Age 60 Battle vs ALPA

[Flopgut]

Age 60 Rule was put in place by Pete Quesada, FAA Chief, I believe, for his father-in-law(?) C.R. Smith. He later became an American board member also, quid pro quo. Pure corruption.

Comparing airline pilots to police and firefighters is assinine. Flying is a sedentary job, and we all know that the medical standards could probably be relaxed, if anything.

Hard to believe any honest airline pilot could say to his peers, with a straight face, that flying 121 to age 65 would be unsafe. If the outcome of any given inflight incapacitation was ever really in doubt, then why are FO's given a whole vote in ALPA?

ALPA members just completed a very comprehensive polling and policy review of this subject. We got tons of data on every aspect of the rule; from the more legitimate reasons to all of the less legitimate [corrupt] reasons. I have been in the right seat for a long time, but I decided to live with whatever outcome this survey rendered. In fact, I felt the info we received was quite biased to engender a sentiment to change the age 60 rule, so I had somewhat resigned myself to more right seat time. Timing was certainly on the side of change with so many junior on furlough. It failed to change. It really was not that close. plan accordingly, because when you hit 60 it is going to be someone elses turn.

 

[FoxHunter]

www.apaad.org

Testimony of Robin Wilkening, MD, MPH
Regarding S. 65

Senate Subcommittee on Aviation

July 19, 2005



Senator Burns, Senator Rockefeller, and Distinguished Senators of the Aviation Subcommittee,



My name is Dr. Robin Wilkening. I am a Board certified Occupational Medicine physician with a Masters degree in Public Health. Occupational Medicine is the medical specialty that deals with all aspects of worker health and safety. Workplace safety, worker health, fitness for duty, health-related productivity, and workplace access are key elements of my training, expertise, and professional interest. My research paper on the Age 60 Rule was published in the journal Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine in March 2002. My conclusion, after an extensive review of the literature, was that requiring airline pilots to retire based solely on the age of 60 had no basis in medical fact, could not be supported by scientific literature, and was not consistent with flight safety data. The Age 60 Rule prohibits an entire class of workers from continuing gainful employment based on age alone, and as such constitutes age discrimination in the workplace.



I am not alone in my opinion that the Age 60 Rule cannot be justified. One year ago the Civil Aviation Subcommittee of the Aviation Safety Committee of the Aerospace Medical Association (ASMA) - recognized as the international leader for excellence in aerospace medicine - published its findings regarding the Age 60 Rule. Following an extensive and scholarly examination of the literature, this panel of aviation medicine and safety experts concluded, "there is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based on age alone," and noted that "the decision to use 60 years of age as an upper limit for commercial air transport operations was arbitrary." In addition, the Civil Aviation Medical Association (CAMA), the pre-eminent professional body representing Aviation Medical Examiners, "...supports the concept that pilots operating under FAR Part 121 should not be forced to retire from piloting duties based solely upon attaining age 60." In February 2005, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) cited the results of its survey of member nations wherein 83% of the 112 respondents indicated that "an age limit above 60 years would be appropriate for airline pilots" (with 72 states favoring an upper age limit of 65 and six desiring no upper age limit at all). ICAO highlighted the opinion of their Flight Crew Licensing and Training Panel that, as the Aerospace Medical Association stated, "...there is insufficient medical evidence to support a restriction based on age alone." In proposing the current rule change to allow pilots up to age 65 to fly in multi-crew operations, ICAO specifically mentioned research performed in the United States by Baker and Li showing the safety of over-60 pilots, and cited a recent ICAO survey documenting more than 15,000 "older pilot years" of accident-free flying worldwide. The ICAO "Age 65 Rule" is expected to take effect on November 23, 2006.



Acknowledgment of the safety of over-60 pilots is not limited to the medical community. In the Letter of Understanding between ALPA and Air Canada Regional, Inc., ALPA President Duane Woerth endorsed Canadian ALPA member pilots flying up to the age of 65. And although the Letter stated "there are current Federal Aviation Administration restrictions for Captains over the age of 60 to fly into the United States of America," strikingly absent was any mention of the FAA's Age 60 Rule being a safety regulation. Likewise notably absent was any language suggesting even the slightest concern that these airline pilots up to age 65 – now represented by ALPA – constituted an undue safety risk.



