Big Unions: Introduce an Act the Would Release Aviation from The Railway Labor Act

[ualdriver]

If all of us handed in our letters to our MEC Chairman (for those of us who still have an MEC Chairman at a legitmate union , I might add ..... ) and resigned en masse, I'm sorry to say we would be replaced for half the prevailing rate by pilots just trying to break into the industry thinking there getting a screaming deal while those of us already slugging it out in the trenches know better. In other words pilot supply is inversly proportional to pilot leverage. The greater the supply the less the leverage we have to achieve a contract or shut an airline down like Behnchke threatened to do in 1936.

PHXFLYR

Couldn't agree more. The root issue that we face as pilots are the laws of supply and demand. Unfortunately, for the past couple of decades that I've been involved in aviation, United States pilot supply has far exceeded demand, which leads to the CONSTANT downward pressure we see on pilot compensation, work rules, and quality of life. That, unfortunately, is a huge obstacle unions like ALPA have to overcome. Market forces are extremely powerful.

 

[lionflyer]

Good post,Rez. But Benkhe 's brandishing those resignation letters in managements face held alot more clout in 1936 than it would today because there just wasn't the same number of trained pilots available in the workplace as there are today.Therefore, he could get away with it. If all of us handed in our letters to our MEC Chairman (for those of us who still have an MEC Chairman at a legitmate union , I might add ..... ) and resigned en masse, I'm sorry to say we would be replaced for half the prevailing rate by pilots just trying to break into the industry thinking there getting a screaming deal while those of us already slugging it out in the trenches know better. In other words pilot supply is inversly proportional to pilot leverage. The greater the supply the less the leverage we have to achieve a contract or shut an airline down like Behnchke threatened to do in 1936.

PHXFLYR

Even if there were a bunch of SJS infected pilots waiting to take the jobs, the company would not be able to train new pilots quick enough. 2wks indoc, 2 wks systems, 2wks sim, & IOE, no friggn way! The airline would lose millions very quickly. Now, if pilots actually had the balls to resign en masse, the leverage would be huge.

 

[Flopgut]

Couldn't agree more. The root issue that we face as pilots are the laws of supply and demand. Unfortunately, for the past couple of decades that I've been involved in aviation, United States pilot supply has far exceeded demand, which leads to the CONSTANT downward pressure we see on pilot compensation, work rules, and quality of life. That, unfortunately, is a huge obstacle unions like ALPA have to overcome. Market forces are extremely powerful.

Prater traded on supply and demand with age 65. That supply/demand dynamic will be coming up again soon. The question I have for a member like you is: Are you going to buy into the BS all over again? Prater could very well remortgage whatever possibilities we have again. All he has to do is give guys like you some ancilliary issue that he can hype up as "inevitable" and you'll drop to your knees. You've carefully crafted some arguement in your head that enables you to ignore better judgement. Whatever you've heard from anybody at UALALPA is BS; No one should be listening to them.

We need to move past 65 but not exclude from the list of possibilities that we were lied to and that Prater might try to do the same thing in the future. Next up is the RLA. Try not to be the guy who just wants to shoot holes in ideas. Don't automatically rule something out because Prater or (especially) your UALALPA leaders say it can't happen.

 

[ualdriver]

Prater traded on supply and demand with age 65. That supply/demand dynamic will be coming up again soon. The question I have for a member like you is: Are you going to buy into the BS all over again? Prater could very well remortgage whatever possibilities we have again. All he has to do is give guys like you some ancilliary issue that he can hype up as "inevitable" and you'll drop to your knees. You've carefully crafted some arguement in your head that enables you to ignore better judgement. Whatever you've heard from anybody at UALALPA is BS; No one should be listening to them.

We need to move past 65 but not exclude from the list of possibilities that we were lied to and that Prater might try to do the same thing in the future. Next up is the RLA. Try not to be the guy who just wants to shoot holes in ideas. Don't automatically rule something out because Prater or (especially) your UALALPA leaders say it can't happen.

Flopgut, do you think I'm capable of arriving at my own conclusions, irrespective of what my government, the press, my union, or hell, even my friends tell me? "Guys like me?" GMAFB. To sit there and write that tripe is beyond ignorant. If you have SPECIFIC proof that Prater lied to the membership, I definitely want to hear all about it. Not innuendo, not suspicions, not "I'm mad at ALPA" crap- proof.

