Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

1261 days to go!

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
We think alike so you don't have to be a tool.

Let's you and I keep our house in order and get out of the way (on time at 60) so the next generation can recoop some of their loss!

Gup

BTW Burger my bro - it's still 980

Gup
 
We think alike so you don't have to be a tool.

Let's you and I keep our house in order and get out of the way (on time at 60) so the next generation can recoop some of their loss!

Gup

BTW Burger my bro - it's still 980

Gup


No we are not alike. I don't call people names that I disagree with.
And by the way. Who do you think? Cares with you think.
 
Thanks.

I don't know how far back you dug to find that little gem but I still feel the same way. I didn't want the rule to change. It did nothing but take money out of my pocket and I fly airplanes for money! Every FO that I fly with had his pocket picked too!

Everybody on property when the rule changed should have been grandfathered to retire at 60. Kind of like a stupid tax. I wonder how hard ALPA and SWAPA would have pushed for it then.

Gup
 
Everybody on property when the rule changed should have been grandfathered to retire at 60. Kind of like a stupid tax. I wonder how hard ALPA and SWAPA would have pushed for it then.

Gup
Your understanding of the issue is flawed. The FAA was going to pass Age 65 to be inline with ICAO whether any unions participated in the process or not. While I do not know about SWAPA, I know ALPA chose to actively participate in the process in order to mitigate its effects on the membership. It wasn't a popular choice, but it was much better than another union's choice to sit outside and toss rocks with ZERO input into the process.

http://wearealpa.org/Govt/From the Hill February 2008.pdf

Why pilots continue to blame their own unions for this action when it was our own government which pushed it is beyond me.
 
Your understanding of the issue is flawed. The FAA was going to pass Age 65 to be inline with ICAO whether any unions participated in the process or not. While I do not know about SWAPA, I know ALPA chose to actively participate in the process in order to mitigate its effects on the membership. It wasn't a popular choice, but it was much better than another union's choice to sit outside and toss rocks with ZERO input into the process.

http://wearealpa.org/Govt/From the Hill February 2008.pdf

Why pilots continue to blame their own unions for this action when it was our own government which pushed it is beyond me.

There are several reasons why pilots blame their own unions. The ALPA poll that was sent out was a joke. Overall ALPA membership voted against the change by majority. The leadership is paid by the dues of those members that voted against the change. ALPA clung to the one question that justified their positional change:

"If the law were to change would you want ALPA to be an active participant in that change?" The majority of the people answered yes.

What has ALPA done to protect or assist its membership? Did they help to mitigate the change over a period of time so that no one group got a windfall? NO

Did they protect the line pilots from simulator instructors who were NOT flying the line and then return to the line to push down everyones seniority? NO

Did they do anything to mitigate the furloughed pilots that may not have in fact been furloughed if not for the change: UAL 1600 furloughed and counting, CAL 148 furloughed, AA ???? furloughed......NO

So they changed their position on 65 against the majority of the union's wishes to help be a "part of the process" that has helped no one but the senior guys.(and themselves)
Prater was for changing this before he was ever elected.

If they truly wanted to do the right thing they should have changed the law so that anyone hired AFTER that day the law passed could work to 65, I wouldn't have an advantage, but neither would the 58 year old sitting Captain on the B777.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom