ALPA Signs off on Age 65

[ualdriver]

If any pro-cabotage EU administrator is chreering it's because he/she just figured out how to get ALPA to not resist a cabotage debate: Simply make it fiscally rewarding to Prater's ALPA senior minority and he'll sell out the whole enchilada!

Actually, they can bank on the typical CLUELESSNESS (is that a word?) of the typical airline pilot. You know, the ones who don't attend union meetings, don't contribute to ALPA-PAC, blame ALPA from everything to the loss of their pensions to the excessive amount of solar flare activity, etc., etc. You know, the "one issue" people who say, "I'm never going to contribute to ALPA-PAC again, I'm taking my ALPA pin off, etc., etc.," every time they don't get their way. Again, the Age 60 battle was fought per our direction and ultimaely lost when Administrator Blakely said that the FAA would support an age 65 rule. It's game over, and anyone following the "game" knew that 5 months ago on January 30th.


If he tells you battling cabotage (for instance) is futile are you going to believe him? Are you going to believe he's representing you while his pockets overflow and yours are sucked dry?

Actually, I do think the cabotage thing is futile (ultimately) but can be delayed, which is my short to intermediate term goal. Long term will be damage control concerning this issue. But I digress.........

So what you're saying is that after the FAA said they're going to the ICAO Age 65 standards, the Senate Commerce Committee reported their version of the FAA Reauthorization bill with Age 65 verbage (with the House expected to follow) we should still fight? Fight what? It's lost. And yes, he is representing me by sitting at the table that will figure out how this change is going to take place. If he wasn't, then he wouldn't be representing me and I'd be stuck with some airline management lackey ATA guy determining my fate of post Age 60 regulation.


Where are we going to make a stand against this sort of representation guys? It won't take too many issues settled in this manner and we'll all be done.

What stand are you personally going to take? Are you going to go to a Union meeting? How many of your peers have even seen the inside of a Union hall where the real decisions are made? Are you going to volunteer your time so that you can enact change from within? Are you going to run for elected office so that YOU can be Prater someday and correct all these perceived injustices?

 

[QuasarZ]

It was going to happen sooner or later.. get over it. It is a no win situation. All the senior guys want the change now and the junior guys don't. All the junior guys want to wait until they are 59.5 yrs old and then implement the rule so they can stay on and work. And don't give me this B.S about how you would have saved money and planned better and would not have to work longer... nobody knew 9-11 would happen

 

[Furloughed80]

There needs to be a massive movement to recall Prater. It needs to start today.

Just how does the MEC go against the wishes of the majority?? Is this the ruling by minority?? Prater’s Blue Ribbon Panel was a fraud.

AA767AV8TOR

I hate to admit it, but this SWA guy is right!

OK guys, somebody other than me is going to have to start calling national and raising he!!

Any other CAL guys want to get started recalling our guys?

*I think the big precedent here is that usually these EB votes are unanimous

I completely agree with you guys. We are in the majority and we can still win this. What is the process behind a recall? Anyone here familiar?

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Tejas Jet,

That will quickly change with the first accident of someone over age 60. The current class I is a joke and you know it.

Really ??? A few years ago, at a "joke" of a 1st class flight physical, my AME heard something he was not comfortable with. I had a valve replaced within a few days...saved my life.

Accidents have happened already happened with pilots over 60. If that first accident ever happens, the findings will come out looooonnnnggg after the accident has left the conciousness of the american public. And I'll bet you if that accident ever does happen...the reason will not be..."the pilot in command was age 63"...or whatever.

the sky isn't gonna be falling with the age change....after all, how many accidents have we had in our airspace since the ICAO pilots started flying here last November? ( Appropriately, on Thanksgiving Day)

It's a non-event for the traveling public. In fact, the FAA isn't even listening to "safety" discussions. Why? Because that data has been looked at carefully...The day for that discussion is over....need to find a new reason.

 

[airfogey]

Probably...but that's not the point.



Says who? There are no guarantees anybody in the FAA or Congress will give two sh!ts what ALPA has to say; if they did we wouldn't be in this situation right now.



