What has ALPA done for me lately?

[Flopgut]

And the hits keep on coming.... there will always be a flavor of the month scheme in Washington to make our careers...less...

Rez: I appreciate you more than you know. But I have to say/suggest: We have a deep bench around here. I think you're getting shelled, why don't you take a breather? You've been at this during the worst possible time in ALPA. Take a break and let somebody else do whatever you've been doing, keep your powder dry and come back when the tide turns.

 

[ualdriver]

There were 3 attempts to poll the membership on age 60. The first came at a time when the most possible of our junior members were furloughed or on leave......Hey, another 20% of our pilots might have voted?! He didn't like how it was going though...so, whammo!! That's when he really acted against us.............. could have better voter turnout, but the vote results appeared consistent each time. And I think that's most important and primary to a low voter turnout.

Nobody is denying that the ALPA pilot group wanted the Age 60 rule NOT TO CHANGE. It's your next statments where I think you're wrong.

OK. Here's the deal: NO issue should become politically untenable that the union leadership goes against the membership. No issue at all, never, period.

Could not disagree more with you. The membership voted that if Age 60 was going to pass no matter what ALPA did politically, that ALPA should be involved in the rule making process rather than "fight to the death." Age 60 was changing. Period. Whether ALPA wanted it to change or not. I would much rather have ALPA leadership say we're still not for Age 60, but if it's going to pass anyway, here's what we want rather than have my ALPA leadership fold it hands across its chest and say we're against Age 60, and when you change the rules to Age 65, we don't want anything to do with it because we're against Age 60. Very bad idea.

What if Prater was trying to tell you that right now it was politically untenable to resist cabotage or foriegn ownership? Is that something we could allow to be handled the same as this age 65? He!! NO! And I'm pretty sure that's what's coming next, sooner than you think.

In the very same thread I talked about that very issue. I think, someday, cabotage in the United States is coming. We're becoming a globalized economy more and more every day, and if you honestly think ALPA is going to be able to stop that in the U.S., I think you're going to be surprised. ALPA has lots of influence, but it isn't bigger than globalization.

HOWEVER, ALPA is influential enough to delay it from coming. I want ALPA to do with cabotage exactly what they did with Age 60. Fight it off, delay, divert, etc., as long as they possibly can. And when they can do that no longer, when the issue becomes politicaly untenable, rather than fold their hands across their chest like a spoiled brat when he doesn't get his way, I want them to take part in the rule making process to tilt the cabotage rules in our favor as much as we possibly can. And one thing I won't do at that time is come onto a fourm and say, "See, look, here's ALPA acting contrary to its pilots wishes," when that does happen. I'll realize that it's more important to keep one's political bridges in tact rather than act in a way where my influence may be reduced in the future.

I realize there's a difference between losing a long political battle and finally just having to turn this political loss into some sort of a small gain by taking place in the inevitable process and believing my leadership is acting contrary to my wishes. You should too, in the case of Age 60. I don't think it's fair to say that ALPA is acting contrary to its pilots' wishes in this case.

Additionally, (and this is very important) it is crucial that ALPA manage expectations better. They did a good job on the first polling. Great data, polling methodology, and getting the word out: done well; classic ALPA. (But, it didn't go the way he wanted despite all those furloughed junior types presumably against it) If this is truly untenable, then properly manage our expectations and inspire us to our vision! ALPA is an expensive union and we expect our talented, well paid leaders to do a good job. We're paying for a good job; we're not really getting it! Look at this deal now: Prater has hoodwinked us, and he still may not get the change he wanted! Does untenable not imply impending? He's perhaps succeeded in nothing, except that he has perfectly shown any regulatory body how to get a minority opinion made policy in ALPA. Just dangle a carrot in front of the union leadership.

Great. Except for the part where you think Prater hoodwinked us. I explain way I believe he didn't above.

Now the reason things appear to be different at UAL I belive has everything to do with why Prater is in office. It is rumored that Prater got the nod to run ALPA by obligating himself to change age 60 thereby winning the UALALPA endorsement.

