ALPA Signs off on Age 65

[pkober]

Is the CAL MEC pushing for waivers for pilots that will reach 60 before the rule is changed?

I hadn't heard that.

The fact is that union, ALPA included, are big businesses. They will do what will bring money into the business. If allowing pilots to fly until 65 is the key right now, that's what they will support. Five more years of squeezing dues out of a top ender is allot of money.

I long ago lost the dream that ALPA was somehow above the fray of normal greedy businesses.

 

[d328pilot]

ok. Then what about the guys that are 61-64. Can they come back? How are you going to do this?

I'm not. They missed the boat. My rule would state that you had to be under 60 to serve as PIC under part 121. That preserves movement and allows them to continue to fly.

I think most of the ALPA pilots of the EB don't want the change either. They just realize they know its coming. Look at it this way, you know you are going to get screwed, ALPA is just trying to get them (FAA) to use a condom.

Probably true. But I think pilots are getting fed up with ALPA telling them what is best. Why bother to poll the membership if you disregard it anyway??

Please. This shows your disconnect. What does this have to do with age60 anyway?

I was asked what I would do if I were in charge of ALPA for a day.

It is not that the democratic model is broken it is just that the member pilots don't practice democracy.

You must have mistyped... you mean ALPA doesnt practice democracy.

Why do you think the union doesn't have teeth. Who gave you the expectation that the union does have teeth? YOU? the cynical jackass you flew with after IOE?

What expectation??? It doesnt have teeth. This union today is nothing like the union that is in "Flying the line"

The answer to your short list is to become a better member. Nothing will get better until the collective membership gets more effective and more involved. Most of the memberships issues are unfounded and misinformed. so they spend time and energy getting fustrated only to reject unions believing they are fubar. So where does that leave us...??

I spent 6 years at a regional. 4 of those were serving as a status rep. It is really sad because I feel that we were harmed by ALPA just as much, if not more than our own management. ALPA is more messed up than most people realize. The age 60 change plus the US Air Arbitration might just break the camel's back.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I'm not. They missed the boat. My rule would state that you had to be under 60 to serve as PIC under part 121. That preserves movement and allows them to continue to fly.

Ok... so how are you going to get the FAA and DOT to agree to that?

Probably true. But I think pilots are getting fed up with ALPA telling them what is best. Why bother to poll the membership if you disregard it anyway??

If you don't poll the membership then the outcry of no voice would be louder...

I was asked what I would do if I were in charge of ALPA for a day.

And another guy would eliminate dues and conduct an SOS.... That doesn't mean it is best for the membership..

You must have mistyped... you mean ALPA doesnt practice democracy.

Explain. Most American want out of Iraq. What about the will of that majority?

What expectation??? It doesnt have teeth. This union today is nothing like the union that is in "Flying the line"

Please. The good ol days? The guys in FTL had it worst or just as bad. Quit romancing the past... Lets look to the future..

I spent 6 years at a regional. 4 of those were serving as a status rep. It is really sad because I feel that we were harmed by ALPA just as much, if not more than our own management. ALPA is more messed up than most people realize. The age 60 change plus the US Air Arbitration might just break the camel's back.

So what is the solution? What then?

 

[d328pilot]

Ok... so how are you going to get the FAA and DOT to agree to that?

By convincing my membership this is the best course of action. Instead of asking them time after time in a poll, why not spend that money on education materials for the pilots to explain why this change is going to happen and what we can do about it. An informed and motivated pilot group that feels like they are the union can be a powerful voice. One where the members feel as if they are an afterthought......well...then you have ALPA

If you don't poll the membership then the outcry of no voice would be louder...

That's supposed to justify it? I just punched you in the face, but at least I told you it was coming....

And another guy would eliminate dues and conduct an SOS.... That doesn't mean it is best for the membership..

Hardly in the same ballpark as things that I listed.

Explain. Most American want out of Iraq. What about the will of that majority?

America is not a democracy nor has it ever been. It is a republic. There are too many people in this country for a pure democracy to work. That is not the case with ALPA. While the general pilot population may not be as active in ALPA as you like, they are more informed about issues that affect them then citizens are about current events. Go find me one pilot that doesnt know what the age 60 debate is about and what affect it will have for him personally. You wont find one.

Please. The good ol days? The guys in FTL had it worst or just as bad. Quit romancing the past... Lets look to the future..

Give me the union of the past so that I might have a future.

So what is the solution? What then?

Sometimes things are beyond repair and they should just be scrapped and started anew. Is ALPA at that point? Im not sure..... But if its not, its right at the edge about to fall off.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

Age 65 has got to probably be one of the most poorly thought out rule changes to our profession in many years. Though it helps the most senior in the short term; this rule change will create many negative consequences for the junior pilots which will continue to haunt us for many years down the road.

