Alpa President Starting To Show Signs Of Leadership

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I believe if we become more effective as a 60,000 member group we can effective postive protections for Open Skies.

Being a one issue, non informed, loud mouth-do-nothing member, like the membership is clearly behaving on this age 60 rule, is not going to work. Is age 60 working for you guys? No..because all you do bitch and complain...you've no idea how to effect positive change....

The deal with Prater is a excellent example.... You all hated DW but he was a big pro age 60 guy. He had ALL the connections in Wash DC.. If anyone could influence age 60 to stay it was DW!

But no...you had to hate DW... he had to be the sole source for all your fallen career expectations and your misery.... You guys are like ten year old kids... You hate your parents but have no clue what they do to provide what you take for granted... the basics... food, a house, clothing, education, etc...

So you sent your representives (that you probalby did not particapte in the election) to the BOD to vote on the ALPA president... You are so far disconnected with your leadership.... the UAL guys pulled thier bulls!t and no one has called them on it... now you got Prater....

You got no one to blame but yourselves.......

 

[ualdriver]

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.

You're right. I can't. Get into contact with your ALPA representatives who handle ALPA legislative matters. Ask them what the political consequences of continued ALPA fighting would have been. I don't trust nameless people on an internet forum, so I called the people who are familiar with the matter and solicited their opinions. Using the information I gain from being a well informed ALPA member, my own outside reading and understanding of a union's role in the national political process, I came to a conclusion. My conclusion is that continued ALPA resistance to the inevitable change in the Age 65 rule would have greatly reduced, if not eliminated, our influence on the rule making that will goven the Age 65 rule change. That is not in my interest as an ALPA member. What are you basing your opinion on?

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

The document I have says that on January 30th, 2007, FAA Administrator Blakely said the FAA will propose a new rule to allow pilots to fly until they are 65. And once a rule gets to the NPRM stage, its basically going to happen. You're putting too much emphasis on the "proposed" part of a NPRM IMO.

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?

Actually no, I don't think it has outlived its usefulness and I think we've discussed this before. I think there are many things that ALPA can accomplish poltically on behalf of the pilot group outside of Age 65 or cabotage or whatever other issues are coming down the road. Did you know, for example, that one of our Congressmen recently tried to get language inserted into anti-terrorist type bill that would have made any strike by a transportation worker illegal? How devastating would that have been to the collective bargaining process? Our ALPA friendly representatives got that language removed. And that's one example of probably many where I feel ALPA hasn't outlived its usefulness at all.

We have many, many enemies as members of organized labor. Just because you don't read on the front page of the Washington Post every "little" thing ALPA does/has done/will do for its pilot group, doesn't mean ALPA has outlived its "usefulness" in my opinion. We're going to win battles, we're going to lose battles. I just don't think every time we lose one that we should disband ALPA and start over.

But who am I to say that ALPA hasn't outlived usefulness per your definition? If you think they have, replace them and find an organization that meets your definition of "usefulness." Good luck.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

We have many, many enemies as members of organized labor. Just because you don't read on the front page of the Washington Post every "little" thing ALPA does/has done/will do for its pilot group, doesn't mean ALPA has outlived its "usefulness" in my opinion. We're going to win battles, we're going to lose battles. I just don't think every time we lose one that we should disband ALPA and start over.

But who am I to say that ALPA hasn't outlived usefulness per your definition? If you think they have, replace them and find an organization that meets your definition of "usefulness." Good luck.

And if they do bring another organization, the guys who run for office will be....the same ones that are in there now...the few who get involved. And rank and file participation....will be the exact same as it is now.

I agree with UALDriver...best of luck with all that...it's gonna take a lot of work.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

And if they do bring another organization, the guys who run for office will be....the same ones that are in there now...the few who get involved. And rank and file participation....will be the exact same as it is now.

I agree with UALDriver...best of luck with all that...it's gonna take a lot of work.

Ha! Look at the APA... for 20 years they were a part of ALPA and had political effectiveness on CapHill..... and for the 50+ years that they split from ALPA their effectiveness on CapHill is basically zero... CAPA? Who are they???

CapHill doesn't have time to listen to two different groups. Mixed messages on CapHill is fodder....

IOW if you tried to start a new union then all the connections and relationships are GONE! You will be a nobody in CapHill....

All these threats about pilot groups decertifying ALPA is like a 19 year threatening to move out of the basement.. the free cable, hi-speed, private entrance, kitchen access and low cost rent is too good to pass up..... Sure the 19 year old talks a tough game... but deep down inside he knows trying to "make it" on his own is unworkable....

