ALPA National changes policy, now supports Age 65 retirement

[John Pennekamp]

As I stated, the FAA and Congress are going to change the rule regardless. ALPA wants input while the ruling is being discussed. Smart move on ALPA's aprt I think.

As stated above, they don't need to change their position to provide input during the ruling phase. I'd respect them a lot more if they respected the will of the membership and went down fighting.

This is nothing but an example of ALPA switching sides to make sure they're on the winning team at the end of the game.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

ALPA can be opposed to the chance and still provide input.

A fool is someone who doesn't realize he's being screwed.

Not really... in ALPA's history it has made many gains with favorable political support....

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

ALPA sucks and it's a total conflict of interest that they represent both majors and regionals.

Welcome to reality... let's deal with it the best way we can....

 

[John Pennekamp]

Not really... in ALPA's history it has made many gains with favorable political support....

Well, smart guy, let's see how "many" gains ALPA made in the past by swtching sides when things got heated. Go ahead list some for us.

Why would anyone in the beltway take ALPA seriously if they are going to be known as nothing more than fair weather fans who always want to side with the winning team?

Prater has changed nothing. It's still all about perception and nothing about substance with Alpa.

 

[John Pennekamp]

And Rez, since you didn't refute the claim that the EC went against the wishes of the membership, it would appear that you at least agree with that statement?

 

[ualdriver]

As stated above, they don't need to change their position to provide input during the ruling phase. I'd respect them a lot more if they respected the will of the membership and went down fighting.

This is nothing but an example of ALPA switching sides to make sure they're on the winning team at the end of the game.

John, where did you get your information that ALPA didn't need to change its position in order to provide input during the rule making phase? That's exactly opposite to what our legislative people at UAL are telling us.

FYI, if you look at the results of the poll, the will of the membership was not to "go down fighting" if a change to the Age 60 was inevitable. In fact, only 3 airlines (NWA, PDT, PSA) out of just over 30 airlines voted in the majority to maintain opposition to Age 60 no matter what.

 

[John Pennekamp]

John, where did you get your information that ALPA didn't need to change its position in order to provide input during the rule making phase? That's exactly opposite to what our legislative people at UAL are telling us.

FYI, if you look at the results of the poll, the will of the membership was not to "go down fighting" if a change to the Age 60 was inevitable. In fact, only 3 airlines (NWA, PDT, PSA) out of just over 30 airlines voted in the majority to maintain opposition to Age 60 no matter what.

I don't know why your people in Washington are saying that, but it doesn't make sense that the FAA would only be interested in opinions that back their proposal. Alpa could have opposed the change.

As for the results, it was done via roll call of the MEC chairmen, not a ballot of the membership. When the survey took place last October, the membership was 60% opposed to changing the rule. This time the survey results were not released. Gee, I wonder why...

 

[ualdriver]

I don't know why your people in Washington are saying that, but it doesn't make sense that the FAA would only be interested in opinions that back their proposal. Alpa could have opposed the change.

As for the results, it was done via roll call of the MEC chairmen, not a ballot of the membership. When the survey took place last October, the membership was 60% opposed to changing the rule. This time the survey results were not released. Gee, I wonder why...

John-

They're not "my" people per se. I'm talking my ALPA reps at UAL. Obviously there's a big uproar here at UAL, too- especially among the people that tend to be spectator unionists and didn't even take the time to take the poll. The poll results aren't being "hidden" as you say. Here are two questions here, courtesy of the NWA guys. Note the PATHETIC amount of "unionists" who couldn't take 15 minutes out of their day to participate in a poll such as this. I would bet some of the largest complainers on this forum didn't even take the time to do the survey themselves.

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

This whole process is political. I don't think the typical pilot understands the political nature of changes like this. I don't 100% either, but I question my representatives who do have a better understanding. This is what I'm being told, take it or leave it:

Pre 1/30/2007: ALPA was against age 65 and was "fighting" in the background on Capitol Hill and were successful until recently. ICAO passes rules which allow pilots to fly past the age of 60. The FAA/U.S. now faces the choice of denying all ICAO pilots access to U.S. airspace who are over the age of 60 or letting them fly in. They decide on the latter despite ALPA's lobbying. The FAA now realize that by doing that, every airline pilot in the U.S. is going to ask why an over 60 year old pilot ICAO pilot can fly in the U.S. but a U.S. pilot can't. So.........

1/30/2007 FAA Administrator Marion Blakely announces that the FAA will propose a new rule to allow pilots to fly until they are 65, the same as the ICAO standard.

5/16/2007 The Senate Commerce Committee comes out with their version of the FAA Reauthorization Bill, and as part of the bill the Age 65 language is included. The House is expected to do the same. According to ALPA's Government Affairs Department, Senators and Congressman who had previously supported ALPA's age 60 position were starting to switch sides, under pressure from whatever entities wanted the Age 60 rule gone (SWAPA, pensionless ALPA pilots who want the rule changed, groups who support the rights of older people like the AARP, etc.)

So basically ALPA is in a bad position. Due to the above, it's pretty clear that Age 60 is going away no matter what ALPA does. ALPA had been successful in the past with killing Age 65 attempts in the past, but no longer can win.

ALPA members clearly state that they want Age 60 to stay, but ALPA National knows it's not going to happen. So they have to make a choice: either continue a fight that is very likely unwinnable and be politically excluded from the new rulemaking that will ultimately govern the Age 65 crowd OR change their position and take part in the political process as the pilots desired in the latest poll taken. So the Executive Board voted to support the rule change as to not be excluded from the process of the ineveitable Age 65 rulemaking as we don't want an organization like the ATA (read: airline management) having more influence on the new Age 65 rules than ALPA.

 

[Freight Dog]

Can you see this happening too?

So the Executive Board voted to support the rule change as to not be excluded from the process of the ineveitable cabotage and foreign ownership rulemaking as we don't want an organization like the IATA (read: airline management) having more influence on the new cabotage and foreign ownership rules than ALPA.

So this begs the question...

Why do we even have ALPA? Can you think of better things to do with 1.95% of your paycheck? I sure can...

 

[ualdriver]

Can you see this happening too?



So this begs the question...

Why do we even have ALPA? Can you think of better things to do with 1.95% of your paycheck? I sure can...

I absolutely can see that happening. Basically what you're saying is, "Since ALPA doesn't get its way 100% of the time on all issues, then why have ALPA?" Well, we lose some fights and we win some. And we'll lose more in the future. I think cabotage and foreign ownership are issues that are bigger than ALPA and that we'll probably lose years down the road. I don't think ALPA can fight things like market forces (like what happened in the early 00's), globalization, etc., no matter how big ALPA is or how much $$ people give to ALPA-PAC. So to answer your question, IMO, ALPA should delay items like you mention for as long as they possibly can (like they did with Age 65- remember ALPA has "beaten" this issue every time it's come up until now). And when "bad things" do inevitably pass (cabotage, foreign ownership), ALPA can hopefully influence these things as much in our favor as possible. That's what I pay my 2% for. And of course if we get a few wins along the way, all the better.

Further, I get legal representation as needed, my contracts negotiated by professional negotiators, a top notch medical department if I ever have that theoretical career ending heart attack, someone to protect me if I make a decision that my company doesn't like, etc., etc. I guess if the protections/services that ALPA provides you aren't a good value for your 2%, you need to shop elsewhere. To me, it's a good value. In fact, the $$ that ALPA has obtained "on my behalf" during our bankruptcy process is more than I'll ever pay in ALPA dues my entire life. So maybe I'm biased.....