Basically what you're saying is that Prater lied to all of us, cut some sort of secret deal, and screwed us over. It wouldn't be the first time a leader screwed over his membership if it were really true, and I'm perfectly capable comprehending and accepting that fact if it did happen, but you have to prove that point. To sit there and disparage me, ALPA, and the guys that represent me at UA ALPA because you're pissed off about ALPA is beyond inane.

 

[Flopgut]

Flopgut, do you think I'm capable of arriving at my own conclusions, irrespective of what my government, the press, my union, or hell, even my friends tell me? "Guys like me?" GMAFB. To sit there and write that tripe is beyond ignorant. If you have SPECIFIC proof that Prater lied to the membership, I definitely want to hear all about it. Not innuendo, not suspicions, not "I'm mad at ALPA" crap- proof.

Basically what you're saying is that Prater lied to all of us, cut some sort of secret deal, and screwed us over. It wouldn't be the first time a leader screwed over his membership if it were really true, and I'm perfectly capable comprehending and accepting that fact if it did happen, but you have to prove that point. To sit there and disparage me, ALPA, and the guys that represent me at UA ALPA because you're pissed off about ALPA is beyond inane.

How could you go from "couldn't agree more" on supply and demand and simultaneously portray such an active lack of understanding big picture reasons Prater was able to occasion 65 at the time and manner in which he did? More importantly, how does that not bother you about what ALPA leadership might do with another issue in the future?

I'm done being pissed off about 65. I'm looking out for the next stunt that might get pulled just like we all should. Airline pilot relationship to the RLA needs to change. But we have to be careful that any effort we make doesn't get perverted by senior ALPA and exclude the majority.

I wish I didn't have to, but I'm not going to hesitate to give you UAL guys a harsh correction. You're really screwing up lately bud! It's ridiculous how bad things have gotten over there. Look, if this were another pilot group screwing things up like you are now, you'd be insisting they fall on their swords for the greater good. Notice that's not happening, OK? You're not getting treated like you would be treating another pilot group if roles were reversed. "Disparaged?" you say? Right. You could use a little disparaging.

 

[ualdriver]

How could you go from "couldn't agree more" on supply and demand and simultaneously portray such an active lack of understanding big picture reasons Prater was able to occasion 65 at the time and manner in which he did? More importantly, how does that not bother you about what ALPA leadership might do with another issue in the future?

Because you're talking about a totally different thing. You believe that Age 65 changed because Prater "let it happen," correct? In other words, you're calling him and our entire leadership liars because they wanted Age 65 to happen, changed it against the will of the majority, and therefore you don't trust our leadership. Yet, you do not provide ONE IOTA of proof to back that thesis. Nothing. Give me a date. Give me a time. Give me the names of the people Prater talked to in order to make Age 65 happen. He must have talked to ALOT of people in Washington in order to make such a unilateral change. Do you have anything? Anything? Names? Dates? People he talked to? If you're going to call someone a liar, PROVE IT. Otherwise, it's a unsubstantiated conspiracy theory and the world, unfortunately, is full of enough of those. The issue of supply and demand and its effect on our profession and Prater lying about changing Age 65 are two entirely different subjects.

I wish I didn't have to, but I'm not going to hesitate to give you UAL guys a harsh correction. You're really screwing up lately bud! It's ridiculous how bad things have gotten over there. Look, if this were another pilot group screwing things up like you are now, you'd be insisting they fall on their swords for the greater good. Notice that's not happening, OK? You're not getting treated like you would be treating another pilot group if roles were reversed. "Disparaged?" you say? Right. You could use a little disparaging.

What exactly are the "UAL guys" screwing up on? And what airline do YOU work for so I can make the appropriate comparisons? Tell me what we are specifically screwing up using "facts," and then tell me how YOU and YOUR pilot group should be held out as an example for us to follow.

 

[Flopgut]

I believe 65 is equal parts over and an example of how things should not take place in the future!

Is this how ALPA handles an accident/incident investigation? Do we leave off at the black and white, most immediate findings and not apply the larger truths and theorhetical outcomes? No. We run the problem to ground and try to improve. We should do the same thing in this case.

I talked to Prater 3 times last year about 65 and about upcoming issues. When you get down to brass tacks, Prater always leans to his first most concern which is the imminent retirees and most senior members. If it's a broadbased issue that he can't put into his more narrow field of vision, he withdraws enthusiasm.