So you can be pissed off that ALPA doesn't come to your lazy boy chair in your living room to ask and do what you think...or you can be a part of the process...after all it is your career!!

 

[Flopgut]

Congrats !!!

Thanks! When do you guys pull me aside and give me the "captains only care about captains" speach?

 

[Flopgut]

That is right... I am a unwilling tool in his plan! I am connected, informed, I vote..... I think and use free will.....

Right into his plan.....

(insert Dr, Evil muuuuhaha laugh here....)

No, the problem is you're a willing tool!

If he were simply handling things and managing ALPA's efforts for the good of the whole, that would be one thing. The problem is, he wants this groomed as a windfall to the minority. Unfortunately, he's likely to do the same thing when he handles other issues. Take UAL drivers comments for instance: He acknowledges open skies as an issue and openly remarks that ALPA should handle the issue the exact way age 65 has been handled. In other words: manage any issue with half truth and deception, train the benefits to the senior minority, and the issue will be dealt with properly in his eyes. That's how Prater is thinking; That's how too many of these guys think and it's total BS! That's NOT why we have a union.

 

[ualdriver]

Take UAL drivers comments for instance: He acknowledges open skies as an issue and openly remarks that ALPA should handle the issue the exact way age 65 has been handled. In other words: manage any issue with half truth and deception, train the benefits to the senior minority, and the issue will be dealt with properly in his eyes. That's how Prater is thinking; That's how too many of these guys think and it's total BS! That's NOT why we have a union.

WTF? I believe ALPA shoot fight tooth and nail to kill open skies. In my opinion, we're going to lose (eventually, the longer it is put off into the future the better), but ALPA should fight until we gain no more by fighting. When did I use the words, or even imply the words, that you're assigning to me?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

WTF? I believe ALPA shoot fight tooth and nail to kill open skies. In my opinion, we're going to lose (eventually, the longer it is put off into the future the better), but ALPA should fight until we gain no more by fighting. When did I use the words, or even imply the words, that you're assigning to me?

Because UAL driver, guys like these have already made up their mind: ALPA sucks. Now all they have to do is justify the equation to make thier pre determined conclusion work.

The problem is... these guys are the real demise of pilot representation effectivenss. They'd rather argue then listen. The'd rather compain then act. They'd rather disdain then solve.

And this is what really frightens me... we could be so much more as a profession if we'd work towards positive change... but we can't ...we have to fight each other....

 

[Flopgut]

WTF? I believe ALPA shoot fight tooth and nail to kill open skies. In my opinion, we're going to lose (eventually, the longer it is put off into the future the better), but ALPA should fight until we gain no more by fighting. When did I use the words, or even imply the words, that you're assigning to me?

There is always something to be gained by fighting. While your specific seniority may outstroke a certain issue, this remains true for at least part of the membership no matter what the issue. And this is especilly true right now! You are clearly revealing that you will eventually compromise on open skies. What will be the terms of your compromise? In my opinion we are closing in on some issues that we can not ever compromise on. Age 65 is just a warm up. Rez acts hard like he's up to the challenge when in fact he can't even stand up to the easy stuff.

Pause for a moment and look at how many pilots are perfectly content with age 65. Things are SO bad right now and yet for WAY too amny pilots, this will be enough. I think you and Rez are a good example of what I'm trying to articulate: Rez wants to look past age 65 without properly dealing with it, you are one prone to accepting a similiar half-settlement on open skies as long as your OK. I don't think you're doing it consciously, but that's what I'm reading.

I'm NOT lumping you in with Rez. I like a lot of your posts and your not a lost cause. Rez sqwaked 1200 on reality about 4 months ago.

 

[ualdriver]

There is always something to be gained by fighting.

I guess you could say that there is something that always can be lost by fighting to the death. I guess not only could I say it, but I believe it.

You are clearly revealing that you will eventually compromise on open skies. What will be the terms of your compromise? In my opinion we are closing in on some issues that we can not ever compromise on.

I won't compromise until the alternative is worse.

Rez wants to look past age 65 without properly dealing with it, you are one prone to accepting a similiar half-settlement on open skies as long as your OK. I don't think you're doing it consciously, but that's what I'm reading.

I'm not "OK" with open skies at all. I personally think it's going to happen, no matter what any union does. Maybe I'm wrong. Again, that doesn't mean ALPA should roll over. They should fight until fighting becomes detrimental to the pilot group at large. I believe we'll reach that point at some time in the future.

