ALPA Age 65 Vote

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Actually, Regionaltard gets it.

...

Age 65 is coming with or without ALPA. Doesn't matter how many pilots vote or how they voted. When ICAO started to allow foreign pilots to fly into this country up to age 65 last November, it was over.

Just like de-regulation, just like open skies, just like post 9/11.

Congressmen are running away from ALPA on the hill. The ones ALPA used to take for granted on this issue know what the score is and their support is going soft.

Do you have further information? or a reference?

The "it's all about safety" justification was never credible and has been overcome by events. For ALPA to have at least some influence on how the new law will be implemented, it has to get out in front now or risk being completely irrelavant.

agreed, except I wouldn't say irrelevent, rather advesarial....

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

You mean it's not already?

ALPA has shown that it'll fold through the concessionary era, and now with Age 60 debate, once again, it's folding.

Tell me... if our government accepts Open Skies and unilaterally allows cabotage, so Albanian Airlines can fly pax from LAX to LAS, what's ALPA gonna do?

Yeah... that's what I thought.

Actually ALPA, the TTD and the AFL-CIO will do something... it is really too bad that gus like you are so disconnected, spiteful and cynical. It is atttitudes like yours that really effect the efficiency of the organization. And when guys get on here to explain that your perception is not aligned with reality you argue and fight even harder to keep your attitude...

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Sure! To a certain extent, very true. But what does not have to happen...what should never be allowed to happen...is a senior minority of the membership remortgaging the rest of the current membership, and all of the future membership, into a deal that serves their own selfish needs. Which is EXACTLY what age 65 seeks to do.

Look, it's great that you've decided to be optimistic. But I don't think you're being honest with yourself.

So expalin the cause and effect in detail of ALPA standing hard and fast the way you want.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Rez... can you honestly say that ALPA actually WANTS membership participation? Because given the actions of our ALPA leadership, they don't seem to give a flying f**k about what membership wants.

This is your emotional opinion.

So here we go:

1) Start going enmasse to the union meetings and demand our MEC starts the recall process of all ALPA officers at Herndon, and send our management a sign that ALPA's house in burning from within.

Why? Why not show up at meetings and be a part of the democratic process.

2) Say F**K ALPA! and just mind our own business... because regardless of how we feel or vote about an issue, despite the numbers, ALPA leadership is going to do as it damn well pleases...

ALPA leadership is repsonding to the activity on the Hill. When are you going to start talking about the forces that are driving this.. the FAA, DOT, ICAO, WH, EU....

Nice choices....

You are so angry and myopic it hurts...

 

[Freight Dog]

Rez... you really are out to lunch, my friend. Do you even read your posts?

Why? Why not show up at meetings and be a part of the democratic process.

Really? First of all, I DO show up at my meetings. We're talking ALPA National here. What difference does it make to be a part of the democratic process when the leadership doesn't honor the wishes of the majority? That's like the elections in Iraq during Saddam Hussein era. It's a farce...

ALPA leadership is repsonding to the activity on the Hill. When are you going to start talking about the forces that are driving this.. the FAA, DOT, ICAO, WH, EU...

Uh huh... how much political clout do I have? How much clout does ALPA have? When ALPA folds... they made its membership fold despite the membership wishes.

So once again... what is the incentive to participate in Saddam Hussein-like democracy?

Yes... you are right, I am indeed angry, but I'm angry because democracy and the wishes of the majority are not only being ignored, but our leadership is doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of the wishes of the majority.

Myopic? Hardly sir... Angry? You bet!

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Rez... you really are out to lunch, my friend. Do you even read your posts?

Lunch..no... I just came back from dinner though... :beer:

Really? First of all, I DO show up at my meetings. We're talking ALPA National here. What difference does it make to be a part of the democratic process when the leadership doesn't honor the wishes of the majority? That's like the elections in Iraq during Saddam Hussein era. It's a farce...

Does Congressmen do what the majority wants? Democracy doesn't mean carte blanc will of the people. That is anarchy! You haven't addressed the fact that ALPA is playing reality. Sure you and the membership want Age60 to stand. but it is going to change regardless of what you think!

Give us a detailed scenario analysis of what will happen if ALPA resist age 60.

Uh huh... how much political clout do I have? How much clout does ALPA have? When ALPA folds... they made its membership fold despite the membership wishes.

Again..Give us a detailed scenario analysis of what will happen if ALPA resist age 60.

IOW words tell us how the ATA, FAA, DOT, WH and ICAO will respond if ALPA goes hard core against Age 60.

Also, how will the legislation play out for airline pilots if ALPA resists?

So once again... what is the incentive to participate in Saddam Hussein-like democracy?

That is deep...

Yes... you are right, I am indeed angry, but I'm angry because democracy and the wishes of the majority are not only being ignored, but our leadership is doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of the wishes of the majority.

I've already debated this.. the leadership might have more information than you do... trust is not even an option....

Myopic? Hardly sir... Angry? You bet

Who seriously deals with angry? Angry gets invited to leave. Angry doesn't get invited to the table of change.

Anger leads to the dark side....

 

[Freight Dog]

Oh brother... around and around in circles we go.

Let me put it another way:

If Open Skies is "imminent" just like Age 65, as you say, part of the globalization... why is it necessary to even have ALPA if they won't represent the will of their members? Isn't it easier just to say screw it, play a dipsh*t hippie not wanting to fight? If that's the case... I want my money back.

 

[Flopgut]

Not sure the senior types went to the gov't and pushed this. Do you have information that this is a long standing senior pilot agenda.

Before I go dig out any "information" for you, please explain the above statement. If you actually have to have the whole APAAD mission statement and membership demographic refreshed for you, you're a lost cause.

