A Real Union Not Alpo!!

[PCL_128]

No. Everybody liked Prater until he stopped listening to the general membership on age 65.

I wasn't happy about the change in policy, either, but let's be honest: the membership was almost split. It was a majority in favor of keeping the change, but only by a very slim margin, and most of the pilots didn't even participate in the online poll.

If someone says they are gonna represent me they had better do it or get the Hell out of the way. I really don't like it when people tell me they are gonna do something and then do completely the opposite behind my back.

He did no such thing. He was very open about his opinion from the very beginning. The following is an excerpt from one of Captain Prater's campaign mailings that were sent to me and the rest of the BOD in 2006 before the vote:

While I believe that my personal opinion on the issue is not germane to the BOD’s policy decision, many members have asked me my view. I believe the basis of the safety foundation for ALPA’s present policy has been eroded and believe the ICAO standard should and will be adopted by the FAA. It is our job to take advantage of any law or rule change and ensure our members receive increased contractual and legislative guarantees.

Prater has got to go.

First rule of a recall: always have a replacement lined up. Who is your proposed replacement? Who can do a better job? Is it in the membership's best interest to replace the ALPA president in mid-stream? He has two years left until his term is up. Would it not be better to allow him to just finish his term before you start calling for a replacement?

 

[Nevets]

No. Everybody liked Prater until he stopped listening to the general membership on age 65. If someone says they are gonna represent me they had better do it or get the Hell out of the way. I really don't like it when people tell me they are gonna do something and then do completely the opposite behind my back. It makes me wonder what else is being done behind the scenes. Prater has got to go.

Actually, if you look at the results of the polling (both internet and phone) you see that a small majority of pilots favored keeping the age 60 rule. But there was a majority of pilots who favored ALPA changing its stance against increasing the retirement age if it meant being able to have a voice in getting protections in the new law when it did pass.

 

[Skywest Pylot]

Actually, if you look at the results of the polling (both internet and phone) you see that a small majority of pilots favored keeping the age 60 rule.

So you admit that the majority of the membership opposed the change?

And then Prater said,

I believe the basis of the safety foundation for ALPA’s present policy has been eroded and believe the ICAO standard should and will be adopted by the FAA.

So then, Prater goes ahead and pushes his agenda in Washington.

Then the guys who opposed it see that Prater is gonna do what he wants regardless and they throw their hands up in frustration. Then you guys put out a bogus poll to make it look like the majority actually favored the change.

But there was a majority of pilots who favored ALPA changing its stance against increasing the retirement age if it meant being able to have a voice in getting protections in the new law when it did pass.

No wonder so many are opposed to giving ALPA more of their hard earned cash. Not only was the majority not represented but also by aligning with ICAO the door has been opened even farther for Open Skies Part 2.

Just out of curiosity, what protections did ALPA fight so hard for in the age 60 rule change?

Disclaimer: I support ALPA and want it to be strong and unified but believe the current leadership has done the opposite.

 

[PCL_128]

So you admit that the majority of the membership opposed the change?

No, I "admit" that a majority of the membership who were responsible enough to participate in the poll opposed the change. Barely. Most of the membership didn't even bother to participate.

So then, Prater goes ahead and pushes his agenda in Washington.

Then the guys who opposed it see that Prater is gonna do what he wants regardless and they throw their hands up in frustration. Then you guys put out a bogus poll to make it look like the majority actually favored the change.

Bogus? How so? The poll asks what the membership wants ALPA to do if the rule is going to change, regardless of ALPA's position. ALPA doesn't have the luxury of throwing a temper tantrum when they don't like what Congress is going to do with the law. ALPA has a responsibility to protect the membership to the greatest extent possible. If the rule is going to change no matter what, then the membership directed ALPA to change the policy so as to be able to affect the law in order to best protect the membership.

No wonder so many are opposed to giving ALPA more of their hard earned cash. Not only was the majority not represented but also by aligning with ICAO the door has been opened even farther for Open Skies Part 2.

I don't think you really understand how the Open Skies proposals work. "Aligning" with ICAO has nothing to do with Open Skies. ALPA has always "aligned" with ICAO. It's benefited pilots for many, many years. We need a voice at the ICAO table.

Just out of curiosity, what protections did ALPA fight so hard for in the age 60 rule change?

The original language would have allowed all of the retired pilots to return to their airlines with seniority. ALPA fought to make sure that that didn't happen. Could you imagine the disaster that would have taken place if thousands of retired pilots wanted their old seniority numbers back? Thank ALPA for making sure it never happened.