I'm NOT lumping you in with Rez. I like a lot of your posts and your not a lost cause. Rez sqwaked 1200 on reality about 4 months ago.

I like Rez's posts. He's trying to get people to rally behind ALPA because, despite its warts, it's all we have. I agree with him. If all the guys who b1tch about ALPA actually did something to bring about change, or even understand the political/union system, we'd all be better off. Guys like me probably wouldn't even have to entertain the thought of "compromising" as much.

 

[PCL_128]

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?

I first asked him if he believed the NPRM could be stopped at this point. His answer was "highly unlikely." He was fairly certain that the NPRM would be going forward this year no matter what. I followed up by asking him whether we could continue to have influence over the rule change while still maintaining our current policy of supporting the Age-60 rule. He was noncommittal on an answer to that. It could go either way, basically. So, I was left to make up my own opinion on how effective we could continue to be. All things considered, I believe it's worth the risk to follow the will of the membership and continue our opposition while still trying to be involved in the process.

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?

Maybe? I don't think there's any "maybe" about it. The guy's in way over his head. He doesn't have a clue what he's doing. I said it before the election, and I'll keep saying it for the next 3 years.

I don't have any doubt that Duane would have handled this much better. Duane is far too savvy to make the idiotic mistakes that Prater has. At the very least he would have sent out a hell of a lot more communications to the membership on exactly why the position should be changed. But, I doubt he even favors changing the position in the first place.

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

BS. The only "info" was basically a description of what the BRP's job was. No discussion took place on the political situation in Washington. Prater released a short video and that was about it.

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....

Agreed. But if I can't trust Prater to handle a simple Age-60 issue, how can I trust him to handle the "big issue" of Open Skies?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I first asked him if he believed the NPRM could be stopped at this point. His answer was "highly unlikely." He was fairly certain that the NPRM would be going forward this year no matter what. I followed up by asking him whether we could continue to have influence over the rule change while still maintaining our current policy of supporting the Age-60 rule. He was noncommittal on an answer to that. It could go either way, basically. So, I was left to make up my own opinion on how effective we could continue to be. All things considered, I believe it's worth the risk to follow the will of the membership and continue our opposition while still trying to be involved in the process.

Well.... In order to oppose the NPRM and be effective I think the membership has to be more involved. And the Leadership knows this....

IOW the leadership knows that the best way to handle this Age60 issue is to go with the political flow on CapHill. The membership is the ammo that feeds the leadership gun. Right now if membership is a box of duds and blanks. And the leadership knows this... Sure you've got a few loudmouth firecrackers (the vocal minority) but an effective membership we are not...

So the leadership is being realistic... its knows the limitations of the membership....will prevent the leadership form efectively blocking the NPRM..

Maybe? I don't think there's any "maybe" about it. The guy's in way over his head. He doesn't have a clue what he's doing. I said it before the election, and I'll keep saying it for the next 3 years.

Ultimatey that is the memberships fault... did any one pass a resolution at an LEC meeting endorsing an ALPA president?

I don't have any doubt that Duane would have handled this much better. Duane is far too savvy to make the idiotic mistakes that Prater has. At the very least he would have sent out a hell of a lot more communications to the membership on exactly why the position should be changed. But, I doubt he even favors changing the position in the first place.

Agreed. But most guys have decided to be Duane Haters.... now they have to justify the hate...

BS. The only "info" was basically a description of what the BRP's job was. No discussion took place on the political situation in Washington. Prater released a short video and that was about it.

What about the In Focus Age 60 communications program?

Also...there is the desire for the membership to be self starters and custodians of their own career...ooops sorry... wrong union....wrong lifetime...

Agreed. But if I can't trust Prater to handle a simple Age-60 issue, how can I trust him to handle the "big issue" of Open Skies?

Why does everything come back to the membership.....???:erm:

 

[PCL_128]

Well.... In order to oppose the NPRM and be effective I think the membership has to be more involved. And the Leadership knows this....

Of course, but rather than communicate that to the membership to try to rally them to arms, Prater instead just went ahead and railroaded through a policy change. There's no doubt that the membership needs to be more involved. You and I have always agreed on that. But I've never felt that an apathetic membership gives the leadership the authority to ignore the will of the majority that does participate.

What about the In Focus Age 60 communications program?

You mean the program that Duane oversaw two years ago? The program that resulted in a majority of the membership voting to continue with current policy? The polling that Duane actually listened to?