It is by now well known and widely accepted that the Age 60 Rule was never meant to be a safety regulation. Far from being related in any way to safety, it was instead a bit of backroom economic favoritism designed to benefit the management of one particular airline and, by extension, the management of all airlines. In FAA Administrator Quesada's own words, written in April 1959 to the President of the University of Notre Dame, "there exists at present no sound scientific evidence that airline piloting or any other aeronautical activity becomes critically unsafe at any given age."When in August 1959 then-ALPA President Clarence Sayen, an ardent opponent of the Age 60 Rule, demanded that the FAA produce scientific evidence, Administrator Quesada did not - because he could not - offer any evidence that airline pilots over age 60 were less safe than their younger counterparts. Instead, the FAA offered up a bibliography of 41 publications dealing with aging, none of which addressed airline-piloting capabilities. Since that time there have been numerous studies dealing with the subject of aging both in general populations and in groups of pilots. In their recent exhaustive review, ASMA aviation research experts thoroughly analyzed a huge body of literature and reported three findings: 1) Performance on measures of most – but not all – cognitive functions decline with advancing age; 2) Performance of a group may not predict the performance of any specific individual; and 3) Observed “declines” in laboratory test performance are not necessarily predictive of cockpit performance. Based on their thorough study of the literature of aging as related to piloting, ASMA experts concluded: “On review of the existing evidence, the Aerospace Medical Association concludes there is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based on age alone.”



Laboratory studies on effects of aging are worthy academic exercises that increase our general fund of knowledge. However, the results of these tests, as ASMA noted, are not necessarily predictive of cockpit performance. Flight safety is the true outcome of interest, and we are indeed fortunate to have a body of flight safety data detailing the performance of pilots in various age groups. When performed according to rigorous scientific standards and analyzed using proper statistical technique, flight safety studies show that pilots over age 60 are as safe as their younger colleagues. It is important to review these results.



1. 1994: Kay EJ, et al. Age 60 Study, Part III, Consolidated Database Experiments Final Report, DOT/FAA/AM-94/22, Office of Aviation Medicine, Washington DC 20591, October 1994.

The analysis provided no support for the hypothesis that the pilots of scheduled air carriers had increased accident rates as they neared the age of 60.



For pilots with Class II medical certificates, the accident rate for the age group 60-64 did not differ from that of the age group 55-59. For pilots with Class III medical certificates, the accident rate for the age group 60-64 did not differ from that of age group 55-59. Additionally, for Class III pilots with more than 500 total flight hours and more than 50 recent flight hours the accident rate for the age groups 60-64 and 65-69 did not differ from that of age group 55-59.



In a further arm of the study, accident rates were examined year-by-year, rather than in 5-year groups, for pilots aged 50-69. Between age 63 and age 69, there was an apparent, though not statistically significant, linear trend that was described by the author as "a hint, and a hint only, of an increase in accident rate for Class III pilots older than 63 years of age."



2. 1999: Rebok GW, Grabowski JG, and Baker SP, et al. Pilot age and performance as factors in aviation crashes. Presented before the American Psychological Association meeting, Boston, MA 1999.

Dr. George Rebok demonstrated that in general aviation crashes involving pilots aged 40-63, the percentage of accidents caused by pilot error was smallest in the age group 56-63.



4. 1999: The Chicago Tribune July 11.

Statistics compiled by the FAA for air carrier accidents/incidents involving air transport (airline) pilots from January 1, 1990 to June 11, 1999 were evaluated by Northwestern University professor Ian Savage. This cohort, including pilots age 20 to over 60, was notable for its inclusion of airline pilots working for commuter airlines who were over 60 years of age during this period. These pilots were exempt from the Age 60 Rule between 1995 and December 1999. The data showed no statistically significant difference in incident rate between any age group. The safety of this over-60 pilot group is all the more notable because these pilots - confined to commuter operations - were exposed to much greater flight risk than were their younger counterparts flying in safer, large jet operations.



5. 2000: Broach D, et al. OAM AAM-00-A-HRR-520. Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI), Human Resources Research Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Oklahoma City, OK 73125. A series of four reports.



Report One was a bibliography.


(continued)

 

[FoxHunter]

Report Two reanalyzed the Chicago Tribune data but specifically excluded those pilots aged 60 and older from analysis. CAMI reported no statistically significant differences in the accident/incident rates by age group. It is particularly notable that the proportion of 50-59 year old air transport pilots involved in accidents or incidents was significantly lower than the proportion for the 40-49 year old group.



