the leadership form efectively blocking the NPRM..
Ultimatey that is the memberships fault... did any one pass a resolution at an LEC meeting endorsing an ALPA president?
Agreed. But most guys have decided to be Duane Haters.... now they have to justify the hate...

What about the In Focus Age 60 communications program?

Also...there is the desire for the membership to be self starters and custodians of their own career...ooops sorry... wrong union....wrong lifetime...

Why does everything come back to the membership.....???:erm:

I believe there is a huge level of difference in the level of disdain for Woerth vs what Prater is doing. Pilots will bitch and during concessions, everyone is a target and I think that Woerth probably made the biggest mistakes concerning scope in contracts, but most pilots would think that he was working for them. I truly believe Prater is working against 70% of the pilots right now with the pro age 65 thing, especially in the windfall manner they wish to implement it. I can't imagine any way the rule (without alpa influence) could be worse than the proposed windfall change.

Senior pilots are supporting this and acting like their our big brother who just gave us two $20's for our $50 and telling us to quit acting like babies when we protest. I guess it's the indifference to the complete injustice of the windfall that has me the most frustrated. This isn't being pushed by Air Transport Assoc. so it's sad to say that managment has the junior pilots interest better protected.

 

[vetrider]

I miss Duane.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I believe there is a huge level of difference in the level of disdain for Woerth vs what Prater is doing. Pilots will bitch and during concessions, everyone is a target and I think that Woerth probably made the biggest mistakes concerning scope in contracts,

The president doesn't control scope at each airline...

but most pilots would think that he was working for them. I truly believe Prater is working against 70% of the pilots right now with the pro age 65 thing, especially in the windfall manner they wish to implement it. I can't imagine any way the rule (without alpa influence) could be worse than the proposed windfall change.

Ok....so now what?

Senior pilots are supporting this and acting like their our big brother who just gave us two $20's for our $50 and telling us to quit acting like babies when we protest. I guess it's the indifference to the complete injustice of the windfall that has me the most frustrated. This isn't being pushed by Air Transport Assoc. so it's sad to say that managment has the junior pilots interest better protected.

So the junior pilots could not have been informed and savvy on this and seen age 60 coming last summer...and make it clear to thier MECs that DW neeed to stay......

Every one acts like ALPA is this totalitarian regime...when in acutality the members act that way then call it such a regime....

For so many pilots who love to claim Republican values of democracy and freedom they sure act like a bunch of mindless victims.....

 

[vetrider]

He started to show signs, and then..............petered out.

 

[ualdriver]

I believe there is a huge level of difference in the level of disdain for Woerth vs what Prater is doing. Pilots will bitch and during concessions, everyone is a target and I think that Woerth probably made the biggest mistakes concerning scope in contracts, but most pilots would think that he was working for them. I truly believe Prater is working against 70% of the pilots right now with the pro age 65 thing, especially in the windfall manner they wish to implement it. I can't imagine any way the rule (without alpa influence) could be worse than the proposed windfall change.

Senior pilots are supporting this and acting like their our big brother who just gave us two $20's for our $50 and telling us to quit acting like babies when we protest. I guess it's the indifference to the complete injustice of the windfall that has me the most frustrated. This isn't being pushed by Air Transport Assoc. so it's sad to say that managment has the junior pilots interest better protected.

Here are the results from some of the recent polls. It doesn't seem to me that ALPA National is acting in contradiction to what the majority wants. And it also seems to me that 70% of guys that want age 60 to stay is pretty inflated. The results look pretty consistent from these 3 polls.

Fuirther, it seems pretty apparent to me that ALPA has done what the majority wants- to take part in the rule changing process once their legislative/governmental people think the Age 60 battle is lost. And they do think it is lost.

So I guess if you're an ALPA member complaining that ALPA isn't doing the "right thing," or the "will of the membership," I guess you'll have to explain these poll results then.