Yeah, I remember that program, and it was an excellent educational tool. A true shame that Prater didn't see the need to do something similar this time.

 

[Full of LUV]

Well.... In order to oppose the NPRM and be effective I think the membership has to be more involved. And the Leadership knows this....

IOW the leadership knows that the best way to handle this Age60 issue is to go with the political flow on CapHill. The membership is the ammo that feeds the leadership gun. Right now if membership is a box of duds and blanks. And the leadership knows this... Sure you've got a few loudmouth firecrackers (the vocal minority) but an effective membership we are not...

So the leadership is being realistic... its knows the limitations of the membership....will prevent the leadership form efectively blocking the NPRM..
Ultimatey that is the memberships fault... did any one pass a resolution at an LEC meeting endorsing an ALPA president?
Agreed. But most guys have decided to be Duane Haters.... now they have to justify the hate...

What about the In Focus Age 60 communications program?

Also...there is the desire for the membership to be self starters and custodians of their own career...ooops sorry... wrong union....wrong lifetime...

Why does everything come back to the membership.....???:erm:

I believe there is a huge level of difference in the level of disdain for Woerth vs what Prater is doing. Pilots will bitch and during concessions, everyone is a target and I think that Woerth probably made the biggest mistakes concerning scope in contracts, but most pilots would think that he was working for them. I truly believe Prater is working against 70% of the pilots right now with the pro age 65 thing, especially in the windfall manner they wish to implement it. I can't imagine any way the rule (without alpa influence) could be worse than the proposed windfall change.

Senior pilots are supporting this and acting like their our big brother who just gave us two $20's for our $50 and telling us to quit acting like babies when we protest. I guess it's the indifference to the complete injustice of the windfall that has me the most frustrated. This isn't being pushed by Air Transport Assoc. so it's sad to say that managment has the junior pilots interest better protected.

 

[vetrider]

I miss Duane.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I believe there is a huge level of difference in the level of disdain for Woerth vs what Prater is doing. Pilots will bitch and during concessions, everyone is a target and I think that Woerth probably made the biggest mistakes concerning scope in contracts,

The president doesn't control scope at each airline...

but most pilots would think that he was working for them. I truly believe Prater is working against 70% of the pilots right now with the pro age 65 thing, especially in the windfall manner they wish to implement it. I can't imagine any way the rule (without alpa influence) could be worse than the proposed windfall change.

Ok....so now what?

Senior pilots are supporting this and acting like their our big brother who just gave us two $20's for our $50 and telling us to quit acting like babies when we protest. I guess it's the indifference to the complete injustice of the windfall that has me the most frustrated. This isn't being pushed by Air Transport Assoc. so it's sad to say that managment has the junior pilots interest better protected.

So the junior pilots could not have been informed and savvy on this and seen age 60 coming last summer...and make it clear to thier MECs that DW neeed to stay......

Every one acts like ALPA is this totalitarian regime...when in acutality the members act that way then call it such a regime....

For so many pilots who love to claim Republican values of democracy and freedom they sure act like a bunch of mindless victims.....

 

[vetrider]

He started to show signs, and then..............petered out.

 

[ualdriver]

I believe there is a huge level of difference in the level of disdain for Woerth vs what Prater is doing. Pilots will bitch and during concessions, everyone is a target and I think that Woerth probably made the biggest mistakes concerning scope in contracts, but most pilots would think that he was working for them. I truly believe Prater is working against 70% of the pilots right now with the pro age 65 thing, especially in the windfall manner they wish to implement it. I can't imagine any way the rule (without alpa influence) could be worse than the proposed windfall change.

Senior pilots are supporting this and acting like their our big brother who just gave us two $20's for our $50 and telling us to quit acting like babies when we protest. I guess it's the indifference to the complete injustice of the windfall that has me the most frustrated. This isn't being pushed by Air Transport Assoc. so it's sad to say that managment has the junior pilots interest better protected.

Here are the results from some of the recent polls. It doesn't seem to me that ALPA National is acting in contradiction to what the majority wants. And it also seems to me that 70% of guys that want age 60 to stay is pretty inflated. The results look pretty consistent from these 3 polls.

Fuirther, it seems pretty apparent to me that ALPA has done what the majority wants- to take part in the rule changing process once their legislative/governmental people think the Age 60 battle is lost. And they do think it is lost.

So I guess if you're an ALPA member complaining that ALPA isn't doing the "right thing," or the "will of the membership," I guess you'll have to explain these poll results then.



