Age 60/65 poll results?

[Andy]

Has ALPA ever published a question by question result of the poll? I did a search and haven't found one. I know that they've pulled a few numbers from it and twisted it to fit their agenda, but I have yet to see the full questions and results published in black and white.

 

[jetjockey#1]

Has ALPA ever published a question by question result of the poll? I did a search and haven't found one. I know that they've pulled a few numbers from it and twisted it to fit their agenda, but I have yet to see the full questions and results published in black and white.

I don't think we'll ever see the results. After all, ALPA is supposed to represent the membership, and the results would show that the majority of ALPA pilots don't want to change. Yes I do believe it is all a big conspiracy, LOL..... but it's always been that way. After all, what is the average of any MEC chairman in the USA, 50-50+. Unless 30 some year old pilots get in there, the junior guys are going to keep getting screw indefenetely.....

 

[Benhuntn]

Some things happen inspite of polls. Get over it!

 

[pipe]

Some things happen inspite of polls. Get over it!

Murf-

That wasn't a particularly well thought-out or reasoned response. When you start paying ALPA dues let us know and we'll consider your opinion - or maybe we won't. I'm leaning toward no since you think the membership's opinion should be ignored.

PIPE

BTW - The fact that you felt the need to put IP after the -37 and -38 in your profile says a lot. Probably a FAIP too, huh?

 

[furloughed dude]

I'm impressed too Murf... What a fag....

 

[jonjuan]

I'm impressed too Murf... What a fag....

No kidding...Chair force....what a ******************************bag....

 

[ualdriver]

Has ALPA ever published a question by question result of the poll? I did a search and haven't found one. I know that they've pulled a few numbers from it and twisted it to fit their agenda, but I have yet to see the full questions and results published in black and white.

Andy-

Search on my screen name and somewhere I posted a link to the poll that you're probably referring to. I believe the source of the link was from the NWA MEC so hopefully the link still works. I think it was in a multi-page thread which beat this topic to death.

ualdriver

 

[bluesideup1]

Heres a link to the poll results.

https://crewroom.alpa.org/nwamec/De...View.aspx?itemid=8432&ModuleId=5044&Tabid=760

This was a pain in the ass to find and you can see that ALPA did not want it well publicized showing that the majority didn't want it changed but they threw it the hypothetical "suppose it is evendent that it will change" question and ran with that to the politicians saying look our membership now agrees with us old timers and wants to make their upgrades 5 years longer.

 

[ualdriver]

Here we go again!

I'll save everyone a few pages of reading. Here's how this debate is going to end up:

One side is going to see the results that virtually every ALPA carrier wanted age 60 to stay. Of course, since we all wanted Age 60 to stay and it is about to be changed anyway, there is a conspiracy at the highest levels in our Union because all the guys running our Union are old and therefore went around the Membership's wishes to get what they wanted at the expense of everyone else.

The other side looks at the results of the poll and believes ALPA is behaving exactly as it should in this lost political battle. Age 60 was successfully fought for many years, but this time, with the change in ICAO rules pushing the battle over the edge, the battle was politically lost. ALPA had a choice of either fighting this battle to the biitter end and burning some political bridges we might need in the future and also risk being removed from the age 65 rule making process, or take place in the process of the inevitable change and have influence in the rule making process AND keep its political relationships intact.

Pick a side! Make a new side! Enjoy the debate! Just remember to blame ALPA at the end of your post!

 

[Neubyfly]

Heres a link to the poll results.

https://crewroom.alpa.org/nwamec/De...View.aspx?itemid=8432&ModuleId=5044&Tabid=760

This was a pain in the ass to find and you can see that ALPA did not want it well publicized showing that the majority didn't want it changed but they threw it the hypothetical "suppose it is evendent that it will change" question and ran with that to the politicians saying look our membership now agrees with us old timers and wants to make their upgrades 5 years longer.

All I get from that link is a bunch of computer characters. Does anyone have another link?

 

[Rekks Inbound]

Here we go again!