So that somehow justifies the EB making a decision counter to the will of the majority? BS!



Like what? Cabotage? Open Skies? Pension reform? Nothing will matter if ALPA as a collective group is mortally fractured along age groups.



So sorry to dissent...who am I to want ALPA to follow the wishes of its members to oppose a change to Age 60?

Who's to say that keeping age 60 is the wish of the majority? It it hadn't been for ALPA's opposition it would have changed several years ago. I for one am happy that ALPA has finally come to its senses--maybe I'll give to ALPA pac to make up for all the pissed off children. I think the Executive Board finally realized that they cannot say its about "safety" and keep a straight face anymore. ALPA's support of age 60 has been nothing more than affirmitave action for younger crew members. As far as people going to Skybus or VA cause the legacy's won't be hiring--well SWA, AWA,PSA, New Frontier, AirTran,Spirit,Midwest, and lots others were scum undercutting the "profession"--I'm sure that there were many at the trunk carriers who looked down on "local service airlines" as ruining the profession in the late 40's early 50's. I ask of you--is the "profession" here to create cushy jobs for pilots or is the "profession" here because the airlines provide a service that the public wants? Whether you like it or not the flying public doesn't give one rats behind about the "profession", they just want the cheapest ticket they can get. Its funny but the public doesn't say a peep about 14% of their salaries disappearing down the rat hole called social security, but they'll scream bloody murder if you raise the price of their transcontinental airline ticket by $14.
Airfogey

 

[ToThePain]

Where are the survey results?

Who's to say that keeping age 60 is the wish of the majority? It it hadn't been for ALPA's opposition it would have changed several years ago. I for one am happy that ALPA has finally come to its senses--maybe I'll give to ALPA pac to make up for all the pissed off children. I think the Executive Board finally realized that they cannot say its about "safety" and keep a straight face anymore. ALPA's support of age 60 has been nothing more than affirmitave action for younger crew members. As far as people going to Skybus or VA cause the legacy's won't be hiring--well SWA, AWA,PSA, New Frontier, AirTran,Spirit,Midwest, and lots others were scum undercutting the "profession"--I'm sure that there were many at the trunk carriers who looked down on "local service airlines" as ruining the profession in the late 40's early 50's. I ask of you--is the "profession" here to create cushy jobs for pilots or is the "profession" here because the airlines provide a service that the public wants? Whether you like it or not the flying public doesn't give one rats behind about the "profession", they just want the cheapest ticket they can get. Its funny but the public doesn't say a peep about 14% of their salaries disappearing down the rat hole called social security, but they'll scream bloody murder if you raise the price of their transcontinental airline ticket by $14.
Airfogey

With all due respect there is no way that you or anyone else can possibly believe that the majority of ALPA in the survey agreed to changing to age 65. If they had agreed you can bet Prater and the MEC would have fallen all over themselves to post the results and would not have used THIS particular part of the survey to make their point "as well as survey data from ALPA members overwhelmingly affirming that if the rule is going to change, ALPA needs to influence that change."

 

[SSDD]

You guys keep missing the point. What the pilots want is irrelevant. The FAA wants it, the DOT wants it, and the polititians want it. So its going to happen.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

So what’s Prater’s solution to the stagnation of the F/O’s or is this just a windfall for the senior?

AA767AV8TOR

 

[~~~^~~~]

SSDD:

The same is true of lousy working conditions and lower pay.

We pay ALPA to represent us. Screw recalls. After the tremendous damage done to our profession by the ALPA negotiated outsourcing of mainline flying to the lowest bidder and now ALPA's deliberate misrepresentation of the will of its majority - I'm ready to host a card burning party.

When does ALPA finally do so much harm that it really needs to simply go away? If the union fails to represent its' membership, I fail to understand why we fund its' operation.

I'm not saying we don't need a union. We need an ALPA like Dave Behncke founded.

 

[SSDD]

Prater is just the messenger, not the author. Some things are above even his paygrade. If it makes you feel better to recall him go for it.

 

[Flopgut]

ALPA's support of age 60 has been nothing more than affirmitave action for younger crew members.