Make no mistake about this – Age 65 is a way for only the very senior to profit at the expense of the junior. Southwest was the main proponent of the rule change. Southwest’s main motivation for Age 65 was the inability of their negotiating teams to secure a good retirement medical plan and not having a solid third retirement leg to supplement their 401K and stagnate stock price. What they have failed to negotiate with their own company has now hurt many of us.

By raising the age to 65, plan on major negative long-term ramifications in the following areas:

1. Downward pressure on wages and retirement plans – Companies will now claim we have an additional five years to make additional income.
2. Medicals – Will our medicals continue to be the joke they are?
3. Stagnation – AMR has no current plans for growth – only replacement aircraft. No growth plus no retirements equals massive stagnation.
4. Impact on attracting qualified personal to the profession – low pay and lack of career growth will force many to abandon their ambitions for a career in aviation and look at other more profitable professions.
5. Safety – Ask yourself how safe will 64 ½ years olds will be flying five legs a day or flying double all-nighters to the deep-south for months on end. A couple of accidents in this area and our company’s future and our pension plans are further in peril.
6. Once implemented, Age 65 solves the company’s manning shortage for the next five years. Again, no growth plans for AMR.
7. Will the early retirement penalty for our A-Fund that is now from age 50 to age 59 11/12 now shift five years? Will going out at 55 now be considered leaving 10 years early? They say no now, but management will eventually want to shift it to coincide with the new retirement age.
8. Age 65 will create a split membership thereby helping management to further their cost cutting agenda on the pilot corps. We are very quickly evolving to a membership of the have and the have-nots. Older pilots will be very loath to actually fight management’s cost cutting agenda. A “don’t rock the boat” mentality will prevail for the next couple of contracts until they start to retire.
9. By raising the age to 65, we now will be forced to spend (to earn back our money lost to stagnation) an extra five years in an already unstable industry. Gas prices, competition, bad management, terrorist activity, and low pay all make this profession very risky at the present moment. There is very little risk/reward for F/O’s at the present. Ask any junior pilot and most will tell you they don’t plan on having an A-Fund when they retire.

Age 65 is the rule change of the greedy, self-serving, and selfish. The rule change was thought up by pilots with diminutive brains with an inability to see further down the road than their five year lottery pay out.

What a mess these guys have created and it’s the junior guys that will be forced to either live with it or clean it up.

Want to know the reason why our profession continues it death spiral – all we have to do is look in the mirror.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[d328pilot]

hell, while they are at it, why not make it 70. 5 years from now they will be screaming again because they bought another airplane or got another wife or whatever

 

[flyer172r]

1. Make pilots that want to work over age 60 move back into the right seat. That way they preserve the career expetations of the junior pilots (majority) and at the same time allow them to still work. That seems to be a pretty good compromise.

Good compromise for major airline FOs, but does absolutely nothing for current regional captains. Those over-60 pilots would be taking the FO slots that would have been filled with current RJ captains. So 5 more years at crappy regionals for those guys.

 

[Flopgut]

Good compromise for major airline FOs, but does absolutely nothing for current regional captains. Those over-60 pilots would be taking the FO slots that would have been filled with current RJ captains. So 5 more years at crappy regionals for those guys.

You're right. But, it does make it more of a decision for these guys. For instance at CAL these guys will have to choose between taking their lump sum and not working, or coming to work for the wage and benefit. If we make these guys take copilot pay it closes the gap significantly and although these guys aren't too bright, even most of them will see the wisdom in retiring. Taking the lump sum and staying at home will be more appealing if they see their pay shrink. I think that would be the case at a lot of airlines and it's one of the best ways I can see to preserve age 60 as a vialble retirement age, which is what ALPA says they want to do. In addition, you've got a large number of guys who only want to do it because their egos are so swollen. Put em in the right seat and I think you'll find out they no longer want to do it.

Right now they are looking at big dollars (and thinking about new houses and boats) and nothing else. Temper their hourly wages and they'll want to leave. That will be good for everyone,including guys at regionals.

 

[Widow's Son]

Change was inevitable. In fact, it was already set in place with the ICAO and Canadian changes. It will be better for ALPA pilots to be a part of the process rather than just fall on their swords. APA will come to that conclusion as well.
What the young guys don't realize is that the battle against change preempted any discussion on ways to mitigate the impact of change. Now that reality of change is taken off the table, we can begin those discussions, but if the young guys just want to disengage and fold the tent in disgust, then fine, it will be their loss.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

What the young guys don't realize is that the battle against change preempted any discussion on ways to mitigate the impact of change.

Now that reality of change is taken off the table, we can begin those discussions, but if the young guys just want to disengage and fold the tent in disgust, then fine, it will be their loss.

Since you opened up the discussion, I’m interested – What exactly is your side willing to give up to “mitigate the impact of change?”

With your statement above, you do indicate a realization that many of us will suffer economic loss and damages by any change in the retirement age.

AA767AV8TOR