In the quoted poll I mentioned above, it broke the Age 60 vote down by airline. I don't remember UAL ALPA being FOR Age 65. The search function on this forum only goes back several months so I can't find the links. Besises, that's not how Prater got in office, but it did involve UAL ALPA- just not for that reason.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Well stated.

My problem with the way Age 60 has been handled by Prater to this point has to do with his inexperience in the arena.

He can claim he is following the direction of the membership ONLY if he interprets the inevitablity of changes occuring to the rule.

Since he's never been involved in the legislative process before at any level of ALPA, I think he read the "tea leaves" incorrectly.

Others who have a lot of experience with the process have classified Age 60 as a "chip" issue on Capitol Hill. There are no rabid supporters, and only a few that profess any ideological attachment to it. It is being supported or opposed only to the extent individual legislators see it as a trade item to gain a vote on some other issue.

If Prater had been elected because of his keen insight and experience in the processes of influencing goverment policy, as opposed to his skill at being not Duane, I think he'd have picked-up on the nuance of horse trading.

Contrast his handling of Age 60 with Duane's handling of the FFDO program. Duane initially opposed an armed pilot program. Over a 2-week period, he got an education from his inside contacts on the Hill. One of them was Paul Wellstone's LD, who spelled it out: The issue had enough fundamental support to make it inexorable.

So Duane changed his stance overnight. His sin, to some of the membership, was opposing the issue in the first place. His redemption, of course, was correctly reading the teas leaves and moving ALPA all-in on the program.

None of Prater's inside contacts has given him the dope on Age 60 because he doesn't have any inside contacts. You don't gain them just because you hold the conch or have a cool title on your business card. You develop them over time. You gain them by handing out PAC money to key legislators who show a skill at giving you the straight scoop on issues that are of interest to your membership.

Prater will get there. He's a good guy, and I fully support his intentions, if not his actions, so far. At some point he'll start listening to the staffers at Herndon instead of telling them.

Luckily for us, his legislative boot camp doesn't come at a time when we've got a GOP-owned Congress hell-bent on things like "Baseball Arbitration" being put into the RLA (shudder!), foreign-flown CRAF, and no-holds-barred cabotage. Duane won't get credit for his deft blocking of those lame efforts, because we're still caught-up in being pi$$ed.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

In otherwrods..... the memberships desire to boot DW cause of the last five years of personal pain via concessions.... is coming back to bite us hard... in the political arena... The arena that really matters....

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

RezO, I tried picking through that voluminous reply back to me but I would have to take a box of Midol in order to handle it.

Well...that is my point... I suggest that if you did get a Costco sized bottled of Midol and got through it... the critical thinking would result in some growth. Heck..I've already provided the thought provoking questions...where can I send the midol?

Your continued fulmination with those with an opposing opinion just wear people out. This along with your invective attacks on other pilots like CFIT make it obvious to everyone but yourself that you actually do more harm than good with your volunteering.

agreed.. perhaps it is the illogical replies. And this emotional insistence that ALPA sucks... and when you ask why..it is all because ALPA didn't live up to expectations... expectations that were facades in the first place.

It is much easier to simply say ALPA is FUBAR then man up, volunteer time, get informed and work to effect positive change.

I really don't believe much of what ALPA says anymore to sell their agenda. When I discussed this very issue with my Dad he did not agree at all with that "study".

Not sure what the study was.... The facts are quite clear...membership partication in union acitivities is dismally low. (just like local elections in gov't). Can you justify that apathy? What came first...membership apathy or poor satisfaction levels? How does one get poor satisifactions levels fixed?

My point? If you want ALPA to serve you better you are going to have to participate!!! If you are content with the status quo then as you were!

Before you make any further comment, he was a ALPA Captain rep at his airlines largest domicile for many years.

Good for him. Have you read Flying the Line? After furhter reading...I am interested in what YOU think...

Rez: I appreciate you more than you know. But I have to say/suggest: We have a deep bench around here. I think you're getting shelled, why don't you take a breather? You've been at this during the worst possible time in ALPA. Take a break and let somebody else do whatever you've been doing, keep your powder dry and come back when the tide turns.

Advice taken.... my concern is apathy will reign...