April 2007 Telephone Poll

Change FAA Age 60 Rule:
Yes: 46%
No: 52%

If it is clear the rule is going to change, should ALPA maintain its opposition, drop its opposition or modify its policy to be able to address the NPRM issues:

Maintain Opposition: 32%
Drop Opposition: 22%
Modify Policy: 44%

May 2007 Web Survey
Change FAA Age 60 Rule:
Yes: 43%
No: 54%

If it is clear the rule is going to change, should ALPA maintain its opposition, drop its opposition or modify its policy to be able to address the NPRM issues:
Maintain Opposition: 36%
Drop Opposition: 24%
Modify Policy: 38%

If the ICAO standard (Age 65) was adopted in the US, at what age would you expect to retire?
<60: 8%
60: 37%
61-64: 16%
65: 39%


May 2007 Telephone Poll

Change FAA Age 60 Rule:
Yes: 45%
No: 52%

Based on briefings from the Blue Ribbon Panel, ALPA’s Governmental Affairs Department, and current activities of the FAA in Congress, the Executive Council believes Congressional action will occur on Age 60 as early as Summer 2007. Do you agree with this assessment?
Agree: 75%
Disagree: 18%

ALPA’s Executive Council vote on changing the existing ALPA Age 60 policy, in order to avoid the risk of being unable to influence legislation or cede the field to other interested parties who may advance proposals detrimental to ALPA and its members. Therefore, the Executive Board recommends support of regulatory or legislative efforts if such efforts incorporate ALPA’s priorities in the areas of medical standards, benefit issues, no retroactivity, liability protection and appropriate implementation of any rule change.
To what extent do you support or oppose this approach to the Age 60 Rule?
Strongly Support: 31%
Mostly Support: 34%
Neutral: 16%
Mostly Oppose: 8%
Strongly Oppose: 10%

 

[Flopgut]

Here are the results from some of the recent polls. It doesn't seem to me that ALPA National is acting in contradiction to what the majority wants. And it also seems to me that 70% of guys that want age 60 to stay is pretty inflated. The results look pretty consistent from these 3 polls.

Fuirther, it seems pretty apparent to me that ALPA has done what the majority wants- to take part in the rule changing process once their legislative/governmental people think the Age 60 battle is lost. And they do think it is lost.

So I guess if you're an ALPA member complaining that ALPA isn't doing the "right thing," or the "will of the membership," I guess you'll have to explain these poll results then.



April 2007 Telephone Poll

Change FAA Age 60 Rule:
Yes: 46%
No: 52%

If it is clear the rule is going to change, should ALPA maintain its opposition, drop its opposition or modify its policy to be able to address the NPRM issues:

Maintain Opposition: 32%
Drop Opposition: 22%
Modify Policy: 44%

May 2007 Web Survey
Change FAA Age 60 Rule:
Yes: 43%
No: 54%

If it is clear the rule is going to change, should ALPA maintain its opposition, drop its opposition or modify its policy to be able to address the NPRM issues:
Maintain Opposition: 36%
Drop Opposition: 24%
Modify Policy: 38%

If the ICAO standard (Age 65) was adopted in the US, at what age would you expect to retire?
<60: 8%
60: 37%
61-64: 16%
65: 39%


May 2007 Telephone Poll

Change FAA Age 60 Rule:
Yes: 45%
No: 52%

Based on briefings from the Blue Ribbon Panel, ALPA’s Governmental Affairs Department, and current activities of the FAA in Congress, the Executive Council believes Congressional action will occur on Age 60 as early as Summer 2007. Do you agree with this assessment?
Agree: 75%
Disagree: 18%

ALPA’s Executive Council vote on changing the existing ALPA Age 60 policy, in order to avoid the risk of being unable to influence legislation or cede the field to other interested parties who may advance proposals detrimental to ALPA and its members. Therefore, the Executive Board recommends support of regulatory or legislative efforts if such efforts incorporate ALPA’s priorities in the areas of medical standards, benefit issues, no retroactivity, liability protection and appropriate implementation of any rule change.
To what extent do you support or oppose this approach to the Age 60 Rule?
Strongly Support: 31%
Mostly Support: 34%
Neutral: 16%
Mostly Oppose: 8%
Strongly Oppose: 10%

I don't know how you can read that and NOT see how the numbers are being cooked! How can anybody who is informed be encouraged by this debacle?

ALPA should put this in a 4-5 min video podcast and call it: "Geezers gone wild".

 

[Flopgut]

The president doesn't control scope at each airline...

Rez: I don't think you realize how much the ALPA's President does influence these things.