ALPA National changes policy, now supports Age 65 retirement

[ERJFO]

How many RJ FO's are on the Executive Council?

 

[d328pilot]

I am corrected, it was the executive board. It consists of MEC chairmen, so I would assume that 0 were RJ FOs.

 

[CoAlpha]

lame, alpa is pure crap

 

[Poahi]

There are a few things about this course reversal which have become obvious to me:

1. There is no science behind it and safety has played no part in the debate.
2. It is a wealth transfer from junior pilots to senior ones.
3. This change takes away momentum for increasing pay and work rules and sends the message that ALPA has given up the will to fight.
4. It makes it easier for the Skybuses of the world to find pilots and will keep pilots at regionals for years longer.


ALPA's acquiescence on this issue makes ALPA irrelevant.

 

[fly4funcrj]

The bottom line is Alpa needs(wants) more money in the form of dues. If guys retire at 65 thats 5 more years of higher paying dues members paying alpa for their "second to none" services (sarcastic).. what's done is done.. Now it's time to move on.

 

[d328pilot]

So no more cheap shots for the Skybus and VA guys. The quality of life there has to be better than staying in the regionals for another 5 years.

 

[Prop2Jet]

I think 65 sucks why would we want to work more? O yeah I know why, if we have not planned responsibly with our money to ensure a good retirement! I guess I would need those 5 more years.....

 

[Speedtape]

There are a few things about this course reversal which have become obvious to me:

1. There is no science behind it and safety has played no part in the debate.
2. It is a wealth transfer from junior pilots to senior ones.
3. This change takes away momentum for increasing pay and work rules and sends the message that ALPA has given up the will to fight.
4. It makes it easier for the Skybuses of the world to find pilots and will keep pilots at regionals for years longer.


ALPA's acquiescence on this issue makes ALPA irrelevant.

Actually, the rule was going to change irregardless of ALPA's position. As I understand it, it was a roll call vote where each local Chairman voted the total number of members on his property.

The bottom line was, the rule was going to change--period! In order for ALPA to have a seat at the table in implementing the details, they had to change their position. Otherwise, you would have had Congress and government workers imposing restrictions on your work group without input from the largest pilot union. Government without representation would have allowed some convoluted changes to be made that may have affected even those under 60.

In the end, because of ALPA's change in position, they will have a strong voice in the process. It's political, but that is the way it is.

The other option was for ALPA was to hold their position and sit on the sidelines, with some 60,000 pilots having no representation during the legislative and implementation process. This was a no brainer.

It may be political, but I want my union having strong input into those kind of changes. I certainly don't want it left to professional politicians, governement workers, and other special interests groups.

 

[shroomwell]

This is all B.S. ALPA should have continued to support the majority and fight against it, perhaps they could have compromised and gone with age 62. Now with no opposition to it there will be no compromising. Instead ALPA is going to fight to make sure that FAA medical standards are not changed to ICAO so the old farts won't be booted from the left seat. Pretty clear to me.

 

[ASARJMan]

This is all B.S. ALPA should have continued to support the majority

Well old wise one, maybe ALPA IS supporting the majority (the recent poll perhaps) and understanding that Congress is going to change it regardless of what ALPA does. Just deal with it. You'll get your turn in the left seat.