 

[ualdriver]

I talked to Prater 3 times last year about 65 and about upcoming issues. When you get down to brass tacks, Prater always leans to his first most concern which is the imminent retirees and most senior members. If it's a broadbased issue that he can't put into his more narrow field of vision, he withdraws enthusiasm.

Great, you talked to Prater. Did you ask him if he ignored the will of the majority and worked behind the scenes, secretly, to change age 60 to age 65? My MEC asked him that question point blank in open session. What did he tell you?

I think the Age 65 thing is how political things get done. You talk about black and white issues. There are few black and white issues in politics. Hell, in my opinion, there are few black and white issues in life, never mind politics. In my opinion, from my observations, Prater was in a bind concerning Age 65. He knew that the Age 65 rule, this time, was going to change, like it or not. The political will of Congress had changed for a variety of reasons, and this time it was going to pass.

What do you do as a leader when armed with this information? Do you take the "black and white" stance, realizing that your membership clearly is not in favor of the rule change, fold your hands on your chest, and say, "I'm not participating." Or, do you realize that the change is inevitable, find out from your membership what they want to do about it, and perhaps take part in making a political pile of **** a little more palatable? In my opinion, Prater took the latter position, got some things that we wanted to make things taste a little better, but then got blamed for the change because he was personally for Age 65 (I think he was anyway).

I bet I know what you're thinking.....but ALPA didn't get anything when they were basically forced to "go along" with the Age 65 change. Am I right? Feel free to crack open the FEB 08 issue of that "expensive magazine subscription" that you get and then tell me we didn't get anything.

 

[Flopgut]

There are few black and white issues in politics.

OK?? Continuously and throughout most of your dialog toward me you insist on clear cut, black and white, right and wrong, perfect world, irrefutably perfect evidence that age 65 wasn't the least bit a boondoggle. Then you flip right around and say few things are black and white. What's the deal?

 

[ualdriver]

OK?? Continuously and throughout most of your dialog toward me you insist on clear cut, black and white, right and wrong, perfect world, irrefutably perfect evidence that age 65 wasn't the least bit a boondoggle. Then you flip right around and say few things are black and white. What's the deal?

Actually, I think I used phrases like "in my opinion." I also think I said that if you have anything factual to refute what I wrote (post 46) or to back your opinions- post it.

I told you what my opinion was. You're referring to the Age 65 thing as a "boondoggle." So, tell me how is it a "boondoggle?" Where did ALPA go wrong? Are you telling me that the only reason Age 65 came is because ALPA screwed up? You said I have a "lack of understanding of the big picture" (post 45). You said that my pilot group was "screwing up" (post 45). You said that you believe Age 65 "is equal parts over an example of how things should not take place in the future!) (post 47). I'm still waiting to hear about how ALPA caused this "boondoggle," how I have a "lack of understanding of the big picture," how UA ALPA is "screwing up," and how ALPA should have handled Age 65 so that "things (like this) do not take place in the future."

Post away. I'm waiting for you to give me the answers to the above questions so I can have the "big picture" like you do.

 

[Flopgut]

Actually, I think I used phrases like "in my opinion." I also think I said that if you have anything factual to refute what I wrote (post 46) or to back your opinions- post it.

I told you what my opinion was. You're referring to the Age 65 thing as a "boondoggle." So, tell me how is it a "boondoggle?" Where did ALPA go wrong? Are you telling me that the only reason Age 65 came is because ALPA screwed up? You said I have a "lack of understanding of the big picture" (post 45). You said that my pilot group was "screwing up" (post 45). You said that you believe Age 65 "is equal parts over an example of how things should not take place in the future!) (post 47). I'm still waiting to hear about how ALPA caused this "boondoggle," how I have a "lack of understanding of the big picture," how UA ALPA is "screwing up," and how ALPA should have handled Age 65 so that "things (like this) do not take place in the future."

Post away. I'm waiting for you to give me the answers to the above questions so I can have the "big picture" like you do.

Boondoggle: ALPA failed to manage expectations as to how and why it had to change. ALPA excluded the recently retired and that might come back and bite us in the a$$. There is a well organized lawsuit underway by these pilots against ALPA that we don't hear much about right now. The plaintiffs aren't in a hurry because they don't want to end up coming back to fly, they just want the money. Don't believe me? Fine with me.

Age 65 was not handled cleanly enough that you can exclude the possibility that ALPA mgt is lacking credibility. I have no idea why you want to give them a free pass? You seem too willing to buy into the distraction and miss the main issue. Who cares if guys want to work to 65? I'm most concerned that my union cannot inspire the membership to the overall vision. You want cabotage or foriegn control handled just like age 65?

