Holy crap. I'm gone two days and this thread is still going.
I gotta ask you guys another question, though, even the ALPA guys.....
Why do some of you guys keep saying that Prater is acting contrary to the membership position concerning Age 60? I don't get it, and that opinion is completely opposite of what my UAL legislative guys told me when this issue came to a head a while back when Blakely (I belive) said it was going to happen. And please don't tell me that just because the Age 60 rule is changing- that's the evidence that proves ALPA/Prater suddenly acting contrary to membership direction.
We even did a whole thread on this very topic, I posted links to the pertinent questions from two of the more recent polls, and the results were relatively clear:
1) ALPA membership (the few that particiapted in that particular poll) wanted age 60 to stay
2) IF Age 60 became politically untenable (and it DID become politically untenable with the relatively recent change in ICAO rules), THE MEMBERSHIP wanted ALPA to act in a manner such that they took part in the rule making process associated with Age 60, rather than fight age 60 to "the bitter end" and be excluded from the rule making process. (and I'm paraphrasing)
So ALPA fought age 60 and has fought age 60 (as its membership desired) for many, many years successfully. With the recent change in ICAO rules concerning over age 60 pilots, the fight became politically impossible for ALPA (i.e. they realized fighting to the death would do more long term harm than good) and THEY FOLLOWED MEMBERSHIP DIRECTION to take place in the rule change process rather than be excluded by fighting Age 60 "to the death."
So when you guys keep saying ALPA or Prater is acting contrary to membership direction- I don't see how you can say that unless you have first hand knowledge that Prater willingly and purposely went around membership direction to pursue his own personal interest of getting the rule changed to Age 65, if that even was his personal interest. Anybody have any proof that such a conspiracy in the upper tiers of ALPA took place? If you don't, then why are you saying that ALPA is acting contrary to its membership wishes? It seems to me they are behaving EXACTLY llike the membership desired concerning the Age 60 rule.
I gotta ask you guys another question, though, even the ALPA guys.....
Why do some of you guys keep saying that Prater is acting contrary to the membership position concerning Age 60? I don't get it, and that opinion is completely opposite of what my UAL legislative guys told me when this issue came to a head a while back when Blakely (I belive) said it was going to happen. And please don't tell me that just because the Age 60 rule is changing- that's the evidence that proves ALPA/Prater suddenly acting contrary to membership direction.
We even did a whole thread on this very topic, I posted links to the pertinent questions from two of the more recent polls, and the results were relatively clear:
1) ALPA membership (the few that particiapted in that particular poll) wanted age 60 to stay
2) IF Age 60 became politically untenable (and it DID become politically untenable with the relatively recent change in ICAO rules), THE MEMBERSHIP wanted ALPA to act in a manner such that they took part in the rule making process associated with Age 60, rather than fight age 60 to "the bitter end" and be excluded from the rule making process. (and I'm paraphrasing)
So ALPA fought age 60 and has fought age 60 (as its membership desired) for many, many years successfully. With the recent change in ICAO rules concerning over age 60 pilots, the fight became politically impossible for ALPA (i.e. they realized fighting to the death would do more long term harm than good) and THEY FOLLOWED MEMBERSHIP DIRECTION to take place in the rule change process rather than be excluded by fighting Age 60 "to the death."
So when you guys keep saying ALPA or Prater is acting contrary to membership direction- I don't see how you can say that unless you have first hand knowledge that Prater willingly and purposely went around membership direction to pursue his own personal interest of getting the rule changed to Age 65, if that even was his personal interest. Anybody have any proof that such a conspiracy in the upper tiers of ALPA took place? If you don't, then why are you saying that ALPA is acting contrary to its membership wishes? It seems to me they are behaving EXACTLY llike the membership desired concerning the Age 60 rule.
Last edited: