Age 60/65 poll results?

[ualdriver]

ualdriver, I think you and I are debating different questions. To me, the question isn't about whether Prater or ALPA could stop the change. I
agree with you that they can't

I agree. We were screwed no matter who was running ALPA.
But that's not what this is about. This is about what Prater (and the EC & EB) did to internal ALPA policy. Whether the rule was going to change or not, the membership wanted ALPA to stand opposed to it. Is that a smart move? Maybe, maybe not, but it is what the membership directed.

That's not true. Click the link for the poll results above. Look at the second poll question. There were a few MEC's that wanted ALPA to maintain opposition no matter what. The VAST MAJORITY desired a Drop and/or modify policy, and that's what we got. I don't think it would take a poll for our National guys to figure that one out, either. I personally think that policy was the smart thing to do as we have a much BIGGER fight coming down the road shortly (cabotage) and we'll need all the political friends we can muster to delay, stall, whatever,l that "little" potential career killer.

Prater ignored that direction. ALPA leaders should certainly act on their own judgement in times when there isn't an opportunity to determine the will of the membership, as that's the whole point of having a representative structure, but when the members have clearly voiced their opinion, then the leadership shouldn't ignore it.

They didn't ignore it. See above.

I also take issue with Prater's handling of the AAA/AWA integration situation, but that's for another thread. In short, Prater is a man that's in way over his head and doesn't have a clue how to run the Association. He doesn't seem to know the will of the membership, and worse, he doesn't even care.

You're basing all of this on flawed assumptions in my opinion. Look, I'm not even necessarily trying to defend the guy because honestly I've only heard from the people who mostly support him and that's obviously biased. But I don't think he deserves to be recalled just because he was running the show when Age 60 went away.

He was elected by a fluke simply because a certain legacy MEC decided to trade votes with another legacy MEC in a vain attempt to get their Master Chairman elected as First VP. They failed in that effort, but the Association still got stuck with Prater as a result.

Agreed.

 

[PCL_128]

That's not true. Click the link for the poll results above. Look at the second poll question. There were a few MEC's that wanted ALPA to maintain opposition no matter what. The VAST MAJORITY desired a Drop and/or modify policy, and that's what we got. I don't think it would take a poll for our National guys to figure that one out, either. I personally think that policy was the smart thing to do as we have a much BIGGER fight coming down the road shortly (cabotage) and we'll need all the political friends we can muster to delay, stall, whatever,l that "little" potential career killer.

Even an adamant Age-60 proponent such as myself would vote YES on that question. I did vote yes on that question in both the web poll and the phone poll. The problem is that what we got was what only 22% of the pilots wanted: completely drop opposition to the change. When you look at the figures, roughly 75% of the membership either wanted to keep the policy as is, or modify it, not do a complete 180. Only 22% of the membership supported the 180 turn that Prater has led on this issue. The proper course of action, based on the polling, would have been to change the policy to state that ALPA still officially opposes the change, but that the Association would work with government regulators on implementation anyway for the benefit of the membership.

 

[ualdriver]

The problem is that what we got was what only 22% of the pilots wanted: completely drop opposition to the change.

The proper course of action, based on the polling, would have been to change the policy to state that ALPA still officially opposes the change, but that the Association would work with government regulators on implementation anyway for the benefit of the membership.

ALPA DID NOT COMPLETELY DROP OPPSITION TO THE CHANGE. Read the resolution. Contact the ALPA legislative guys who live and breathe this stuff. It's pretty clear to me that the Executive Board stated that they still support the concept of an Age 60 rule staying the way it is, but they also realized the inevitability of the change and felt they needed to get involved in the process AND not start burning bridges we're going to need in the future. THEY DID EACTLY WHAT YOUR STATING IN YOUR SECOND QUOTE. And by doing that, they are doing exactly what you're saying you want them to do. And what the polled membership wants them to do. THAT'S MY POINT.

They did not do a complete 180 with their resolution. They're maintaining opposition (pointless, I know) but modifying their policy. They're doing what the membership wants. It was only PERCEIVED as a complete 180 because the VAST majority of ALPA members are uninformed and do nothing to seek out information before reaching hasty decisions. All the vast majority of ALPA members saw was that ALPA went from a 100% against Age 60 rule position to something less than a 100% opposition to the Age 60 rule change, and that was enough to screw everyone into the roof. No one asked WHY this happened or WHY it may be better in the typical ALPA's member long-term interest for it's leaders to behave in such a way. Again, we have black and white guys not even trying to understand a "shades of grey" political world and they're reaching completely unfounded conclusions in my opinion. So let's hang Prater becomes their mantra, and they don't even know why.
http://www.dargal.com/attraction/

 

[PCL_128]

ualdriver, unfortunately, I don't have the resolution to look at. I was no longer an ALPA member in "active" status by the time the resolution was passed, so I'm just going on second-hand information. I can't log in to the "members only" section of ALPA.org anymore. If you're correct about the wording of the resolution, then I agree with your analysis 100%. Any chance you have the resolution and can post the pertinent section?

