Alpa President Starting To Show Signs Of Leadership

[Huck]

Brotha man, I don't know who you are talking about, but our LEC meetings are held at midnight, and they're standing room only.

Man, we have gone over this... are you going to get over it...?? Move on....

That quote, that sentence right there, is going to be the downfall of our national organization. Oh don't worry, we'll still have a union, just not yours. Think it won't happen? It already did once.

National ALPA exists to lobby. When national ALPA doesn't lobby, it loses its reason to exist. Get over that.

p.s. I'd dearly love to know who is getting flight pay loss to type on this board, and the other one.

 

[PCL_128]

p.s. I'd dearly love to know who is getting flight pay loss to type on this board, and the other one.

Do what?

 

[Wiskey Driver]

Brotha man, I don't know who you are talking about, but our LEC meetings are held at midnight, and they're standing room only.



That quote, that sentence right there, is going to be the downfall of our national organization. Oh don't worry, we'll still have a union, just not yours. Think it won't happen? It already did once.

National ALPA exists to lobby. When national ALPA doesn't lobby, it loses its reason to exist. Get over that.

p.s. I'd dearly love to know who is getting flight pay loss to type on this board, and the other one.

Not me Huck, I'm off today.

WD.

 

[Huck]

Yeah, that's just the bitch in me talking.

Though in the weeks after the policy change, there were some real suspicious posters over at APC - multi-page, multi-paragraph posts spouting the exact party line over and over. From guys who previously would give you just a paragraph or two. Somebody would post against the MEC and they'd pounce immediately. Didn't they have any grass to cut?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Not in an official capacity, but I spoke privately with Mr. Voyack about it a couple of months ago.

What did he say? Are you suggesting that ALPA could have stood firm against Age60 changes and still been effective on the hill? The political fall out would have been acceptable?

Agreed, but the attempt wasn't even made. The polling was a shot in the dark hoping that the membership would back him up after all of the pension decimations. When that didn't go as hoped, he back-doored everything rather than communicate effectively with the membership. Prater actually started out ahead of the game in PR. The rank-and-file uneducated pilots hated Duane and saw Prater as their regular guy, line pilot savior. He managed to destroy all of that good-will with some truly horrible politics.

Well maybe Prater isn't the guy to be in there? We know how he got there.... (bad UAL bad....) How do you think DW would've handled it?

I wouldn't say Prater backed doored everythink... there was an info campaign distributed to the membership...

My iue is the membership is so one issue orientated. They hated DW because he wasn't the 'share the pain' kinda guy.. and now there is a new guy, Prater, nad he is no good.

I mean when is the membership going to take some repsonsibility...

I'm not so sure. I've heard all of the same arguments that the EC did, some of it directly from Prater, and my opinion still remains that the ALPA policy in favor of Age-60 shouldn't change. We can maintain our policy in favor of Age-60 and still have an influence over any rule change that does happen.

So the rule is going to change... it is just how we feel about ourselves as the rule changes...????

That is like personal preference on how to handle your rapist.. Some say fight.. maybe gouge out an eye.. but that may just piss him off even more.. others say lay there in silence..that resisting only makes the act more painful...

Come on Rez, I wasn't being literal. He didn't actually say out loud "%$* off," but he might as well have through his actions. By taking several polls and then ignoring the results, it's no different than telling the members to just keep their mouths shut and follow him.

Fair enough....


Age 60 to me is a big bump in the road.... but to waste too much time on it is futile... Open Skies is the Solid Brick wall that will stop our careers dead in its tracks....

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Brotha man, I don't know who you are talking about, but our LEC meetings are held at midnight, and they're standing room only.

I've heard of pilots hanging out in the rec room next door while the meeting was in progress....

That quote, that sentence right there, is going to be the downfall of our national organization. Oh don't worry, we'll still have a union, just not yours. Think it won't happen? It already did once.

What.............. the APA?

National ALPA exists to lobby. When national ALPA doesn't lobby, it loses its reason to exist. Get over that.

ok.... what is your point?

p.s. I'd dearly love to know who is getting flight pay loss to type on this board, and the other one.

I know... what really gets me though is why use balck helicopters? Soooo expensive....I mean ALPA could easily rent a black van and park outside your house and run its 'message board misinformation campaign' from there.... or maybe...


psst.. Huck................check out your window... Is the 'pest exterminator' there....

 

[Full of LUV]

It's a matter of prespective....

Age 60 to me is a big bump in the road.... but to waste too much time on it is futile... Open Skies is the Solid Brick wall that will stop our careers dead in its tracks....