Prater and the rest of the leadership pretty much have free reign if the membership doesn't get involved and assert their power.




Maybe it's because a majority, like 65% of SkyWest pilots, feel ALPO is useless.

Of course..because most SKYW pilots, like most ALPA pilots view the issue in terms of ..what is in it for me!

But we can easily see how that mindset has had a big effect..... the membership thought Woerth was not satisfying the "what is in it for me" paradigm... so they traded him in for a fresh start... and with it...all the connections in WashDC...

 

[Occam's Razor]

Yup.

I was at the BOD last October in LAS for the election. The attitude of the Prater supporters was almost singularly, "We gotta get someone who is NOT Duane!".

The attitude of the Duane supporters was, "The concessions weren't his fault, and the 'saves' were!"

When reminded of Prater's inexperience with legislative affairs, his supporters assured all that John was a "quick learner".

On the Age 60 issue, Duane stated simply, "The membership doesn't want it, so I oppose it." (For the record, Duane's birthday is Aug 4, 1948, so a change to Age 60 would benefit him personaly)

John's position was, "I support a change because I think the membership supports the change."

JP is doing what he said he'd do. The people accountable for his actions are the reps who chose him (for whatever reasons) over someone that everyone acknowledged was a proven advocate for us on Capitol Hill.

 

[Flopgut]

UALDriver:

Good post. But I still disagree. There is a seniority aggression component to the age change that this group of ALPA leaders has in no way earned the benefit of the doubt as to whether that was/is their intention.

I don't work for UAL, but I try to pay attention. Paul W. emerged from a meeting where more than half your groups' livlihoods were flushed down the toilet along with your scope and proclaimed: "I've saved the A fund!". Well, he blew it big time, didn't he? This is major league, not some amatuer endeavor. When you screw up that bad, you've got to go. No one at UAL should have to lose one day of regular earnings at regular career progression to bail out anyone nearing retirement age. They've already made more than most current UAL pilots are going to be able to. If this age change effort by ALPA were NOT associated with the previous colossally bad decisions guys like PW made, it would be different. It's NOT a simple adjustment that they are trying to deal with. They are trying to make something happen, for certain, that otherwise may or may not.

What they need to be dealing with primarily, is what I think you're going to see out of your new guy: Hammer the RLA!

 

[Flopgut]

Furthermore:

GT might succeed in getting some kind of foriegn ownership/control in place. What if upon doing so they send every UAL widebody offshore? Or, let's say they want to. Are you going to be happy with ALPA handling that sort of issue in a manner identical to age change? That would be equivilent to them doing something like securing only thier own widebody positions on a grandfather clasue and leaving out the entire remainder of present and future UAL pilots. Is that going to be OK with you?

There are some things we are going to have to draw a line on and they are coming quick.

 

[ualdriver]

Well stated.

My problem with the way Age 60 has been handled by Prater to this point has to do with his inexperience in the arena.

He can claim he is following the direction of the membership ONLY if he interprets the inevitablity of changes occuring to the rule.

Since he's never been involved in the legislative process before at any level of ALPA, I think he read the "tea leaves" incorrectly.

Others who have a lot of experience with the process have classified Age 60 as a "chip" issue on Capitol Hill. There are no rabid supporters, and only a few that profess any ideological attachment to it. It is being supported or opposed only to the extent individual legislators see it as a trade item to gain a vote on some other issue.

If Prater had been elected because of his keen insight and experience in the processes of influencing goverment policy, as opposed to his skill at being not Duane, I think he'd have picked-up on the nuance of horse trading.

Contrast his handling of Age 60 with Duane's handling of the FFDO program. Duane initially opposed an armed pilot program. Over a 2-week period, he got an education from his inside contacts on the Hill. One of them was Paul Wellstone's LD, who spelled it out: The issue had enough fundamental support to make it inexorable.

So Duane changed his stance overnight. His sin, to some of the membership, was opposing the issue in the first place. His redemption, of course, was correctly reading the teas leaves and moving ALPA all-in on the program.

None of Prater's inside contacts has given him the dope on Age 60 because he doesn't have any inside contacts. You don't gain them just because you hold the conch or have a cool title on your business card. You develop them over time. You gain them by handing out PAC money to key legislators who show a skill at giving you the straight scoop on issues that are of interest to your membership.