I'll save everyone a few pages of reading. Here's how this debate is going to end up:

One side is going to see the results that virtually every ALPA carrier wanted age 60 to stay. Of course, since we all wanted Age 60 to stay and it is about to be changed anyway, there is a conspiracy at the highest levels in our Union because all the guys running our Union are old and therefore went around the Membership's wishes to get what they wanted at the expense of everyone else.

The other side looks at the results of the poll and believes ALPA is behaving exactly as it should in this lost political battle. Age 60 was successfully fought for many years, but this time, with the change in ICAO rules pushing the battle over the edge, the battle was politically lost. ALPA had a choice of either fighting this battle to the biitter end and burning some political bridges we might need in the future and also risk being removed from the age 65 rule making process, or take place in the process of the inevitable change and have influence in the rule making process AND keep its political relationships intact.

Pick a side! Make a new side! Enjoy the debate! Just remember to blame ALPA at the end of your post!

UALDriver has it exactly right. Pick a side.

Me personally, I was against the change to 65, and still am. It will cost me between $300-$500K in retirement dollars over the balance of my career (compound interest is awesome). But when has this (or any administration, but especially a Rep. one) ever listened to a union. We could stomp our collective feet all we want, but face reality; congress and the administration are going to change this rule whether we like it or not. So, knowing that, what is really wrong with ALPA changing it's position, at least hoping that they might have some influence in the final outcome of the new rules?

Peace.

Rekks.

 

[Benhuntn]

Pipe you are right, I have no dog in this fight with your union. But I do have a dog in the fight against age discrimination. I may have to stay an FO for a longer period but I am willing to do that because it is the right thing to do. It is a sacrifice I willingly make. It might be integrity instead self-centeredness I don't know. As for the (IP added for the -37 and -38) it is because everyone flies both but not everybody is an IP in both. Just trying to show that it wasn't just as a student. If it bothers you don't read it again. And finally, I was not a FAIP, not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[pipe]

Pipe you are right, I have no dog in this fight with your union. But I do have a dog in the fight against age discrimination. I may have to stay an FO for a longer period but I am willing to do that because it is the right thing to do. It is a sacrifice I willingly make. It might be integrity instead self-centeredness I don't know. As for the (IP added for the -37 and -38) it is because everyone flies both but not everybody is an IP in both. Just trying to show that it wasn't just as a student. If it bothers you don't read it again. And finally, I was not a FAIP, not that there is anything wrong with that.

Murf-

I'm military as well and I respect that you've served and have a well a deserved retirement. I would submit however that your integrity may reside largely in the fact that you have a govt guaranteed pension for life. Doing "the right thing" is easy - when it's easy.

PIPE

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Murf-

I'm military as well and I respect that you've served and have a well a deserved retirement. I would submit however that your integrity may reside largely in the fact that you have a govt guaranteed pension for life. Doing "the right thing" is easy - when it's easy.

PIPE

I too am former military....but don't get a guaranteed govt pension...and I too am against age discrimination...Does the pension really have anything to do with the level of someone's integrity?

 

[Benhuntn]

Doing the right thing is easy when it is right. When you see shades of grey that is when it is difficult. I see it simply as the right thing to do for our future aviators. If money is tight we have to adjust, live within our means. I live within my means.

 

[NoJoy]

Manditory retirement age is NOT age discrimination. (60 is but 65 isn't-what?) This thread is about the poll results of ALPA, so all ALPA members should be interested.

 

[Andy]

Andy-

Search on my screen name and somewhere I posted a link to the poll that you're probably referring to. I believe the source of the link was from the NWA MEC so hopefully the link still works. I think it was in a multi-page thread which beat this topic to death.

ualdriver

Here's your original thread:
http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?p=1360584#post1360584


[scratches head] I'm unable to find the part of the poll where ALPA asked about two over 60 pilots operating domestically. I guess that's what you get when ALPA gets involved with the rulemaking process.

Anyway, thanks to both you and bluesideup1 confirming the results.

 

[ualdriver]

Here's your original thread:
http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?p=1360584#post1360584


[scratches head] I'm unable to find the part of the poll where ALPA asked about two over 60 pilots operating domestically. I guess that's what you get when ALPA gets involved with the rulemaking process.