Report Three evaluated pilots age 23-63 with an Air Transport rating and a Class I medical certificate (that is, pilots who were rated and medically certified to be airline captains) who flew between 1988 and 1997. This study was conducted at the request of the United States Senate to compare the flight safety of pilots age 60-63 with the flight safety of younger pilots. Study author Dana Broach: "No significant difference was found between accident rates for pilots in the 55-59 and 60-63 year old age groups." This finding is all the more noteworthy because, as in the Chicago Tribune cohort above, the over-60 pilots in this study group were flying in less-safe commuter operations only.



Report Four expanded the Report Three study cohort to include pilots with a Commercial rating and a Class II medical certificate, creating an impure study population composed of pilots who had an Air Transport rating and Class I medical certificates and pilots who did not. In this mixed group, there was a statistically significant increase in the accident rate for pilots age 60-63. The inappropriate combination of these two pilot groups into a single cohort was criticized in the aviation medical literature and casts serious doubt on the veracity of the findings.



6. 2001: Baker SP, Lamb MW, Grabowski G, Rebok G, Li G. Characteristics of general aviation crashes involving mature male and female pilots. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 2001;72:447-52.

This research group at the Center for Injury Research and Policy, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health reported their analysis of the causes of general aviation crashes. Older pilots made fewer errors: among males age 55-63, 26% of crashes were without obvious pilot error whereas among males age 40-49 only 7% were without obvious pilot error.



7. 2002: Miura Y, Shoji M, Fukumoto M, Yasue K, Tsukui I, Hosoya T. A 10-year retrospective review of airline transport pilots aged 60-63 in Japan. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 2002 May;73(5):485-7.

Investigators from the Japan Aeromedical Research Center in Tokyo reported the results of their experience with pilots over age 60. During the study period these pilots underwent standard medical examinations and were engaged first in non-scheduled flying (1991-1996) and then scheduled flying (1996-2000). These pilots were not involved in any of the 323 accidents reported by the Japan Aircraft Accident Investigation Commission. The investigators' conclusions: "aged pilots who are deemed medically qualified by the official notice criteria are flying safety without mishap incidence." Japan has since raised its upper age limit to 65.



8. 2002: Li G, Baker SP, Lamb MW, Grabowski JG, Rebok GW. Human factors in aviation crashes involving older pilots. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 2002 Feb;73(2):134-8.

In a study of human factors in aviation crashes involving older pilots, these researchers studied a cohort of 3306 pilots who were 45-54 years old in 1987 and flew commuter aircraft or air taxis. This group was followed longitudinally until 1997. Comparisons of crash circumstances and human factors were made between pilots age 40-49 and 50-63. Neither crash circumstances nor the prevalence and patterns of pilot errors changed significantly as age increased from the 40s to the early 60s.



9. 2003: Li G, Baker SP, Grabowski JG, Qiang Y, McCarthy ML, Rebok GW. Age, flight experience, and risk of crash involvement in a cohort of professional pilots. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2003 May 15;157(10):874-80.

In a further study of the above cohort, the researchers determined that those pilots with 5,000-9,999 hours of total flight time at the beginning of the study period had a 57% lower risk of a crash than their less experienced counterparts. There was no association between pilot age and crash risk, which the researchers noted "may reflect a strong 'healthy worker effect' stemming from the rigorous medical standards and periodic physical examinations required for professional pilots."



The Age 60 Rule was never designed to be a safety regulation, and was not promulgated in response to any demonstrated safety need for the restriction of pilots over age 60. An exhaustive review of the medical literature regarding aging has failed to show any evidence that would prudently bar airline pilots over age 60 from the cockpit. All published flight performance studies, when conducted according to the highest scientific standards and evaluated using appropriate analytical technique, and show that pilots flying until age 63 are as safe as their younger colleagues. The international experience with older pilots amply demonstrates the safety of pilots flying until age 65.



Requiring airline pilots to retire based solely on the age of 60 has no basis in medical fact, cannot be supported by scientific literature, and is not consistent with flight safety data. The Age 60 Rule prohibits an entire class of workers from continuing gainful employment based on age alone, and as such constitutes age discrimination in the workplace.





Robin Wilkening MD MPH



[email protected]

 

[General Lee]

No Foxhunter, it aint gonna happen. Time to hit the golf course and ENJOY life. If you love flying so much, I bet you could buy a Cirrus---since you are an MD11 Captain. Age 60 is there for a reason, and the Supreme Court agreed.



Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[semperfido]

50 is the new 30...at least that is what they keep telling me

 

[SKYMASTER]

My vote is for age 65.

 

[SWPA Pilot]

Confessing to being a Union Buster?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gotta wonder what FoxHunter's true agenda is when he is inflaming non-union sentiment in the middle of stalled negotiations at his company. Might be wiser to hold this internal pi$$ing contest in the bathroom or hold off until after the contract was wrapped up. If he did that, he could ensure he has a decent contract to fly under until his early (work induced) demise.

If'n he wants to live outta a suitcase at 68 and die young...that's his choice, but like I said, this is a strange time to be doing this....almost like he is an agent provocateur sowing discontent with union leadership. Comes straight out of the union busting guide book. He is advocating taking action that hampers legitimate union business and distracts from negotiating. Why not take the time instead to "educate" your fellow pilots on the issue? Stuff my mailbox with poorly thought-out arguments and sweeping generalizations like that other guy.

This guy is already a non-member, not just "not on dues check-off". He already quit the organization because (I believe) he thinks it has no value to him. So why does he care what position ALPA takes? If he thinks that ALPA's position is that important, then he believes ALPA has relevence, then he oughtta pay dues like the rest of us and get a voice. I'll hear him then, I'll listen to his arguments...if he paid his dues.

The bottom line, is that he knows ALPA's position has relevence and wants the dues paying members who are already doing his "heavy lifting" to do even more by taking up his cause. FoxHunter has proven he is a fair weather friend and I find it funny that he is involved with any organization of pilots "united" for or against anything because I can only see his self-interest at work.

Looks like he is on the "Payroll"...and I don't mean just the checks on the 15th and the 30th.

Just read the book. I couldn't agree more with what you have said. It seems like he is just trying to stir up discontent.

FH, why not just take the money you are paid by the company to stir up trouble and invest it? That should last you a while.

Have your new "Shut up and Fly" T-shirts arrived yet?

If you wanted to vote for the age 60, you should have stayed a memeber, otherwise, be quiet.

 

[FoxHunter]

Just read the book. I couldn't agree more with what you have said. It seems like he is just trying to stir up discontent.

FH, why not just take the money you are paid by the company to stir up trouble and invest it? That should last you a while.

Have your new "Shut up and Fly" T-shirts arrived yet?

If you wanted to vote for the age 60, you should have stayed a memeber, otherwise, be quiet.

Heck, I Just sent my "Shut up and just pay your Dues" T-shirt to GoodWill in January.

Some other opinions:

Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 8:07 AM
Subject: Age 60


Wally,
Unity is not a one way street. If ALPA and my fellow members want my
support then they need to be my allies in keeping my job a long as I need it
and am qualified, not my adversaries. (Read ALPA's mission statement). One
does not rationally provide thousands of dollars a year to an organization
which aggressively supports getting him terminated because he has a
birthday; one spends that money funding an IRA. Additionally, one does not
support an opponent of their family's financial security in any way, shape,
or form.
I will be revoking my dues checkoff agreement in the very near future
in protest. If the age 65 amendment before Congress goes down in defeat I
will revoke my membership entirely and divert those funds to IRA's. If this
is what ALPA calls UNITY I'll be more than happy to eat alone. My support
of any job action under the current circumstances is doubtful at best. No
improvement in the contract can help me nearly as much as being able to keep
my job until I am financially secure for retirement, even under the current
contract. This issue trumps negotiations issues for me hands down.
Sincerely,
****** *****
**** **** MEM

 

[Purpledog]

My vote is for 55! Even if congress votes for higher, this is an FAA rule. Getting the bureaucracyto change something will be like herding cats. Good luck, if they start now it might be changed by the time I retire.

 

[Guitar Guy]

Shouldn't doctors, surgeons, politicians, lawyers, military officers, and corporate executives (airline or other industry) all have to retire, too, if mental faculties and physical abilities diminish at age 60?

Of course, Air Traffic Controllers are required to retire at age 56...

Just food for thought.

 

[AAflyer]

She would leave a 40 year old Delta 767-400 FO for a 35 year old Comair (Mesa) Captain? Doubt it. Really, I doubt it. Even after a Chap 11 I would make 3 times what the Mesa guy would. And, she loves my computer skills and that I lift wieghts a lot. She does. Sorry.