Prater will get there. He's a good guy, and I fully support his intentions, if not his actions, so far. At some point he'll start listening to the staffers at Herndon instead of telling them.

Luckily for us, his legislative boot camp doesn't come at a time when we've got a GOP-owned Congress hell-bent on things like "Baseball Arbitration" being put into the RLA (shudder!), foreign-flown CRAF, and no-holds-barred cabotage. Duane won't get credit for his deft blocking of those lame efforts, because we're still caught-up in being pi$$ed.

Let me start off by saying that I enjoy your posts.

Gotta disagree though. You seem to imply that the it's Prater's fault (through being the new guy, for example) that the Age 60 thing was going to change. That's what I don't agree with. I think it was pretty clear that the Age 60 thing was going to change to Age 65 when ICAO changed their rules to let guys fly to that later age. The FAA was in a quandry at that point: Do they ban ICAO carriers from flying over U.S. Airspace if one of their pilots is over age 60? Is it safe for ICAO carriers to have over age 60 pilots and not U.S. carriers? Do we tell U.S. pilots that they can't fly past age 60 while ICAO pilots over age 60 are flying overhead?

That ICAO rule change signified when Age 60 was politically lost, and I think whether Duane or Prater or whoever was running ALPA, it was done deal at that point. It was inevitable that the Age 60 rule was going to change, and that if we continued to fight it, it would politically harm us. That's why I don't think we (ALPA guys) should be saying that Prater acted contrary to ALPA pilot direction. Per those polls, I think he's acting exactly as directed. And I think common sense dictates that he act this way as well. We don't want any political bridges/relationships burned as I believe we have much bigger issues coming down the road.......

 

[ualdriver]

UALDriver:

Good post. But I still disagree. There is a seniority aggression component to the age change that this group of ALPA leaders has in no way earned the benefit of the doubt as to whether that was/is their intention.

I don't work for UAL, but I try to pay attention. Paul W. emerged from a meeting where more than half your groups' livlihoods were flushed down the toilet along with your scope and proclaimed: "I've saved the A fund!". Well, he blew it big time, didn't he? This is major league, not some amatuer endeavor. When you screw up that bad, you've got to go. No one at UAL should have to lose one day of regular earnings at regular career progression to bail out anyone nearing retirement age. They've already made more than most current UAL pilots are going to be able to. If this age change effort by ALPA were NOT associated with the previous colossally bad decisions guys like PW made, it would be different. It's NOT a simple adjustment that they are trying to deal with. They are trying to make something happen, for certain, that otherwise may or may not.

What they need to be dealing with primarily, is what I think you're going to see out of your new guy: Hammer the RLA!

I agree with the RLA stuff. We need to get out from under this archaie piece of legislation, no doubt.

I can't disprove that Prater acted on his own on Age 60, but as I posted above, I think it was a done deal when the ICAO rules changed. Prater, Woerth, or whoever was in power during this time was going to get Age 60, whether they liked it or not.

This may come as a big surprise, but I don't blame Tilton, I don't blame Paul W., I don't blame any one person for the deep cuts in pay, work rules, and pension that we at UAL took- and for that matter we all took. I lay the blame at the feet of the MANY pilots who worked for 1/2 the hourly rate, crappy work rules, and no retirement in the late 90's and early 00's. They are the ones who used their low compensation packages to undercut the fares of the legacies at the time, and the legacies had a choice: bring their employees' total compensation package down to the level of our new LCC competitors or go out of business. I don't care who UAL's Master Chairman was. The pensions were going away, our wages were going to be significantly cut, and our work rules were going to be trashed or we simply wouldn't be able to compete with the JetBlue's of the LCC world. I think Paul W. really screwed up with one of side letters concerning RJ flying, but other than that, it didn't matter who the MC was at the time, we were screwed as long as we had an industry where 1/2 the pilots were flying for a half or a third of the going rate. And it will happen again if airlines like Virgin, Skybus, and Allegiant reach critical mass.