Anyway, thanks to both you and bluesideup1 confirming the results.

Andy-

Was that one of the poll questions? My understanding (from reading about the issue from various sources, I can't specifically quote any) was that we won't be able to have two Age 60 guys flying together at all- or at least that is the path the FAA is likely to take. I'd be curious to hear what ALPA National's opinion is on that.

Anyway, you're a UAL guy, right? Drop an e-mail to our MEC legislative guy. Sign onto the alpa.org website and get his info. He's pretty sharp and probably will have the answers you're looking for. He was the one that filled me in on a lot of the back room political stuff when this bombshell first hit.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

...and still not one LEC resolution to recall Prater has been introduced at the local level....

 

[ualdriver]

...and still not one LEC resolution to recall Prater has been introduced at the local level....

Recall him for what?

 

[Soulfly]

I have a reason why....

For ignoring what the majority of ALPA pilots wanted.

Lack of representation...........................

 

[PCL_128]

Recall him for what?

For ignoring the will of the majority of the ALPA membership, after he wasted tens of thousands of dollars of dues money on a poll that he never intended to pay any attention to in the first place.

 

[Andy]

Andy-

Was that one of the poll questions? My understanding (from reading about the issue from various sources, I can't specifically quote any) was that we won't be able to have two Age 60 guys flying together at all- or at least that is the path the FAA is likely to take. I'd be curious to hear what ALPA National's opinion is on that.

Anyway, you're a UAL guy, right? Drop an e-mail to our MEC legislative guy. Sign onto the alpa.org website and get his info. He's pretty sharp and probably will have the answers you're looking for. He was the one that filled me in on a lot of the back room political stuff when this bombshell first hit.

No, it wasn't one of the poll questions. And yes, two over 60 pilots is one of the changes that ALPA is actively seeking.

Yes, I'm UAL. However, I've already talked to the ALPA national lobbyist several times and have likely gotten at least as good information from him as our MEC guy could give.

 

[ualdriver]

No, it wasn't one of the poll questions. And yes, two over 60 pilots is one of the changes that ALPA is actively seeking.

ALPA's seeking to make it OK for two over age 60 pilots OK to fly together? Or ALPA's seeking to make that illegal?

 

[ualdriver]

For ignoring the will of the majority of the ALPA membership, after he wasted tens of thousands of dollars of dues money on a poll that he never intended to pay any attention to in the first place.

What exactly did Prater do that ignored the will of the majority of the ALPA membership? And honestly, I'm not trying to be coy. Does anyone have any proof that Prater did something to undermine the will of the ALPA majority? Or is it the fact that Age 60 was politically lost, Prater was at the helm when the change came about despite our long fight against it, so therefore Prater must have done something to change the Age 60 rule? I realize angry pilots have to have someone to blame for this political loss, but c'mon? Hasn't this been beaten to death?

 

[PCL_128]

What exactly did Prater do that ignored the will of the majority of the ALPA membership?

April 2007 Telephone Poll

Change FAA Age 60 Rule:
Yes: 46%
No: 52%

May 2007 Web Survey
Change FAA Age 60 Rule:
Yes: 43%
No: 54%

May 2007 Telephone Poll

Change FAA Age 60 Rule:
Yes: 45%
No: 52%


Three polls that Prater completely ignored. This is in addition to the web poll with the same results that was done under Captain Woerth, who actually followed the will of the membership. What a friggin' concept!

 

[ualdriver]

April 2007 Telephone Poll

Change FAA Age 60 Rule:
Yes: 46%
No: 52%

May 2007 Web Survey
Change FAA Age 60 Rule:
Yes: 43%
No: 54%

May 2007 Telephone Poll

Change FAA Age 60 Rule:
Yes: 45%
No: 52%


Three polls that Prater completely ignored. This is in addition to the web poll with the same results that was done under Captain Woerth, who actually followed the will of the membership. What a friggin' concept!

No, no. You didn't answer the question. You sent me poll results, and we're all well aware of those. I asked you guys the following: What exactly did Prater do that ignored the will of the majority of the ALPA membership?