 

[ualdriver]

ualdriver, unfortunately, I don't have the resolution to look at. I was no longer an ALPA member in "active" status by the time the resolution was passed, so I'm just going on second-hand information. I can't log in to the "members only" section of ALPA.org anymore. If you're correct about the wording of the resolution, then I agree with your analysis 100%. Any chance you have the resolution and can post the pertinent section?

Oh my God a convert! Can I get an alleluia?

Sorry man, don't have the resolution. It's floating out there on the internet somewhere. How come you're not on "active" status?

 

[PCL_128]

Sorry man, don't have the resolution. It's floating out there on the internet somewhere. How come you're not on "active" status?

No problem. I'll get somebody to send it to me.

Not on "active" status because I left my ALPA carrier to come to AirTran earlier this year. So, even though I'm a former rep, I'm on "inactive" status and don't have access to anything anymore. I have to call buddies in Herndon or at the various MECs to get any info now.

 

[Andy]

ALPA's seeking to make it OK for two over age 60 pilots OK to fly together? Or ALPA's seeking to make that illegal?

Let me repeat myself one more time.

ALPA is actively seeking to have two pilots over the age of 60 fly domestically. Clear enough? I didn't ask ALPA to get involved on this issue in the first place, and now they're pushing for more liberal policies than anyone envisioned. That's total BS.

 

[ualdriver]

Let me repeat myself one more time.

ALPA is actively seeking to have two pilots over the age of 60 fly domestically. Clear enough? I didn't ask ALPA to get involved on this issue in the first place, and now they're pushing for more liberal policies than anyone envisioned. That's total BS.

Minus the perceived sarcasm, yup that's clear enough now.

What other liberal policies is ALPA pursuing that no one envisioned concerning the Age 60 issue?

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

No, it wasn't one of the poll questions. And yes, two over 60 pilots is one of the changes that ALPA is actively seeking.

Andy,

I can’t remember where I saw this change, it could have been some APA literature, but last I head there was a push to legalize having two pilots over the age of 60 for domestic operations, but not for international.

In my mind, this is even more unsafe than having two pilots over the Age of 60 flying international (with international flying there are rest periods). With the industry pushing pilots to fly 90-95 hours per month, plus the ATA’s (management’s union) industry wide crack-down on sick leave combined with the reduction in our vacation benefits, if the age is raised there will no-doubt be some major age and fatigue issues in the years to come. Think of the 64 ¾ year old pilot, after a 14 hour day, on his fifth leg and flying down to hard minimums with a max cross-wind. YIKES!!! It could get exciting.

We over at APA are still mounting a huge anit-65 campaign. Yes, it’s a safety issue.

For those of you with the “it’s going to change, why fight it” mantra, last I heard there still isn’t any change in the rule.

There is still plenty of flight left here.

Keep the pressure on Prater. He went directly against the will of the majority of the ALPA membership. No matter how right the other-side think they are, this is just flat out wrong in any democratic organization.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[Falcon Jet 1]

Andy et al,
On the swapu forum, emens is on there saying that since alpa has changed their pov, it is really screwing their work up by wanting certain things added that are going to make this really diificult to pass. One major change that alpa insisted was the no way you can come back even if your union supports it(jetblue). apparently this is giving lawyers serious heartburn. So maybe this is the best thing to happen for all of us that want age 60 to remain.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

Andy et al,
One major change that alpa insisted was the no way you can come back even if your union supports it(jetblue). apparently this is giving lawyers serious heartburn. So maybe this is the best thing to happen for all of us that want age 60 to remain.

This is a definite deal breaker from the start.

We’re still in a fight for our passenger safety and our careers!!

AA767AV8TOR

 

[Falconjet]

I attended a FedEx LEC meeting today and Capt Joe Fagone, ALPA Executive Vice-President for Group A, and apparently the point man at National on the Age 60 legislation language being proposed by ALPA National gave a 30 minute talk about the history of the events leading to where we are now on Age 60 (mostly old news) during that meeting.

He mentioned MANY items that ALPA National has tried and in many cases was successful in getting included in the language of HR2881, the House version of the FAA Reauthorization Bill.

Among those, yes ALPA is supporting both pilots over 60 in domestic ops (Can't fight ICAO on this, his words).

The language that FedEx MEC Chairman Dave Webb wanted included about retroactivity for our FEs is also in the House version for now. Take a look at page 35 of the August 2007 Airline Pilot Magazine and you can see the litany of federal programs, studies, and infrastructure funding that ALPA has tried to get added to the Bill. There is a TON of stuff in there.

Yes, in my opinion, those ancillary issues MAY delay or prevent the passage of HR2881 for some time, at many different levels. Remember, even if the House approves it as it is, it still has to go to committee to be reconciled with the Senate version of the Bill, and then it has to go to the President for signature.