Furthermore:

GT might succeed in getting some kind of foriegn ownership/control in place. What if upon doing so they send every UAL widebody offshore?

They can't under our current contract.

Or, let's say they want to. Are you going to be happy with ALPA handling that sort of issue in a manner identical to age change? That would be equivilent to them doing something like securing only thier own widebody positions on a grandfather clasue and leaving out the entire remainder of present and future UAL pilots. Is that going to be OK with you?

No, it won't be OK with me. Cabotage/Foreign ownership won't be OK with me when it changes. I expect ALPA to fight it as long as it possibly can. If we reach a point where it's a lost battle and the choice is either fight to the death or take part in whatever the rule change ends up being, then I'll take the latter, assuming that is in OUR best interest, like it was with the Age 60 rule change.

And I'm not saying let's give up now because we think cabotage (or whatever issue) will eventually come about. I'm saying fight it until it doesn't make sense any more, assess, and go from there to minimize any damage.

 

[PCL_128]

That ICAO rule change signified when Age 60 was politically lost, and I think whether Duane or Prater or whoever was running ALPA, it was done deal at that point.

Duane remained opposed to the rule change even after ICAO announced their adoption of the new age-65 limit. As much as pilots loved to hate Duane, he was truly a pilot advocate. If you asked him what he felt about age-60, his answer was a simple "the members are opposed to increasing the age, and I stand by that." His personal opinion was irrelevant in his mind, because he supported the membership. Ironically, this steadfast refusal to go against the will of his membership was part of the reason that so many people grew to hate him. He personally hated many of the concessionary agreements and didn't feel that they were necessary, but he refused to tell the pilots that they couldn't have the agreements that they voted in favor of. The pilots later blamed him for these very agreements that they voted for, not knowing that he had been opposed to them the entire time.

 

[ualdriver]

Duane remained opposed to the rule change even after ICAO announced their adoption of the new age-65 limit. As much as pilots loved to hate Duane, he was truly a pilot advocate. If you asked him what he felt about age-60, his answer was a simple "the members are opposed to increasing the age, and I stand by that." His personal opinion was irrelevant in his mind, because he supported the membership. Ironically, this steadfast refusal to go against the will of his membership was part of the reason that so many people grew to hate him. He personally hated many of the concessionary agreements and didn't feel that they were necessary, but he refused to tell the pilots that they couldn't have the agreements that they voted in favor of. The pilots later blamed him for these very agreements that they voted for, not knowing that he had been opposed to them the entire time.

OK, that's fine but what would he have done if Age 60 was going to change anyway, whether ALPA was against it or not, assuming he had stayed in? I think DW would have done pretty much what Prater (and the executive is doing now. Remaining opposed to the change "at all costs" (including burning valuable political bridges that we'll need in the future) probably would not be the thing to do concerning this issue, and I believe would be against the will of the Membership.

 

[Flopgut]

Let me start off by saying that I enjoy your posts.

Gotta disagree though. You seem to imply that the it's Prater's fault (through being the new guy, for example) that the Age 60 thing was going to change. That's what I don't agree with. I think it was pretty clear that the Age 60 thing was going to change to Age 65 when ICAO changed their rules to let guys fly to that later age. The FAA was in a quandry at that point: Do they ban ICAO carriers from flying over U.S. Airspace if one of their pilots is over age 60? Is it safe for ICAO carriers to have over age 60 pilots and not U.S. carriers? Do we tell U.S. pilots that they can't fly past age 60 while ICAO pilots over age 60 are flying overhead?

That ICAO rule change signified when Age 60 was politically lost, and I think whether Duane or Prater or whoever was running ALPA, it was done deal at that point. It was inevitable that the Age 60 rule was going to change, and that if we continued to fight it, it would politically harm us. That's why I don't think we (ALPA guys) should be saying that Prater acted contrary to ALPA pilot direction. Per those polls, I think he's acting exactly as directed. And I think common sense dictates that he act this way as well. We don't want any political bridges/relationships burned as I believe we have much bigger issues coming down the road.......

I enjoy your posts and part of me wishes I could see things the same way, I'd probably be healthier.