Disclaimer: I support ALPA and want it to be strong and unified but believe the current leadership has done the opposite.

I ask again: who would you replace Captain Prater with? You can't demand a recall without having a valid replacement.

 

[JoeMerchant]

With the democrats in charge here pretty soon, it may be sooner rather than later despite ALPA being in charge, as you say. The time and duty issue is a double edged sword and that is why its taken so long to resolve that problem.

Yes it is....Can you illustrate it for people who don't understand the problem....It's not as simple as it may seem....

 

[Nevets]

So you admit that the majority of the membership opposed the change?

And then Prater said,


So then, Prater goes ahead and pushes his agenda in Washington.

Then the guys who opposed it see that Prater is gonna do what he wants regardless and they throw their hands up in frustration. Then you guys put out a bogus poll to make it look like the majority actually favored the change.



No wonder so many are opposed to giving ALPA more of their hard earned cash. Not only was the majority not represented but also by aligning with ICAO the door has been opened even farther for Open Skies Part 2.

Just out of curiosity, what protections did ALPA fight so hard for in the age 60 rule change?

Disclaimer: I support ALPA and want it to be strong and unified but believe the current leadership has done the opposite.

ALPA asked two questions. The first one was, "do you favor changing the FAA age 60 rule?" 53.7% said no, 42.7% said yes, 3.5% said not sure, and 0.1% said prefer not to say. Out of US 34 carriers represented by ALPA, half of them favored changing the policy. The second question was, "ALPA's policy has been to oppose any change in the age 60 rule. Suppose it is evident that the FAA or Congress is determined to change age 60 rule and that the rule will, in fact, change. Under these circumstances, do you feel that ALPA should maintain its opposition to any change in the age 60 rule or drop its opposition or modify its policy to be able to address the FAA or Congressional efforts to change the rule?" 61.5% said drop plus modify, 37.6% said modify policy, 36.3% said maintain opposition, 23.9% said drop opposition, 2.0% said not sure, and 0.2% said prefer not to say. Only 3 out of the 34 US carriers represented by ALPA wanted to maintain opposition. The Executive Council voted unanimously to change the policy and the Executive Board only had to votes against changing the policy.

So it wasn't just Prater. All but two people out of about 50 in ALPA leadership voted to change the policy. Sometimes leadership requires doing what you know is right.

The congress had a bill intruduced in both chambers to change the age 60 rule and the FAA had said there was an NPRM coming out to change the age 60 rule. Congress ended up passing this by unanimous consent in both chambers within a matter of two days. It was foolish to think that this wasn't going to happen. With ALPA's decision to drop their opposition they were able to get language in the bills that would prevent retired pilots from exercising seniority rights, it called for the same medical standards to be used, and it required carriers to bargain over changes to benefit plans in pilots' contracts in order to comply with the law.

By the way, ALPA is the only body with pilots interests that are there during the opes skies negotiations. It is ALPA who meets with the US representative on these negotiations before each meeting. It is ALPA who has helped keep cabotage and airline ownership off the table.

But if you don't like any of these things then its just a matter of writting a resolution for your next local council meeting, or your next master executive council meeting, or volunteering on a committee, or recalling a representative, or running for a rerpresentative position.

 

[Skywest Pylot]

Bogus? How so? The poll asks what the membership wants ALPA to do if the rule is going to change, regardless of ALPA's position. ALPA doesn't have the luxury of throwing a temper tantrum when they don't like what Congress is going to do with the law. ALPA has a responsibility to protect the membership to the greatest extent possible. If the rule is going to change no matter what, then the membership directed ALPA to change the policy so as to be able to affect the law in order to best protect the membership.

Ok, that is like telling me you are gonna shoot me with a gun and then asking me if I want it in the head or the hand. The point is, I don't want to be shot in the first place.

I don't think you really understand how the Open Skies proposals work. "Aligning" with ICAO has nothing to do with Open Skies. ALPA has always "aligned" with ICAO. It's benefited pilots for many, many years. We need a voice at the ICAO table.

I don't profess to be an expert on Open Skies but don't you find it ironic that we aligned our mandatory retirement age with the rest of the world just as the Open Skies negotiations were heating up? Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

The original language would have allowed all of the retired pilots to return to their airlines with seniority. ALPA fought to make sure that that didn't happen. Could you imagine the disaster that would have taken place if thousands of retired pilots wanted their old seniority numbers back? Thank ALPA for making sure it never happened.

