ALPA Age 65 Vote

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Because they are a bunch of old bastards with an agenda?

Because they willfully disregarded the will of its membership?

This isn't debating... this is..... what? name calling?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

No, hence the elitism. He has basically said "I know we've thoroughly educated the members on this issue, and I know that the majority wants to keep the current policy, but I know what's best for them better than they do." If I ever start to behave that way in office, then I hope someone recalls me.

Elitism? Please.

How about the EVP's have recieved briefings from gov't affairs and other staffers on the issue.

I asked you before and I am not sure you replied:

If the LEC membership directs the LEC officers to vote a certain way is the Officer obligated? For example, a TA. The membership is angry at the company for the poor treatment over the years and is determined to shoot down any TA as a sign of defiance. But the MEC, CA and arbitrator have determned that the TA is pretty good and a return to the table might make things worse. In short the TA is a good deal.

So a few politically saavy but radical LEC memebers either call a special LEC meeting or at the next LEC meeting they present a resolution that directs the LEC officers to vote no. In addition, this radical clique was a small minority of the LEC membership as a whole, but yet a majority at the meeting.

And you would do what?

[reference the Admin Manual]

Because Prater has managed to convince them that we can't be involved in the rule-making process if we keep the current policy. This is, of course, absurd, but Prater can be very convincing on this issue. This seems to be the one issue that Prater has any real passion for at this point.

The Prez is one guy directed by the EC, EB and BOD.

I think you'll find that the EB vote comes down much differently. It will probably still pass, but there will be a large number of NO votes. The EB already received Prater's briefing on this issue earlier this week, and many of them are still planning on voting NO. It's a shame that members of the EC were so easily swayed.

Let's see how the vote goes down. Often, people say they will vote "hard core" and fail to do so... recall no one voted for Bill Clinton.

Your last sentence.... is a bit arrogant...

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Complain, complain, complain...yet...not one LEC/MEC has been recalled over this. It all starts at home, boys

That is the problem Tejas... they are all at home and not at LEC meetings...

(except you FJ)



I do believe if ALPA pilots were truley active in our careers that we could be a strong enough force.. A force that the FAA and DOT would know not to mess with.... but then I woke up.....

 

[PCL_128]

Elitism? Please.

How about the EVP's have recieved briefings from gov't affairs and other staffers on the issue.

This issue was discussed at our MEC meeting this week, and we received a briefing from the MEC Chairman that summarized the briefing he and the rest of the Executive Board received on Monday. There was no new information. Nothing has changed. Prater is merely arguing the same point over and over again: the rule is going to change, so you might as well change the policy and get over it. Well, I'm sorry, but that's not a good enough argument to sway the membership, and it's not a good enough argument to sway me. I've spoken to the senior Leg Affairs lobbyist in Herndon about this issue, and he agrees that there's nothing we can do to change the momentum, but he also stated that changing our policy would not give us any more access to the process than we would have if we retained our current policy. As long as that's the case, then we need to respect the will of the membership. This is supposed to be a bottom-up organization. The membership is supposed to have the power. It seems that a select few have forgotten that. I wonder what Duane thinks about what has become of this union in just a few short months.

I asked you before and I am not sure you replied:

If the LEC membership directs the LEC officers to vote a certain way is the Officer obligated? For example, a TA. The membership is angry at the company for the poor treatment over the years and is determined to shoot down any TA as a sign of defiance. But the MEC, CA and arbitrator have determned that the TA is pretty good and a return to the table might make things worse. In short the TA is a good deal.

So a few politically saavy but radical LEC memebers either call a special LEC meeting or at the next LEC meeting they present a resolution that directs the LEC officers to vote no. In addition, this radical clique was a small minority of the LEC membership as a whole, but yet a majority at the meeting.

And you would do what?

[reference the Admin Manual]

I can assure you, I'm well aware of the Admin Manual. The answer is dependant on too many factors to give you a yes/no answer. What does the Wilson Polling say? Does this "radical clique" represent the will of the majority, or is it just a small group that managed a good turnout at a single meeting? Has the leadership conducted roadshows to explain to the membership what they feel of the situation?

Besides, your example doesn't fit the current age-60 situation. Here's the facts:

1. ALPA's policy has been in effect for 27 years.

2. Despite this policy, ALPA has been involved in two Aviation Rulemaking Committees on this issue, and has continued to be involved in the process. In fact, Captain Woerth (an ardent opponent of a rule change) was co-Chairman on the first ARC!