Honestly, that is one of the most cluesless sounding posts ever.

 

[Flopgut]

So expalin the cause and effect in detail of ALPA standing hard and fast the way you want.

The union does not need to be involved in the formulation of the rule. ALPA should withdraw input and re-interate that it IS a safety issue. Let the rule come to be, then deal with it. ANY attempt to have input on the rule's formulation invites an attempt to further enhace the outcome for one part of the group. Let it happen, and the same number of pilots, in aggregate, will be adversly or positively affected. Yes, that's rolling the dice, but it's also the truth.

What you and regionaltard don't get is this: We can't let up on our union's position that this is opposed by the majority. Union members have to keep things simple. Sure, changes happen in the workplace. But if everybody overthinks and overproduces union work and tries to make it completely intellectual, it will fail. We are skilled, organized labor. Keep it simple. Continuously and vigorously hold the line on age 65, because that is what the membership's majority wants! Yes, it might change. But never let anyone forget that it should not have. I completely understand what both you and Tard have said on here. But you have to think beyond that. You CAN be too smart for union work. You don't want to let anyone confuse or overinform your membership.

The same ingredients could be added to a cabotage salad, and you and regionaltard will end up rationalizing that it looks tasty.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Oh brother... around and around in circles we go.

Let me put it another way:

If Open Skies is "imminent" just like Age 65, as you say, part of the globalization... why is it necessary to even have ALPA if they won't represent the will of their members? Isn't it easier just to say screw it, play a dipsh*t hippie not wanting to fight? If that's the case... I want my money back.

In the recent open skies negotitaions labor was to be excluded. That would've meant pilots would have been left to the scraps of the deal. ALPA and labor fought hard for inclusion...

All you guys know is... "ALPA isn't doing what I want" And you can't get past that. and since you can't you refuse to (even consider to) understand (not agree!) why ALPA is going in a different direction...

Again.. age60 is nothing if our jobs are given away in open skies...

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Before I go dig out any "information" for you, please explain the above statement. If you actually have to have the whole APAAD mission statement and membership demographic refreshed for you, you're a lost cause.

Honestly, that is one of the most cluesless sounding posts ever.

So you are saying that APAAD sat down witrh the WH, DOT and FAA and said "let's make it 65?"

 

[PCL_128]

The union does not need to be involved in the formulation of the rule. ALPA should withdraw input.

This is where you and I part ways. The resolution that I'm pushing at our MEC demands that the Age-60 policy of the Association stay as is, but it also states specifically that we should continue to be a party to any NPRM or ARC processes, and we should continue to talk with lawmakers about our concerns should the rule change. To completely extricate ourselves from the process is suicide.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

The union does not need to be involved in the formulation of the rule. ALPA should withdraw input and re-interate that it IS a safety issue. Let the rule come to be, then deal with it. ANY attempt to have input on the rule's formulation invites an attempt to further enhace the outcome for one part of the group. Let it happen, and the same number of pilots, in aggregate, will be adversly or positively affected. Yes, that's rolling the dice, but it's also the truth.

Thanks for the reply. I do, disagree. I find this irresponsible on the unions part. The same thought process could apply to concessionary bargaining. The company says "we need paycuts" The union says "no way" The company says "negoatiate or we will furlough even more". The union has a responsbility to protect and save as many jobs as possible.

What you and regionaltard don't get is this: We can't let up on our union's position that this is opposed by the majority. Union members have to keep things simple. Sure, changes happen in the workplace. But if everybody overthinks and overproduces union work and tries to make it completely intellectual, it will fail. We are skilled, organized labor. Keep it simple. Continuously and vigorously hold the line on age 65, because that is what the membership's majority wants! Yes, it might change. But never let anyone forget that it should not have. I completely understand what both you and Tard have said on here. But you have to think beyond that. You CAN be too smart for union work. You don't want to let anyone confuse or overinform your membership.

Valid point, perhaps the results of this age60/65 issue will validate (or not) the method.

The same ingredients could be added to a cabotage salad, and you and regionaltard will end up rationalizing that it looks tasty.

Maybe I'll order the soup instead...

 

[Flybynite]

The union does not need to be involved in the formulation of the rule. ALPA should withdraw input and re-interate that it IS a safety issue.

Keep burying your head deeper in the sand. Don't forget the argument, "we all knew the rules when we got hired", that's always a crowd favorite. But seriously you really need to get a life, maybe a hobby or two.

 

[Flopgut]

Thanks for the reply. I do, disagree. I find this irresponsible on the unions part. The same thought process could apply to concessionary bargaining. The company says "we need paycuts" The union says "no way" The company says "negoatiate or we will furlough even more". The union has a responsbility to protect and save as many jobs as possible.

Rez & PCL 128:

Good point: Concessionary bargaining. If a union takes a vote on paycuts the results should always be made available outside the union only as a "yes" or "no" result. Never tell them the percentage. If paycuts pass by a wide margin it sends the signal to management that they should ask for more. Think about it, If 90% of the pilots thought giving 25% back to the company was a good idea, they'll want 5% more.

Same is true with the retiement age change. If ALPA can re-formulate the intended spirit of the membership polling, endear themselves to some anciliary component of the cause and change the vote metrics, before you know it, they'll be able to say 90% of ALPA agreed to it! And at that point, Flybynite and the rest of them will be coming back for more. We have to keep the pressure on the issue so they know they barely got this done (if it happens) and they will know better than to ask for more.

As unlikely as it may seem, I am 99% sure APAAD won't be going away. It won't be enough. Two years into the changed age, the entire arguement will start all over again.

Of course first they are going to sue ALPA. That will be another thread.