If your 50 and up, most likely a captain, then age 65 is a bump, if your junior and a CP, then it is a 5 year holding pattern in which you delay upgrade, probably until after your family is grown and out the door. To us, age 65 is a power/money grab and I would have preferred ALPA spent it's resources fighting the "windfall" to some pilots on the backs of others even if it had no influence in the end. Now, I won't give ALPA another dime of my money as they use it to stab me.

Rez, by your logic, open skies is probably an eventuality, so why not support it now in congress and help "influence" it's emergence? Oh yeah, because that might hurt the Captains in the union.

If ALPA really thought that the age 65 thing is inevitable, and not just because "everyone else is doing it" then why not try and craft the rule change over a 10 year plan like fly to age 61 until 2009, then fly to 62 until 2011, fly to age 63 until 2013 etc. At least then there is no specific wind fall group, but, oh yeah, that doesn't serve the power players as well does it.

I think the upper half of this union is completely out of touch and they are serving up the end of ALPA with their stances and implementations.
LUV

 

[ualdriver]

To us, age 65 is a power/money grab and I would have preferred ALPA spent it's resources fighting the "windfall" to some pilots on the backs of others even if it had no influence in the end. Now, I won't give ALPA another dime of my money as they use it to stab me.

You would have preferred that. Unfortunately, ALPA isn't your personal union. The latest poll concerning Age 60 showed that the membership wanted ALPA not to "fight to the end," but to take part in the rule making process once the fight was lost. If you don't believe me, search on my screenname. I've posted two questions from that poll twice already on this forum. One of them directed ALPA to do the opposite of what you personally want as you state above.

Rez, by your logic, open skies is probably an eventuality, so why not support it now in congress and help "influence" it's emergence? Oh yeah, because that might hurt the Captains in the union.

I too believe open skies is inevitable. Just as I thought Age 65 was/is. But I still want ALPA to use all of its resources to delay/divert/stall until it becomes inevitable. When it gets to that point, then I want them to have as much influence as possible to make the rules as favorable to U.S. pilots as possible. I don't want them to support it "now." Later, when politically unavoidable, but not now.

If ALPA really thought that the age 65 thing is inevitable, and not just because "everyone else is doing it" then why not try and craft the rule change over a 10 year plan like fly to age 61 until 2009, then fly to 62 until 2011, fly to age 63 until 2013 etc. At least then there is no specific wind fall group, but, oh yeah, that doesn't serve the power players as well does it.

Because you're assuming ALPA shows up on the Hill and says "jump" and all of Congress says, "how high?" That's not the way it works, and you should know that. There's a million different "schemes" that would accomplish what you want, but they're politically unattainable. I have little doubt, however, that ALPA will get some things that we want because we're taking part in the process.

I think the upper half of this union is completely out of touch and they are serving up the end of ALPA with their stances and implementations.

You could make that argument for any decisive, political issue, covering everything from union politics to local town hall politics. One half wins, one half loses. The half that loses says their representational body is "out of touch." The other half feels fairly represented because they won. I guess when I'm on the losing side of decisive issues, I don't threaten to secede from the Union.

 

[Freight Dog]

Man, I really try to stay away from this crap. I really do...

Look UALDriver... you can't tell me that ALPA wouldn't have a voice or influence in implementation of Age 65 rule if it maintained opposition.

Here are at least two reasons:

- Duane Woerth who mind you was a staunch opponent of raising the retirement age, was appointed as a chairman of ARC pertaining to Age 60 rule.

- You cannot just spring this change upon ALPA because the rule change itself will have a huge impact on CBA's which will all have to be renegotiated regardless whether ALPA supports or opposes any rule changes.

Besides, the Administrator only said... they intend to put forth a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to change the Age 60 rule.

... and ALPA throws in the towel, calls it unavoidable, etc. Interesting... especially since Darth Prater already stated during his campaign that he supports changing the Age 60, but that he will support the majority's wishes.

Now... if all you expect out of ALPA is stall tactics until something becomes "inevitable" and then throw in the towel, I gotta ask... didn't ALPA already outlive its usefulness?

 

[BeCareful!]

As a recent CAL upgrade, I can tell you that without a doubt, Darth Prater's own self interest is seeing to it that his contemporaries, those he will represent as a first priority, see a huge windfall! There are those senior members that he cares about, and then there is everybody else. If you're in the left seat and have 20 years seniority and are facing retirement, the only thing you care about is staying right where you. There is NO other issue really and Prater knows this. They won't fight off overseas control, cabotage, or anthing else! They'll use those things to their own benefit.

He's taking care of who he cares about, while you're falling right into his plan.

Guys: Call your union and ask whether or not financial analysis of age 65 effects is underway. I've learned that it is at CAL and that Prater's minions are working hard to try to make this look less lopsided. It's really ugly.

Thank you for confirming what most of us have been thinking all along about Prater.