Fogey: If you really think about what affirmative action is, you'll realize that what Prater just did is soooo much closer to the actual definition of affirmative action. This is IN FACT affirmative action for old people.

 

[Swaayze]

You guys are missing the point, this isn't about changing the age. This is about the will of the national leadership of ALPA to go against a membership mandate. The recent polling showed a majority favored no change in the rule, but the quoted context of having a say in the changes was included just so they could trot it out today. There would be no harm in opposing the rule while still developing input into the change if it is to happen (and yes, it will happen, soon).

I personally think changing the age is the right thing to do (though I'd rather it didn't happen because my joke of a career will enjoy another 3-5 years of stagnation, and most of us with any money-smarts would be better off with the attrition now rather than later). Technically they should be eliminating age restrictions altogether if the rub is that it's discriminatory.

Now you children and old fogeys can go back to calling me names for expecting integrity in our leadership. At least some of us "get it".

 

[FoxHunter]

I'm not saying we don't need a union. We need an ALPA like Dave Behncke founded.

Hmm! I was told a long time ago by a 69 year old retired EAL Captain that ALPA went down hill when they gave the copilot a full vote. They had one half a vote prior to that change.:beer: Yep, time to go back to the old ALPA.

 

[NuGuy]

Heyas,

Actually, I think this will be the death of ALPA as a mainline negotiating entity. UAL is already circulating cards, and rumbles are NWA is going to also.

With two of their heavy hitters gone, the regional boys can get what they always wanted...a union of their own.

Not a good day in ALPA history....

Nu

 

[007]

I just think it's funny that all the naysayers are saying "grow up".

Do they mean "grow old".



Also, why are they all saying that it is better to have some say than none at all. What is ALPA saying....currently their recommendations have no limitations on Pilots over 60. Even ICAO has some restrictions there.

Why don't you old guys just admit it. You're screwing the younger guys because you can. That's what pissing me off the most, that it's being hidden by a bunch of "it's best for all of us".

 

[Flopgut]

If any pro-cabotage EU administrator is chreering it's because he/she just figured out how to get ALPA to not resist a cabotage debate: Simply make it fiscally rewarding to Prater's ALPA senior minority and he'll sell out the whole enchilada!

Actually, they can bank on the typical CLUELESSNESS (is that a word?) of the typical airline pilot. You know, the ones who don't attend union meetings, don't contribute to ALPA-PAC, blame ALPA from everything to the loss of their pensions to the excessive amount of solar flare activity, etc., etc. You know, the "one issue" people who say, "I'm never going to contribute to ALPA-PAC again, I'm taking my ALPA pin off, etc., etc.," every time they don't get their way. Again, the Age 60 battle was fought per our direction and ultimaely lost when Administrator Blakely said that the FAA would support an age 65 rule. It's game over, and anyone following the "game" knew that 5 months ago on January 30th.


If he tells you battling cabotage (for instance) is futile are you going to believe him? Are you going to believe he's representing you while his pockets overflow and yours are sucked dry?

Actually, I do think the cabotage thing is futile (ultimately) but can be delayed, which is my short to intermediate term goal. Long term will be damage control concerning this issue. But I digress.........

So what you're saying is that after the FAA said they're going to the ICAO Age 65 standards, the Senate Commerce Committee reported their version of the FAA Reauthorization bill with Age 65 verbage (with the House expected to follow) we should still fight? Fight what? It's lost. And yes, he is representing me by sitting at the table that will figure out how this change is going to take place. If he wasn't, then he wouldn't be representing me and I'd be stuck with some airline management lackey ATA guy determining my fate of post Age 60 regulation.


Where are we going to make a stand against this sort of representation guys? It won't take too many issues settled in this manner and we'll all be done.

What stand are you personally going to take? Are you going to go to a Union meeting? How many of your peers have even seen the inside of a Union hall where the real decisions are made? Are you going to volunteer your time so that you can enact change from within? Are you going to run for elected office so that YOU can be Prater someday and correct all these perceived injustices?