I don't disagree with this but I'll say again that I didn't want the change in the first place.

I ask again: who would you replace Captain Prater with? You can't demand a recall without having a valid replacement.

Hmmm that is a very good question. I do think we need someone who can unite us. Prater has created too much bad blood with a lot of pilots. Whether I like it or not I realize age 65 is here to stay and unfortunately Prater's legacy has been determined. Let's get some guys in there that can unite us and get us all back on the same page. I really don't think Prater can do that at this point. Especially not with the younger guys.

So it wasn't just Prater. All but two people out of about 50 in ALPA leadership voted to change the policy.

It sounds like Prater isn't the only one that needs to go.

By the way, ALPA is the only body with pilots interests that are there during the opes skies negotiations. It is ALPA who meets with the US representative on these negotiations before each meeting. It is ALPA who has helped keep cabotage and airline ownership off the table.

No argument there. I just hope the ball isn't dropped here like it was with age 65. Just don't try telling me that foreign carriers flying point to point in the U.S. or increased foreign ownership is inevitable so instead of fighting it we are gonna try to have a say in how it is implemented. Catch my drift?

I hope I don't come across as being anti-ALPA because that is not my intention. I just see how pissed off a lot of guys are about what they perceive to be a good old boys club at the top of ALPA who are looking out for their own interests. As a strong believer in Organized Labor this doesn't sit well with me. Call them human sacrafices or whatever you want but I strongly believe the only way to bring unity and trust back to this organization is to remove those from the top who have polarized us.

I have said what I felt like I needed to say and now I will stand down. You know how I feel and I don't think it does any of us any good to continue arguing about it. Hopefully someway, somehow we can return our Union and Brotherhood back to it's former glory. With the anti-labor wolves waiting at the door we've got to be ready to unite and fight.

 

[PCL_128]

Ok, that is like telling me you are gonna shoot me with a gun and then asking me if I want it in the head or the hand. The point is, I don't want to be shot in the first place.

Not really analogous, because ALPA wasn't the one to pull the trigger. Congress and ICAO were. ALPA merely tried to provide as much protection as possible.

I don't profess to be an expert on Open Skies but don't you find it ironic that we aligned our mandatory retirement age with the rest of the world just as the Open Skies negotiations were heating up? Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

I think you're seeing black helicopters where none exist.

I don't disagree with this but I'll say again that I didn't want the change in the first place.

Neither did I. When I was an MEC member, I even brought a resolution to demand that ALPA maintain its former position on Age 60. I was voted down. Such is democracy.

It sounds like Prater isn't the only one that needs to go.

So you want to replace every ALPA leader just because of one issue? Not a good idea.

I just see how pissed off a lot of guys are about what they perceive to be a good old boys club at the top of ALPA who are looking out for their own interests.

Perception doesn't always jive with reality. People replaced Duane with Prater because they perceived that Prater would represent them better, since he was an "outsider." The result? Duane was adamantly pro-Age 60, while Prater was the exact opposite. So who would have represented the pilots better? Turns out it was the "insider" who everyone perceived as a "good old boy." Pilots need to stop letting their emotions control their actions and look at things more objectively.

 

[Skywest Pylot]

Not really analogous, because ALPA wasn't the one to pull the trigger. Congress and ICAO were. ALPA merely tried to provide as much protection as possible.

We have already established that Prater wanted the rule change so maybe we could say that he helped load the gun. Maybe he loaded standard bullets as opposed to hollow tips.

Quote:
I don't profess to be an expert on Open Skies but don't you find it ironic that we aligned our mandatory retirement age with the rest of the world just as the Open Skies negotiations were heating up? Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.
I think you're seeing black helicopters where none exist.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want but I believe there are those in our industry and in our government who would love to figure out a way to outsource our jobs. If it does happen, it probably won't happen overnight. It will be a slow and gradual change so we don't really notice it until the perfect storm has been created to justify it. The next time you are in a department store do me a favor and try to find just one thing that is made in America. Let me know how it goes, ok? In my opinion, Open Skies is the single biggest threat to my livelihood. Black helicopters? Maybe. Maybe not. I am happy to hear ALPA is being proactive on this issue but don't have a lot of confidence in our leadership. We cannot give up any ground.

So you want to replace every ALPA leader just because of one issue? Not a good idea.

I didn't say I wanted to replace EVERY ALPA leader.
I said,

It sounds like Prater isn't the only one that needs to go.

IMO we do need some new leadership that can get us back on track.