I want my union to care about what I think. Not ICAO. I probably should be trying to communicate that better, and I can't stress it enough. Some things we can't give on. Maybe this is something we can adapt to, but I want to hear ALPA say: There will be some things we CAN NOT budge on!

Did you hear about those guys that went over to Jet Airways? Many were over 60, others were close to it. Did you know they are having to get Canadian credentials? It's rummored this age isn't going to change and these pilots won't be able to fly into the US. (I don't know the whole story but they're having some drama) I bring this up, not to make fun of these guys' efforts, but to point out: we're very much trying to hit a moving target with this ICAO stuff. ALPA needs to be figuring out how to make things better for the average, current member whose got a future on the rocks. They could chase ICAO around on this for years. This is becoming counterproductive to helping the traditional ALPA member. Remember, the three votes had a low turnout, but each included the same results.

 

[Occam's Razor]

I think it was pretty clear that the Age 60 thing was going to change to Age 65 when ICAO changed their rules to let guys fly to that later age. The FAA was in a quandry at that point: Do they ban ICAO carriers from flying over U.S. Airspace if one of their pilots is over age 60? Is it safe for ICAO carriers to have over age 60 pilots and not U.S. carriers? Do we tell U.S. pilots that they can't fly past age 60 while ICAO pilots over age 60 are flying overhead?

That's not the way it works. The FAA doesn't care if other countries have different standards or medical requirements than we do. We allow pilots to fly past age 60, but not in the window seat of a Pt 121 airliner. Our ATC controllers use different medical and training standards too.

Blakey made it very clear that the FAA wasn't going to touch the Age 60 issue unless Congress provided some indemnification.

The "quandry at the FAA" perception is manufactured. Nobody in the regs branch wants to open the Pandora's Box of Minimum Cognitive Standards, testing to those standards, and the toughest nut of all: Self-Certification. That comes from their testimony and their consultation with the House Transportation Committee. The "patch" was the "babysitter" rule proposal.

That's why I don't think we (ALPA guys) should be saying that Prater acted contrary to ALPA pilot direction. Per those polls, I think he's acting exactly as directed.

I think he thinks he is, too. I have evidence he reached that opinion before he polled the membership. Regardless, he's got enough "mandate" in the guise of the "If it is going to change, should ALPA..." response to press the issue on the Hill.

 

[Flopgut]

This may come as a big surprise, but I don't blame Tilton, I don't blame Paul W., I don't blame any one person for the deep cuts in pay, work rules, and pension that we at UAL took- and for that matter we all took. I lay the blame at the feet of the MANY pilots who worked for 1/2 the hourly rate, crappy work rules, and no retirement in the late 90's and early 00's. They are the ones who used their low compensation packages to undercut the fares of the legacies at the time, and the legacies had a choice: bring their employees' total compensation package down to the level of our new LCC competitors or go out of business. I don't care who UAL's Master Chairman was. The pensions were going away, our wages were going to be significantly cut, and our work rules were going to be trashed or we simply wouldn't be able to compete with the JetBlue's of the LCC world. I think Paul W. really screwed up with one of side letters concerning RJ flying, but other than that, it didn't matter who the MC was at the time, we were screwed as long as we had an industry where 1/2 the pilots were flying for a half or a third of the going rate. And it will happen again if airlines like Virgin, Skybus, and Allegiant reach critical mass.

I got confused on who you were talking to in my last post. Sorry.

Be careful who you're blaming.

Think more about the RLA. Think about the ATSB turning down UAL on two loans. Almost as though they were trying to wreck your pension. Afterall, the PBGC is enjoying all that money now. How about when they had the audacity to report EARNINGS on that money?! Wasn't even their money, they barely loaned any of it! How about Tilton accounting mileage plus as a liability when you had a pension, now it's worth what? $4 billion!!

If you can somehow attribute your losses to a guy flying an M80 from McAllen, TX to Vegas, you're not only doing exactly what mgt wants you to do, your doing more damage than any LCC ever did.

 

[ualdriver]

Think more about the RLA. Think about the ATSB turning down UAL on two loans. Almost as though they were trying to wreck your pension.