Bye Bye--General Lee

Of course she would General, these guys all have big watches and wear their uniform to the grocery store, and anywhere else they can pick up chicks. The big thing you forget, they actually really fly for Delta! I have been told that by no less than 10 of them over the past 5 years. It was so funny to ask what equiptment they flew, and after they answered RJ I asked when they could fly the 737 I got a blank stare. The best response was "well, it doesn't work that way, and it is probably a little difficult to explain to you". I never told I flew for a living.

AA

Disclaimer, before all CMR guys jump all over me I am sure this was the select few I ran into that every airline has.

 

[SWPA Pilot]

Heck, I Just sent my "Shut up and just pay your Dues" T-shirt to GoodWill in January

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. I'm thinking that you sold it to a pawn shop since you want the money so badly.

Wally,
Unity is not a one way street. If ALPA and my fellow members want my
support then they need to be my allies in keeping my job a long as I need it
and am qualified, not my adversaries. (Read ALPA's mission statement). One
does not rationally provide thousands of dollars a year to an organization
which aggressively supports getting him terminated because he has a
birthday; one spends that money funding an IRA. Additionally, one does not
support an opponent of their family's financial security in any way, shape,
or form.
I will be revoking my dues checkoff agreement in the very near future
in protest. If the age 65 amendment before Congress goes down in defeat I
will revoke my membership entirely and divert those funds to IRA's. If this
is what ALPA calls UNITY I'll be more than happy to eat alone. My support
of any job action under the current circumstances is doubtful at best. No
improvement in the contract can help me nearly as much as being able to keep
my job until I am financially secure for retirement, even under the current
contract. This issue trumps negotiations issues for me hands down.
Sincerely,
****** *****
**** **** MEM

If you and your imaginary friend don't want to be in the union, that's fine. Go join your little apaad.org secrect society. I'm betting once they ask for dues you will run.

Why should ALPA push to lift the age 60 rule when the majority doesn't want it? Should we make John Kerry president since the minority wanted him? If you don't like the age 60 rule, go up to Canada and work for one of their airlines.

 

[TonyC]

If you and your imaginary friend don't want to be in the union, that's fine. Go join your little apaad.org secrect society. I'm betting once they ask for dues you will run.

Why should ALPA push to lift the age 60 rule when the majority doesn't want it? Should we make John Kerry president since the minority wanted him? If you don't like the age 60 rule, go up to Canada and work for one of their airlines.

You are responding to an individual who removed himself from the process by resigning from the Collective Baragaining Agent, and now supports an individual that would scab.


Here's a response from a more level-headed voice:

Vice Chairman’s Message – August 23, 2005

Captain Wally Huggins, MEC Vice Chairman​

​

(FDX ALPA MEC)​

A Captain whom I respect very much stopped me recently in AOC to express his extreme displeasure with ALPA’s current stance on “Age 60” and the recent survey, which he perceived as biased. So disgusted is he that he said he was considering quitting ALPA. This man wears a “25 year” ALPA pin. I told him that I thought quitting was a bad idea, akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face. He listened, and I believe he concurred with that assessment in the end. But I listened to him too; his frustration is profound. Here are some thoughts on the subject, prompted by this conversation and other correspondence that I have had with pilots who, like my friend, would like the option to fly past 60.



1) Perspective #1 – It’s interesting but some of the pilots with whom I have spoken who oppose changing “Age 60” thought that the ALPA campaign and survey were biased toward change. And many of the pilots I know who support the change believe that ALPA was prejudiced against change. It seems that the eye of the beholder has a lot to do with what’s perceived.



2) Perspective #2 – It is entirely possible that a person’s perspective will change with time. Myriad personal factors comprise the decision-making software that causes one to fall into one camp or the other. And that software is subject to change. Marriages, divorces, kids, schools, age… the list is almost endless of the factors that come into play that may affect outlook. So, in some cases, what’s true for some one day may not be so cast in stone the next.