3. Under Duane's leadership, ALPA sent out educational material for month after month that covered every possible aspect of this issue. Despite his personal opposition to a rule change, he made sure that all material was neutral. In fact, many members felt that it was too favorable towards the change side. The membership is very educated on this issue.

4. Two internet polls and a phone poll have now been conducted. The first internet poll and the latest phone poll both indicated a consistent majority in favor of the current rule. I haven't heard the results of the internet poll that just finished yesterday, but I suspect you'll find similar results.

The Prez is one guy directed by the EC, EB and BOD.

Agreed. That's why I'm hoping that the EB does the right thing and tells Prater what he can do with his resolution.

Your last sentence.... is a bit arrogant...

No, arrogance is telling your members that you know what's best for them better than they do.

 

[PCL_128]

WOW! I thought that I was the only one who missed Duane. Say what you want about the guy, he followed the will of the membership, even if he personally disagreed on the issue.

You're certainly not alone. I've talked with many BOD members who voted for Prater that now deeply regret their decision. Captain Woerth took all of the heat for a downturn that he had no control over. He kept this Association in excellent shape, and he was booted out to thank him for his efforts. If the election were held again today, I'd wager that Duane would win in a landslide.

I've seen statements that Duane wanted to change age 60, but ALWAYS strongly opposed any change when he spoke in public.

Actually, Duane was personally opposed to any change in the rule. He was pretty adament about it, in fact.

 

[Phaedrus]

And here's some news...the FedEx MEC looks like they'll support retrocactivity on this issue although the "overwhelming majority" is against the policy to begin with..........

 

[airfogey]

I've been away for awhile, but watching this thread and talking about unity in
ALPA is hilarious. Ain't no unity in ALPA and there won't be. The big elephant in the room is that the rest of the world went to age 65 last November, and unless ALPA is going to vigorously oppose over 60 pilots for foreign carriers flying in our airspace as being unsafe then the rest of the young crewmembers wanting to keep age 60 to speed their advancement is kind of like trying to argue that the world is flat after everyone knew it was round.

Airfogey

 

[Flopgut]

But that's the very problem, Rez. The members have participated in democracy by voting in this poll, but Prater and the EC have snubbed them and done their own thing. The senior leadership tells people to get involved, but then ignores the will of the members when they do. This is not how we encourage participation.

Man, I'm glad to see this post from you!

Prater is thinking outside the box and with ZERO regard for the bottom half of the list. Time to take the gloves off and start thinking the same way IMHO.

There have been instances in the past where pilot groups addressed an unsafe practice thru monetary penalty. Specifically, dangerously long duty days were shortened by the pilot group negotiating zero overtime pay after a certain point (greed and egos were kept in check). Let's do the same now. If they change the rule, fine they can come to work. But, they should not be paid anything after age 60; We should change our CBAs to make this a reality. Yeah, that's harsh. But do you think the union leadership's COMPLETE lack of regard for those adversely affected is any less harsh? They're thinking outside the box to screw us, let's stop argueing and do the same. The majority does not support age 60, let's use that advantage.

 

[JoeMerchant]

This issue was discussed at our MEC meeting this week, and we received a briefing from the MEC Chairman that summarized the briefing he and the rest of the Executive Board received on Monday. There was no new information. Nothing has changed. Prater is merely arguing the same point over and over again: the rule is going to change, so you might as well change the policy and get over it. Well, I'm sorry, but that's not a good enough argument to sway the membership, and it's not a good enough argument to sway me. I've spoken to the senior Leg Affairs lobbyist in Herndon about this issue, and he agrees that there's nothing we can do to change the momentum, but he also stated that changing our policy would not give us any more access to the process than we would have if we retained our current policy. As long as that's the case, then we need to respect the will of the membership. This is supposed to be a bottom-up organization. The membership is supposed to have the power. It seems that a select few have forgotten that. I wonder what Duane thinks about what has become of this union in just a few short months.

Ahhh.... poetic justice.... watching PCL_128 complain about ALPA..... Now that you don't like what ALPA is doing, it is OK for YOU to complain about it..... what a hypocrite....

 

[JoeMerchant]

Boy does ALPA have itself in a pickle now.....

It has flip-flopped on the age 60 rule 3 times now.... from against to for to against... all depending on the A fund retirements of it's top members....

It has ignored a realistic solution to seniority and scope such that the USairways and Astar pilots are talking about punching out.....

The lawsuits are mounting and ALPA is floundering.....

The only unity is on the OTHER side of the table.....