And your sentences below the poll results are what I don't get. You're making the assumption that since the rule didn't change under Woerth that therefore Woerth followed the will of the membership and since they changed under Prater that he didn't follow the will of the membership. I understand that pilots are black and white guys (which is both good and bad), but do you not understand that just because ALPA goes to Congress or the FAA or whoever and says, "We want the Age 60 rule to stay" that it doesn't just automatically happen? Woerth (and our membership in my opinion) were lucky that the political climate that existed during Woerth's tenure allowed us to hold off the multiple attempts to change Age 60 at that time. Unfortunately for Prater, the same climate did not exist. So I guess if you just skim the surface of what happened that brought about the change, one could blame Prater. But if you dig a little bit, you'd see that Prater was the unfortunate guy who happened to be sitting in the chair when the ICAO rule change reared its ugly head and took the FAA and our "political friends" with it.

 

[PCL_128]

No, no. You didn't answer the question. You sent me poll results, and we're all well aware of those. I asked you guys the following: What exactly did Prater do that ignored the will of the majority of the ALPA membership?

I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for here. The poll results show what the will of the membership is. Prater did the exact opposite, therefore he ignored the will of the majority of the members. Time after time, the members have told the leadership that they don't want ALPA's policy to change. Captain Woerth listened to them. Prater did not.

But if you dig a little bit, you'd see that Prater was the unfortunate guy who happened to be sitting in the chair when the ICAO rule change reared its ugly head and took the FAA and our "political friends" with it.

"Unfortunate guy?" Please. This is exactly what Prater wanted from the start. Prater was talking about this subject constantly long before the FAA Administrator said anything about an NPRM. Even his campaign material from last summer contained numerous statements of his support for the change.

 

[ualdriver]

I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for here. The poll results show what the will of the membership is. Prater did the exact opposite, therefore he ignored the will of the majority of the members. Time after time, the members have told the leadership that they don't want ALPA's policy to change. Captain Woerth listened to them. Prater did not.



"Unfortunate guy?" Please. This is exactly what Prater wanted from the start. Prater was talking about this subject constantly long before the FAA Administrator said anything about an NPRM. Even his campaign material from last summer contained numerous statements of his support for the change.

Alright, "unfortunate guy" wasn't the best wording. How about he was at the wrong place at the wrong time if he wanted his membership to believe that he wasn't responsible for the Age 60 change when it was going to change no matter what he tried or who was at the helm of ALPA. How about that?

And big deal. So he personally was in support of the change. There probably isn't a political candidate on the planet that agrees 100% with the will of his constituents. That doesn't mean he acted against the membership's direction. Do you have proof of the steps that Prater took to get the Age 60 rule changed despite the direction of his membership? Please don't send me poll results again.

If you dont have that proof, but want him recalled anyway, I'll put you in the "Prater (and the Executive Council?) purposely took action behind the scenes in order to get Age 60 passed because that is what HE wanted, and purposely ignored the memberships' wishes" category. It's hard for anyone to disprove a good conspiracy theory, so you'll probably win that debate. When are you flooring the resolution?

 

[PCL_128]

ualdriver, I think you and I are debating different questions. To me, the question isn't about whether Prater or ALPA could stop the change. I agree with you that they can't. But that's not what this is about. This is about what Prater (and the EC & EB) did to internal ALPA policy. Whether the rule was going to change or not, the membership wanted ALPA to stand opposed to it. Is that a smart move? Maybe, maybe not, but it is what the membership directed. Prater ignored that direction. ALPA leaders should certainly act on their own judgement in times when there isn't an opportunity to determine the will of the membership, as that's the whole point of having a representative structure, but when the members have clearly voiced their opinion, then the leadership shouldn't ignore it.

I also take issue with Prater's handling of the AAA/AWA integration situation, but that's for another thread. In short, Prater is a man that's in way over his head and doesn't have a clue how to run the Association. He doesn't seem to know the will of the membership, and worse, he doesn't even care. He was elected by a fluke simply because a certain legacy MEC decided to trade votes with another legacy MEC in a vain attempt to get their Master Chairman elected as First VP. They failed in that effort, but the Association still got stuck with Prater as a result.