Point: Wilson just finished a poll for CAL ALPA and sampled only a little over 10% of the pilots. Nothing wrong with that, right?
Depends on how the poll was taken. If it was a phone poll, 10% is usually more than enough, because you eliminate self-selection bias and other statistical problems. That's scientific polling. But 10% on an internet poll, which suffers from self-selection bias, is not scientific in the slightest. Phil Comstock, the owner of the Wilson Center, will tell you that you really need to have at least 50% participation in an internet poll to get close to scientific results, preferably closer to 70%.
Age 65 had three total votes that were to be all consistent until John ended the 3rd poll, disbanded the Blue Ribbon Panel, and unilaterally changed the unions position on the issue. That is indefensible behavior on his part.
"Unilaterally changed?" You know better than that. Capt. Prater doesn't have that power. The change to the Age 60 Policy went through a vote of the Executive Council (all the EVPs) and the Executive Board (every MEC Chairman) before it was changed. One member of the EXCL voted NO, and 20% of the roll call votes on the EXBD voted NO.
There is no question how the membership would vote now on 65 in my mind. I'm sure you are not confused either.
I think it would be pretty much where it was last time: almost dead even. I think the phone polling was right at the margin of error, and the internet polling was well within the margin of error due to the low participation.
Don't get me wrong; I was a strong opponent of changing the policy, as you may remember, and I still am. But lack of pilot participation sealed our fate on the issue. If we had had 85% participation in the internet poll and 60% had said NO, then there's no way that they policy would have been changed.
Prater has a resolution in front of him outlining an argument to allow airline pilots full benefit under the RLA, to include participation in the RRB.
How does he have this resolution in front of him? This is the first I've heard of it, and the only resolution on the website you provide was ratified by the CAL MEC, not by a higher governing body. Has this resolution been submitted to the EXCL, EXBD, or BOD?
But what does John do with his time in front of the House last week? He attaches his arguement for improved working lives of pilots to the chickensh!t baggage fees airlines are charging! "If airlines can charge $25 for a bag, then why can't they charge $2 for the captain and $1 for the FO per passenge?" [paraphrased] Why does he do that? Because John wants half the profession to get double what the other half gets.
That's ridiculous. He's doing it because it's a way to remove pilot pay from the equation on cutting costs. If you make a "pilot surcharge" on a ticket, then it gets tacked on after the fare just like 9/11 security fees, fuel fees, etc... I'm not sure if it's the best strategy, but it's a valid point.
Yeah, these bag fees are making money right now. But they won't last. Congress knows that. John knows that. Even the aforementioned airline CEO Kellner would probably agree.
Actually, pretty much every analyst and airline executive agrees that bag fees and other sources of ancillary revenue are here to stay, and will make up a huge portion of airline revenue going forward.
He just wants the easiest, quickest money he can hoard away for his own generation he can get.
Have you ever met John? Ever spent some time talking to him about these issues? It seems unlikely to me, based on your accusations. John may not have been the best choice for ALPA President (I happen to think that he's doing ok, even though I supported Duane), but he's no selfish jerk only looking out for his own generation. He's doing what he thinks is right.