April 2007 Telephone Poll

Change FAA Age 60 Rule:
Yes: 46%
No: 52%

If it is clear the rule is going to change, should ALPA maintain its opposition, drop its opposition or modify its policy to be able to address the NPRM issues:

Maintain Opposition: 32%
Drop Opposition: 22%
Modify Policy: 44%

May 2007 Web Survey
Change FAA Age 60 Rule:
Yes: 43%
No: 54%

If it is clear the rule is going to change, should ALPA maintain its opposition, drop its opposition or modify its policy to be able to address the NPRM issues:
Maintain Opposition: 36%
Drop Opposition: 24%
Modify Policy: 38%

If the ICAO standard (Age 65) was adopted in the US, at what age would you expect to retire?
<60: 8%
60: 37%
61-64: 16%
65: 39%


May 2007 Telephone Poll

Change FAA Age 60 Rule:
Yes: 45%
No: 52%

Based on briefings from the Blue Ribbon Panel, ALPA’s Governmental Affairs Department, and current activities of the FAA in Congress, the Executive Council believes Congressional action will occur on Age 60 as early as Summer 2007. Do you agree with this assessment?
Agree: 75%
Disagree: 18%

ALPA’s Executive Council vote on changing the existing ALPA Age 60 policy, in order to avoid the risk of being unable to influence legislation or cede the field to other interested parties who may advance proposals detrimental to ALPA and its members. Therefore, the Executive Board recommends support of regulatory or legislative efforts if such efforts incorporate ALPA’s priorities in the areas of medical standards, benefit issues, no retroactivity, liability protection and appropriate implementation of any rule change.
To what extent do you support or oppose this approach to the Age 60 Rule?
Strongly Support: 31%
Mostly Support: 34%
Neutral: 16%
Mostly Oppose: 8%
Strongly Oppose: 10%

 

[Flopgut]

Here are the results from some of the recent polls. It doesn't seem to me that ALPA National is acting in contradiction to what the majority wants. And it also seems to me that 70% of guys that want age 60 to stay is pretty inflated. The results look pretty consistent from these 3 polls.

Fuirther, it seems pretty apparent to me that ALPA has done what the majority wants- to take part in the rule changing process once their legislative/governmental people think the Age 60 battle is lost. And they do think it is lost.

So I guess if you're an ALPA member complaining that ALPA isn't doing the "right thing," or the "will of the membership," I guess you'll have to explain these poll results then.



April 2007 Telephone Poll

Change FAA Age 60 Rule:
Yes: 46%
No: 52%

If it is clear the rule is going to change, should ALPA maintain its opposition, drop its opposition or modify its policy to be able to address the NPRM issues:

Maintain Opposition: 32%
Drop Opposition: 22%
Modify Policy: 44%

May 2007 Web Survey
Change FAA Age 60 Rule:
Yes: 43%
No: 54%

If it is clear the rule is going to change, should ALPA maintain its opposition, drop its opposition or modify its policy to be able to address the NPRM issues:
Maintain Opposition: 36%
Drop Opposition: 24%
Modify Policy: 38%

If the ICAO standard (Age 65) was adopted in the US, at what age would you expect to retire?
<60: 8%
60: 37%
61-64: 16%
65: 39%


May 2007 Telephone Poll

Change FAA Age 60 Rule:
Yes: 45%
No: 52%

Based on briefings from the Blue Ribbon Panel, ALPA’s Governmental Affairs Department, and current activities of the FAA in Congress, the Executive Council believes Congressional action will occur on Age 60 as early as Summer 2007. Do you agree with this assessment?
Agree: 75%
Disagree: 18%

ALPA’s Executive Council vote on changing the existing ALPA Age 60 policy, in order to avoid the risk of being unable to influence legislation or cede the field to other interested parties who may advance proposals detrimental to ALPA and its members. Therefore, the Executive Board recommends support of regulatory or legislative efforts if such efforts incorporate ALPA’s priorities in the areas of medical standards, benefit issues, no retroactivity, liability protection and appropriate implementation of any rule change.
To what extent do you support or oppose this approach to the Age 60 Rule?
Strongly Support: 31%
Mostly Support: 34%
Neutral: 16%
Mostly Oppose: 8%
Strongly Oppose: 10%

I don't know how you can read that and NOT see how the numbers are being cooked! How can anybody who is informed be encouraged by this debacle?

ALPA should put this in a 4-5 min video podcast and call it: "Geezers gone wild".

 

[Flopgut]

The president doesn't control scope at each airline...

Rez: I don't think you realize how much the ALPA's President does influence these things.