Oh! Okay, I see. The junior types are supposed to go to the meetings, volunteer time to the union, donate money to PAC, be properly adorned with a shiny ALPA pin, basically do all those old school union things and what happens? A guy like Prater ignores the majority, hoodwinks the system and artificially changes the union's direction! Junior guys can just lick the cat's butt and stay busy with all those ALPA coping mechanisms while ALPA leadership reserves the right to pull a fast one at any time on any issue? Yeah, I don't think so. What the majority needs to do is get as inventive and outside the box as Prater is! For instance: We're the majority. So let's direct our negotiating commitees to put together TAs that have ZERO pay for a pilot over 60. NONE! They can come to work...but you won't get paid for it! Or just give em health care and a small salary that is required to go into their 401k if you think that's too hard core. I don't know, but I don't think it's entirely inappropriate to suggest that we treat these guys with the same reagrd they've shown for us: ZIP!

BTW bud: Nice tip of the hat on cabotage. Kinda backs up my theory: You'll go along with it as long as it goes OK for you? Nice. You know what that is? Stockholm syndrom. Things have been tough over there I know, but now you can no longer imagine getting tough with your employer. Instead you've become predisposed to do the same as them. You just want to pass the abuse to your more junior coworkers. Prater and basically the whole age 65 crowd: Stockholm syndrom. That's why NONE of us should be surprised when they roll out age 70....in about two years.

 

[d328pilot]

This change was done by the Executive Council, which if memory serves, consists of mostly MEC chairmen that are elected by representatives, not individual members.

I believe that the original stance from ALPA on the age 60 rule was done as a resolution from the BOD many years ago. Being that the BOD is the higest body in ALPA, I dont understand how the Executive Council (which is lower) can overturn the policy without a vote from the BOD..

 

[Flopgut]

Hmm! I was told a long time ago by a 69 year old retired EAL Captain that ALPA went down hill when they gave the copilot a full vote. They had one half a vote prior to that change.:beer: Yep, time to go back to the old ALPA.

You know what's interesting Fox: If this copilot half vote thing were still true, that first, unmolested survey result would still have been the same!

Cheers.

 

[enigma]

The Executive Board was faced with a choice. Attempt to fight the change, or allow the Associations lobbiests and politicians to try and influence the change.

Here are a few facts:
1. 75% of ALPA pilots AGREE that the rule WILL change, possibly as early as this summer.

2. The polling showed that ALPA's pilots are in a statistical dead heat regarding age 60. The numbers are 52% for age 60 and 45% against age 60.

3. The polling also showed that 65% of ALPA pilots are in favor of changing ALPA's position. The exact numbers were: 42% want ALPA to modify the policy to address an FAA NPRM or Congressional action, and 23% want to drop all opposition.

4. The US Senate has a bill - Senate Bill 65 ready to go.

5. The FAA Administrator has already stated her intention to change the age.

6. The FAA has already begun writing the regulation.

7. The rest of the world already uses 65, or in Canada's case - no upper age limit.

8. Some of our strongest supporters on Capital hill have already endorsed the change.

There is more, but it's late.

I'll make this simple.

The mandatory retirement age is going to change. ALPA lost the battle to APAAD and the ATA.

ALPA could either continue to stand opposed and allow management to write the new rules, OR ALPA could drop opposition to the change and task our lobbiest and politicians to work and make the change as pilot friendly as possible.

I'm glad that ALPA's BOD and Committee One had the guts to do the right thing.

 

[enigma]

This change was done by the Executive Council, which if memory serves, consists of mostly MEC chairmen that are elected by representatives, not individual members.

I believe that the original stance from ALPA on the age 60 rule was done as a resolution from the BOD many years ago. Being that the BOD is the higest body in ALPA, I dont understand how the Executive Council (which is lower) can overturn the policy without a vote from the BOD..

You're not correct. Please at least read your constitution before speaking to it's proceedures.

The Executive Board made this policy change, and it was ratified by a roll call vote. Some Councils split their vote in order to exactly represent the wishes of their pilots. Every pilot in ALPA was represented with one vote.