 

[PCL_128]

Ahhh.... poetic justice.... watching PCL_128 complain about ALPA..... Now that you don't like what ALPA is doing, it is OK for YOU to complain about it..... what a hypocrite....

As usual, you aren't paying very close attention, John. I'm not complaining about the organization. I'm complaining about a single man that has managed to twist the system around in order to achieve a result that he wants. Thankfully we have several levels of governance, so hopefully the EB will be able to see through Prater's arguments. In the end, it's up to us as members to fix the situation. If the EB approves this nonsense, then the membership needs to step up and put new leadership in place that will do as the membership has directed.

P.S. I really miss Duane.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

This issue was discussed at our MEC meeting this week, and we received a briefing from the MEC Chairman that summarized the briefing he and the rest of the Executive Board received on Monday. There was no new information. Nothing has changed. Prater is merely arguing the same point over and over again: the rule is going to change, so you might as well change the policy and get over it. Well, I'm sorry, but that's not a good enough argument to sway the membership, and it's not a good enough argument to sway me. I've spoken to the senior Leg Affairs lobbyist in Herndon about this issue, and he agrees that there's nothing we can do to change the momentum, but he also stated that changing our policy would not give us any more access to the process than we would have if we retained our current policy. As long as that's the case, then we need to respect the will of the membership. This is supposed to be a bottom-up organization. The membership is supposed to have the power. It seems that a select few have forgotten that. I wonder what Duane thinks about what has become of this union in just a few short months.

All though a majority of the minority have spoken on Age 60.... bottom up? Yeah right.... It looks like the same particaption level for the first and second poll: about 36%

Quit acting like Age60 is THE issue....

1. ALPA's policy has been in effect for 27 years.

And ALPA opposed Age 60 whe it was enacted then flip floped when it had monetary implications.... ALPA adjusted with the times..

2. Despite this policy, ALPA has been involved in two Aviation Rulemaking Committees on this issue, and has continued to be involved in the process. In fact, Captain Woerth (an ardent opponent of a rule change) was co-Chairman on the first ARC!

ok.

3. Under Duane's leadership, ALPA sent out educational material for month after month that covered every possible aspect of this issue. Despite his personal opposition to a rule change, he made sure that all material was neutral. In fact, many members felt that it was too favorable towards the change side. The membership is very educated on this issue.

The memebrship had the ability to be very educated... We may disagree a bit...

4. Two internet polls and a phone poll have now been conducted. The first internet poll and the latest phone poll both indicated a consistent majority in favor of the current rule. I haven't heard the results of the internet poll that just finished yesterday, but I suspect you'll find similar results.

Two internet polls with about 36% particaption...

Agreed. That's why I'm hoping that the EB does the right thing and tells Prater what he can do with his resolution.

Democracy baby!

No, arrogance is telling your members that you know what's best for them better than they do.

Well...only time will tell on that....



You miss Duane? Talk to the UAL guys....

 

[Andy]

And here's some news...the FedEx MEC looks like they'll support retrocactivity on this issue although the "overwhelming majority" is against the policy to begin with..........

I've been following that. I hope that the guys at FedEx who oppose these guys returning start a recall on their MEC. Even though the verbage in the current legislation gives no return rights, FedEx's MEC chair can allow over 60 ropes to return to the left seat with a simple letter of agreement with the company.
At United, the previous MEC Chairman gave unlimited max 76 seat RJs to the company on a simple letter of agreement. I can see FedEx's MEC chair doing the same thing with giving over 60 FEs the right to bid back to the left seat.

 

[FoxHunter]

I've been following that. I hope that the guys at FedEx who oppose these guys returning start a recall on their MEC. Even though the verbage in the current legislation gives no return rights, FedEx's MEC chair can allow over 60 ropes to return to the left seat with a simple letter of agreement with the company.
At United, the previous MEC Chairman gave unlimited max 76 seat RJs to the company on a simple letter of agreement. I can see FedEx's MEC chair doing the same thing with giving over 60 FEs the right to bid back to the left seat.

Hmm! LOA? My information back in January is that the company plans to return any S/O that has been out of the Captain or F/O seat for less than 24 months. There have also been a number of guys that have gone on a LOA just prior to age 60 to avoid training as a S/O. does that give you any idea of the companies intent?

No LOA really necessary because those over 60 S/Os have rights based on the current contract and thei positon on the seniority list.

 

[AlbieF15]

I hope that the guys at FedEx who oppose these guys returning start a recall on their MEC. .

May just be happening. We'll see if the junior guys are serious or just blustering. Should be an interesting couple of weeks...