3) Quitting the Union… bad idea. A large, complex organization can be a poor entity for dealing with specific – and meaningful – parochial interests. ALPA definitely has an issue still outstanding, even given the last survey. “Age 60” is a dynamic issue with which our Association will have to continue to come to terms, by virtue of its members, or maybe the law (someday), or both. But big organizations also have their good points, particularly noticeable when you’re trying to negotiate a contract. And ladies and gentlemen, here at FedEx we are trying to negotiate our second CBA in a very challenging environment. Yes, retirement age is an issue that will continue to have to be addressed but to hold membership hostage to personal satisfaction on the issue is somewhat analogous to Americans leaving for Canada (or saying they will) when their favorite politician finishes second. In the end, it is always very hard to steer a boat from the water.


Additionally, it is very difficult to negotiate a contract for everyone when some of that “everyone” is deciding to feud over special interests. I have read that some think that resolving the “Age 60” issue (in their favor) will have a “unifying” effect on the pilots and help us deal, as an institution, with our management and our negotiations. I don’t see that happening. I believe that resolution to this issue lies in the long-term, through a civilized democratic process, not through the imposition of what is, for now, the will of the minority.



As is the case with many things, timing is an important facet of resolving this debate. Those who insist on trying to divide the pilots at this time, over this issue, are, I think, ill-advised. Let’s hang together through our negotiations and resolve this fraternal debate after we get our contract; for this contract, one way or the other, is going to directly and unequivocally reflect our ability to do just that.

And another:

Vice Chairman's Message

(FDX ALPA MEC)​

​

August 25, 2005​

Well, if e-mail responses are any indicator, the "Age 60" issue is one that polarizes thought process in a New York minute. The last Vice Chairman's Message that broached the subject struck a nerve with many.

And that is exactly the point. If I was employed by management to distract and divide the FedEx pilots during contract negotiations, I believe that I would "glom on" to an issue like this and use it to my advantage. I would use it as a wedge issue and make it the eye of the storm hoping that the discontent among some would spiral into a storm and, along the way, let the major issue sweep us and other less coalesce consequential differences among us to help break down focus and unity regarding negotiations.

In a couple of e-mails that I have received "Age 60" has served as an apparent launching point for pilots to express other sources of dissatisfaction with "ALPA", sometimes to the point of getting personal.

Naturally, any member of the MEC is certainly subject to criticism. It goes with the territory and is healthy and natural. And, members who pay dues are very much within their rights to express their opinions. In fact, such expressions are almost obligatory for members who hope to own their Association and the process. But, "process" is the operative word here, not ad homonym attacks or ultimatums.

"PROCESS" – n. a method of operation. What a concept. My thanks go to the e-mailers who thought the last V.C. message was on target. But, to those less enchanted or convinced, I offer… "Process". Members in good standing who would hope to change a minority opinion into a majority opinion have a process at their disposal. And it works. It starts with your LEC. Any member in good standing can avail himself to this way of doing business and it is the best way to change things vs. just protesting.

I have my opinions on "Age 60" and freely share them, in decision-making venues and elsewhere. I personally do not subscribe to the idea that "Age 60" is only about safety, but I do not believe that actions that cause harm or distraction to our Union are the smartest, or even most effective way, to change the status quo.

"Age 60' will ultimately resolve itself within the Association, by virtue of the members of the Association. This may happen in the relative short-term or it may take a while. In the meantime, as negotiations press on, some, it seems, intend to use their own feelings on the issue to strike out at "the Union", "the officers", or whomever, because resolution of their premier issue isn't progressing as they would like.

If you do not like "ALPA's" position on this issue, or any other, the first thing you need to do is to understand that you are "ALPA". The second thing to do would be to develop cogent arguments that would accrue to the benefit of, and convince, a majority of pilots. Step three would be to put those ideas in writing. Fourth, bring those ideas forth, in the form of resolutions, to your governing body (that would be your LEC). Lastly, and most importantly, you should be prepared to win, or lose, your case in a forum of open debate and majority rule.



I have, and will continue to have, opinions about this issue, the attendant information campaign and the resultant survey. And, my LEC leadership will know that opinion when we next convene. But, my resolve is to have this issue vetted internally, on a floor open to all opinions and yet obliged to acknowledge only one… the majority. It has to be that way. Anything short of that is anarchy, and if I was that aforementioned corporate management employee looking to boost my MBO bonus, that is exactly what I would be looking for among the pilots.

Right now, I want a contract and an intact Union at the end of the day. I want a reasonable and responsible acknowledgement, in writing and in $$$, of the efforts of the "average" line pilot. I want it yesterday. Others, it seems, want resolution on this one issue at any cost, and in their favor; negotiations notwithstanding.