If ALL of those things don't happen by Sep 30th the FAA will go under a continuing resolution (CR) for FY2008. It might interest you that the funding bill for 2007 was never signed and indeed the FAA is under a CR for this year.

It is just as likely to continue to operate under another CR as it is that Congress will get their act together, agree on the language of this (and many other bills, like the war funding) legislation, and have it signed by the President any time soon.

In fact, I have read that the President is likely to veto many of the 12 spending bills that might possibly get to his desk for 2008 for many other reasons. Pure speculation on my part and that of the author of those articles.

So, yes, anybody that tells you that this is a done deal is simply exposing their agenda and preferences. Nobody knows how long this will take and I applaud the APA for sticking to their guns and opposing the change.

Time will tell how it all works out, but I predict it won't be any time soon.

FJ

 

[Falconjet]

Also, to be fair and to clarify, as I understand the language proposed by ALPA to be included in the bill, it will ONLY include retroactivity for over 60 crewmembers who are active members of the seniority list on the day the law goes into effect. IE, you are a ROPE or pro instructor actively on the property and still on the master seniority list. IF your company doesn't have any of those, there would be no retroactivity for anybody retired from your carrier. Guys who were still flying as FEs or at a carrier with pro IPs on the seniority list would be able to regain their former seat as seniority allowed.

This is another "feature" of ALPA's stance that I feel will actually hinder the passage of the bill, as it provides for one group to benefit while another gets left behind, simply because their company doesn't have a back seat for them. That will be much more contentious than the original concept of the age change in my opinion. It is also in direct conflict with the language originally proposed by the sponsors of the bill and the FAA administrator's comments about protecting the carriers from lawsuits from retired pilots.

I predict that this provision of the bill will be removed before it ever reaches the committee stage, but that is just my opinion.

FJ

 

[zonker]

Thanks to all the APA guys for fighting the good fight.

 

[Andy]

Andy et al,
On the swapu forum, emens is on there saying that since alpa has changed their pov, it is really screwing their work up by wanting certain things added that are going to make this really diificult to pass. One major change that alpa insisted was the no way you can come back even if your union supports it(jetblue). apparently this is giving lawyers serious heartburn. So maybe this is the best thing to happen for all of us that want age 60 to remain.

I'm glad that these guys' greed knows no bounds. The Senior Pilots Coalition will do nothing more than delay the process. It sounds like ALPA will also be successful in delaying the process by going for a lot more than the FAA wanted to give.

 

[Andy]

Yes, in my opinion, those ancillary issues MAY delay or prevent the passage of HR2881 for some time, at many different levels. Remember, even if the House approves it as it is, it still has to go to committee to be reconciled with the Senate version of the Bill, and then it has to go to the President for signature.

There are so many issues with the Reauthorization Bill that I don't see it getting passed by this session of congress. A change to age 60 may be able to get through next session of Congress, but I don't see anything happening in this session.

I'll be watching for an FAA NPRM; if we don't see that before Blakey departs, then that avenue is probably also dead.

 

[GoABX]

Andy,

Would we be better served hoping an NPRM is initiated now? It gives Congress an excuse to dump it back on the FAA and would mean a 18-24 month process, rather than the possibility of something happening in the shorter term?

Thoughts?

 

[Andy]

Andy,

Would we be better served hoping an NPRM is initiated now? It gives Congress an excuse to dump it back on the FAA and would mean a 18-24 month process, rather than the possibility of something happening in the shorter term?

Thoughts?

I don't think so. I don't expect to see ANY legislation involving upping pilot retirement age getting to the floor of the House or Senate. This just isn't a big issue for politicians.
I expect the FAA to put out an NPRM, but it will be up to the next administrator to decide on whether or not to implement any change.


Now, with a recession looming in the not too distant future which will result in pilot layoffs, this effort to change retirement age will lose steam very quickly. The problems in the housing market WILL drag this economy into a recession. I'm currently making a boatload of money shorting home builders and mortgage originators. Plus a small short on Bear Stearns.

 

[XJTAv8r]

September 7th article from the Washington times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070907/BUSINESS/109070033/1006/business

Like most "Age 60" news articles, it's incredibly biased towards the Age 65 crowd, quoting APAAD's Paul Emens and a Southwest Captain who "doesn't know what he'll do if he can't fly."

 

[zonker]

"We're not going to change the rules in the middle of the game," said Mr. Dorr. "We have even started issuing denials to pilots who apply for exemptions."

Ha Ha.

Suck it, Emens.

 

[XJTAv8r]

FYI, I just read this post on the Calforums website:

The Senate passed HR 3074(Transportation and HUD appropriations) including the age 60 change amendment by a vote of 88-7.
Included in HR 3074 is Senate Amendment 2845 which is the Oberstar language to include ALPA's recommendations .
This bill passed the House previously.

I think it will go to the President for signing in the near future.
The 88-7 vote precludes a Presidential veto if I remember correctly.

Just informational in nature... don't shoot the messenger!