Sorry, not a conspiracy theorist. The ATSB turned down our loan because they thought we could get outside financing and didn't need the government to back the loan. Seems that they were right.

Afterall, the PBGC is enjoying all that money now. How about when they had the audacity to report EARNINGS on that money?! Wasn't even their money, they barely loaned any of it! How about Tilton accounting mileage plus as a liability when you had a pension, now it's worth what? $4 billion!!

The whole milage plus is thing is widely misunderstood, as well as its value while an airline is in bankruptcy vs. its value when an airline is solvent. Long story short, an airline's milage program is pretty much not worth anything if it is tied to a bankrupt airline on the verge of liquidation. It's worth a lot (Air Canada proved it) when your airline is solvent and making money. So whatever it is worth now has nothing to do with what it was worth when we were in bankruptcy protection.

If you can somehow attribute your losses to a guy flying an M80 from McAllen, TX to Vegas, you're not only doing exactly what mgt wants you to do, your doing more damage than any LCC ever did.

No, I'm blaming OUR losses (UAL's and the rest of the legacies) on the 1000's of guys who flew for airlines like Airtran, Frontier, JetBlue, etc., for less than 1/2 the total compensation a guy at UA made, for example. It's impossible to compete with an airline with wages that are that far below industry norm.

And I'm not even sure "blame" is the proper word now that I think about it. I guess we live in a free country and pilots can work for any wage they want. But I don't blame Paul W., Tilton, whoever for the reason why we all make JetBlue wages.

 

[ualdriver]

Blakey made it very clear that the FAA wasn't going to touch the Age 60 issue unless Congress provided some indemnification.

I'm not sure which is supposed to be the cart and which is supposed to be horse, but my point is that this whole change came about because of the ICAO rule change. The U.S. would have been telling their pilots they can't fly over age 60 while allowing ICAO airline pilots fly overhead who were over age 60, which was a totally hyprocritcal postion. That is what spurred the "sudden" change. Whether it was the FAA or Congress that wanted to fix this position (both under pressure from organizatoins that found age 60 discriminatory), I'm not sure. But when I was initially upset about ALPA's seemingly 180 on the Age 60 issue, I started calling my reps and e-mailing the legislative guys and that was the response that I received, in a nutshell.

 

[PCL_128]

OK, that's fine but what would he have done if Age 60 was going to change anyway, whether ALPA was against it or not, assuming he had stayed in?

I think it's a false assumption that Age-60 was going to change anyway, at least for the foreseeable future. Prater saw a convenient excuse for pushing that reasoning with ICAO's decision and the proposed NPRM, but I don't believe for a second that this was really a closed deal, and we're seeing right now just how long this is being delayed. I think we can keep delaying this for years to come if we put our power behind the effort.

I think DW would have done pretty much what Prater (and the executive is doing now.

I think you're not getting the full story on how this whole thing went down. This was not the unanimous opinion from the EC that you've been led to believe. Captain Miller may have been the only one to actually have the balls to officially vote NO, but he wasn't the only one that shared that opinion. This was a very contentious issue on the EC.

 

[ualdriver]

I think it's a false assumption that Age-60 was going to change anyway, at least for the foreseeable future. Prater saw a convenient excuse for pushing that reasoning with ICAO's decision and the proposed NPRM, but I don't believe for a second that this was really a closed deal, and we're seeing right now just how long this is being delayed. I think we can keep delaying this for years to come if we put our power behind the effort. I think you're not getting the full story on how this whole thing went down. This was not the unanimous opinion from the EC that you've been led to believe. Captain Miller may have been the only one to actually have the balls to officially vote NO, but he wasn't the only one that shared that opinion. This was a very contentious issue on the EC.

I'd be more than happy to hear how it went down, then. No doubt it was a contentious issue with the EC. Any "shades of grey" issue (i.e. is it time to realize that this issue is lost or do we keep fighting and perhaps piss off some political allies?) is certain to be contreversial.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Age 60 was going to change regardless of JP or DW in office... but DW had the long term situational awareness on Caphill and the long term relationships... to work the issue in what best for pilots....

Do you want a captain flying you around with 10000 hours or one with 2000 hours? They are both going to land the jet... but who do you want?