Web sites, chat rooms, nasty e-mails and/or quitting ALPA won't change a thing. A little courtesy, spirited debate and democratic resolution will, to the ultimate chagrin of those waiting for "ALPA" (and our contract negotiations) to implode.

Thanks for your time.

There is a process. Participate, or shut up.

 

[FoxHunter]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. I'm thinking that you sold it to a pawn shop since you want the money so badly.



If you and your imaginary friend don't want to be in the union, that's fine. Go join your little apaad.org secrect society. I'm betting once they ask for dues you will run.

The ALPA dues is peanuts if you got what you thought you were getting. You're not.

BTW if your concerned about my "imaginary friend" I suggest you check with Wally.

 

[FoxHunter]

You are responding to an individual who removed himself from the process by resigning from the Collective Baragaining Agent, and now supports an individual that would scab.


Here's a response from a more level-headed voice:




And another:




There is a process. Participate, or shut up.

Tony, your real quick to call someone a scab. How many times have you been on strike as an ALPA pilot? I believe that individual may have been a striker in one of ALPAs longer strikes. I've been on strike twice, both short, and both sucessful.

I happen to be part of the process. As a member not supporting the party line you are subject to being brought up on charges by the union. That happend to one Tiger guy when we were dealing with Wolfman. I had little sympathy for the Embassy Suites group which this individual was involved. Turned out they were correct, big mistake to trust the leadership.

If I hear the rooster early in the morning I know the sun is, or is about to come up. That rooster does not make the sun come up, he just gives you a little wakeup call. I'm your rooster.

 

[PanelApe]

Age 60.....

The age 60 rule was reviewed by ALPA. They presented the issue to everyone, they educated everyone, they polled their members and they put it to a vote.

Vote your peace. Vote the way you think is correct, be an advocate for your position. But remember - you are just but one vote. One opinion of many. Regardless of how many strikes you have been a part of, or how many more you will endure.

There are people on both sides of the issue. Approaching Age 60 with 20 years in the company, lots of vacation, widebody captain pay - don't want to stop flying. Others who are 25, junior on the list, sitting in the back of the Boeing. There are others still who are furloughed, pilots who paid their dues who did not get a chance to vote. Each with their own opinion, some get one vote.

They voted, the results are in.

Bottom line: You vote what you believe in. You hope the results go your way. IF so - great. If not - that is the way the process works.

I know that people have strong opinions on the issue. But that is just ONE opinon. There is someone out there that feels just as strongly as you, in opposition. That doesn't make them wrong - only in opposed to your position.

But you have an opportunity to say your peace, get your opinion out there and try to convince people to vote your way.

Unless of course you aren't a member - then you need to shut your pie hole and quit your belly-aching. You don't have a speaking part in this play. The only thing worse than someone who doesn't contribute to the process is someone who sits on the sidelines and belly-aches about the results. If you don't pay dues and are not part of the process - you don't have a valued opinion. You may have an opinion - it just is not valued.

 

[Los1]

Panel Ape-

You hit the proverbial nail on the head!!
well said
Los1

 

[TonyC]

EX-ACTLY!


Most of us learned about the democratic process in grade school, both in the classroom and on the playground. Apparently, there are some folks out there that either A) did NOT learn about democracy, B) are so old and senile they forgot how democracy works, or C) are too selfish to care about how democracy is supposed to work.

My assessment is C).




.

 

[Semore Butts]

Par for the course

No surprises here.

The young guys screaming about getting rid of the old guys. They know all about being 60 except they haven't been to 50 yet!

Remember how smart yo were when you were 18? Then you hit 21 and realized what a dumbass you were at 18? Well that formula continues throughout your life.

Send them to corporate? (I guess life is easy over there) We hire alot of old guys where I work, and boy is it an eye opener for them. After about 6 months they either quite or they adapt.

There are a buttload of "old guys" in the guard and reserve flying combat missions in the mid east as we speak.

What we need is a system to monitor the health of all pilots regardless of their age, oh wait? We have that already! The Flight Physical.

It bugs me that you young guys could be so greedy and short sighted. If you are lucky, you will live to be an old guy, I hope you do.

I'm not worried though, as you mature your head will probably pop free of your ass.


Good luck be safe.

 

[hoya saxa]

I'm your rooster.

Well, you're definitely a c@ck!! Now back to your sandbox with all your toys crybaby.