People replaced Duane with Prater because they perceived that Prater would represent them better, since he was an "outsider." The result? Duane was adamantly pro-Age 60, while Prater was the exact opposite. So who would have represented the pilots better? Turns out it was the "insider" who everyone perceived as a "good old boy."

So you admit that Prater, the "outsider", has done a worse job than Woerth, the "insider", at representing the pilots?

Pilots need to stop letting their emotions control their actions and look at things more objectively.

Ok, so how do you suggest that we look at things more objectively? Do we sit on our hands and burn through 2 years of the Obama presidency waiting for Prater to finish his term?

 

[Nevets]

I don't profess to be an expert on Open Skies but don't you find it ironic that we aligned our mandatory retirement age with the rest of the world just as the Open Skies negotiations were heating up? Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

I don't disagree with this but I'll say again that I didn't want the change in the first place.

Hmmm that is a very good question. I do think we need someone who can unite us. Prater has created too much bad blood with a lot of pilots. Whether I like it or not I realize age 65 is here to stay and unfortunately Prater's legacy has been determined. Let's get some guys in there that can unite us and get us all back on the same page. I really don't think Prater can do that at this point. Especially not with the younger guys.

It sounds like Prater isn't the only one that needs to go.

No argument there. I just hope the ball isn't dropped here like it was with age 65. Just don't try telling me that foreign carriers flying point to point in the U.S. or increased foreign ownership is inevitable so instead of fighting it we are gonna try to have a say in how it is implemented. Catch my drift?

I hope I don't come across as being anti-ALPA because that is not my intention. I just see how pissed off a lot of guys are about what they perceive to be a good old boys club at the top of ALPA who are looking out for their own interests. As a strong believer in Organized Labor this doesn't sit well with me. Call them human sacrafices or whatever you want but I strongly believe the only way to bring unity and trust back to this organization is to remove those from the top who have polarized us.

Then those who are pissed off because of their perception of good old boys club at the top of ALPA that are looking out for their own interest need to step up and get involved. Be a voice of opposition, submit a resolution to the next local council or executive council meeting, volunteer for a committee, run for a rep position, recall reps, etc, rather than just letting just not sit well with you.

As for disagreeing with the age 60 issue, are you really going to let an issue of people working to 65 get in the way of everything else that ALPA does that has helped this profession in the last 75 year? Age 60 was something that half the membership either wanted changed or saw it as unevitable. Even over 95% of the leadership that had a vote saw this as something that was not going to be possible to prevent. So they led by doing what may be unfavorable for the betterment of their members as a whole. Prater is not one to get in the way of progress. If fact, he is the one pushing the SNL and the Fee for Departure Work Group that would unite us like no one has ever done before. And linking open skies to age 60 does sound like black helicopter conspiracies. the fact that the rest of the world were allowed to have pilots over 60 fly in our country while ours were forced to retire is part of the momentum that helped this issue pass congress in lightning speed. ALPA was against changing this rule in ICAO to begin with. Age 60 and cabotage is apples to oranges. Age 60 only allowed our fellow brothers the ability to work an extra 5 years if they so desired or are even capable of. Cabotage, like you said, is a the greatest threat to our profession. You cannot compare outsourcing our jobs with the ability of unoutsourced professionals to be able to work for a living another five years.

We have already established that Prater wanted the rule change so maybe we could say that he helped load the gun. Maybe he loaded standard bullets as opposed to hollow tips.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want but I believe there are those in our industry and in our government who would love to figure out a way to outsource our jobs. If it does happen, it probably won't happen overnight. It will be a slow and gradual change so we don't really notice it until the perfect storm has been created to justify it. The next time you are in a department store do me a favor and try to find just one thing that is made in America. Let me know how it goes, ok? In my opinion, Open Skies is the single biggest threat to my livelihood. Black helicopters? Maybe. Maybe not. I am happy to hear ALPA is being proactive on this issue but don't have a lot of confidence in our leadership. We cannot give up any ground.

I didn't say I wanted to replace EVERY ALPA leader.
I said,
IMO we do need some new leadership that can get us back on track.

Ok, so how do you suggest that we look at things more objectively? Do we sit on our hands and burn through 2 years of the Obama presidency waiting for Prater to finish his term?

Prater actually said that his opinion on the matter are not germane because as president he is obligated to follow the administrative manual's policy. He alone could not change it even if he wanted to. What he did say is that he felt this was inevitable. So the analogy should be that he saw the bullet coming and tried to put on as much armor as possible.

I understand the frustration. So answer me this, what are you doing about it other than writing about it here?