UAL ALPA screwed up by losing that lawsuit. WTF man? That judge was a Clinton appointee and a Democrat. Sorry, you're supposed to be able to win those. No excuses. You wouldn't tolerate that out of my pilot group [CAL]. If it were CAL ALPA that had to stand down to a mgt test run on open skies [Madrid] due to a loss in court you'd have the screw CAL pins out and our MEC in trusteeship.

Edit: Actually, I think I'm starting to figure out your deal. You're happy with how things are going right now, right? As long as you keep getting a paycheck Prater can do whatever he wants. That's called Stockholm syndrom. You might want to look into it.

 

[ualdriver]

Boondoggle: ALPA failed to manage expectations as to how and why it had to change.

Manage expectations? Manage what expectations? As to how and why it had to change? How and why did it have to change? You tell me. I'm not trying to be coy. What should my expectations have been concerning this issue? And what's make you think the membership would even listen? You stated previously that I buy into ALPA "BS." How can ALPA manage expectations if it's just going to be "BS" anyway?

ALPA excluded the recently retired and that might come back and bite us in the a$$. There is a well organized lawsuit underway by these pilots against ALPA that we don't hear much about right now. The plaintiffs aren't in a hurry because they don't want to end up coming back to fly, they just want the money. Don't believe me? Fine with me.

Actually, the protection from guys coming back after they had retired under the old Age 60 rule is EXACTLY one of the "gets" we received by compromising. I don't think we would have gotten that if we had taken the "our way or the highway" mentality. And they're suing ALPA and UA.

Age 65 was not handled cleanly enough that you can exclude the possibility that ALPA mgt is lacking credibility. I have no idea why you want to give them a free pass? You seem too willing to buy into the distraction and miss the main issue. Who cares if guys want to work to 65? I'm most concerned that my union cannot inspire the membership to the overall vision. You want cabotage or foriegn control handled just like age 65?

OK, AGAIN I ASK. You're running ALPA. You're dealing with an extremely controversial issue (Age 60) that about half the membership wants, and about half don't. What do you do to handle a situation like this "cleanly enough?" What error did ALPA/Prater make that requires the "free pass" that I am supposedly giving them/him? Tell me.

Do I want cabotage or foreign ownership handled like Age 65? I'm still trying to figure out how YOU THINK Age 65 was handled? ALPA didn't "manage expectations?" So if they "manage expectations" better in the future, all will be well with cabotage or foreign ownership? How should ALPA "manage expectations" now concerning those issues?

UAL ALPA screwed up by losing that lawsuit. WTF man? That judge was a Clinton appointee and a Democrat. Sorry, you're supposed to be able to win those. No excuses. You wouldn't tolerate that out of my pilot group [CAL]. If it were CAL ALPA that had to stand down to a mgt test run on open skies [Madrid] due to a loss in court you'd have the screw CAL pins out and our MEC in trusteeship.

Are you f'in kidding me? UA ALPA screwed up by losing that lawsuit? There is NO WAY you can make a statement like that with any credibility. Are you a lawyer? Are you familiar with ALL of the facts in the case? Are you familiar with the qualifications of our legal team? Did you even sit ONE DAY in the courtroom? What specific errors did our legal team make that caused us to lose? Going in front of a judge, no matter who appointed him/her, is a roll of the dice AT BEST. Talk about an armchair quarterback!

And I have no idea what you're talking about in that last sentence and what that has to do with the court case you refer to.

Edit: Actually, I think I'm starting to figure out your deal. You're happy with how things are going right now, right? As long as you keep getting a paycheck Prater can do whatever he wants. That's called Stockholm syndrom. You might want to look into it.

Actually, I'm starting to figure out your deal. You're one of those guys who is so bitter and angry that they can't see straight. You can't see both sides of an issue. You make comments about complex topics with only an understanding of the details that are immediately on the surface. You're quick to make judgements without providing solutions or even pointing out what the specific errors were in the first place. I know your type and unfortunately as a volunteer I have to deal with guys like you once in a while.

So, I'm waiting. What did ALPA do wrong concerning Age 65? How did Prater/ALPA screw up? How did Prater "trade on the supply/demand dynamic?" (your words) What should ALPA be doing to "manage expectations" about important issues in the future? What "BS am I buying into" (your words)?

 

[Flopgut]

First off, I'm not nearly a pissed and bitter as I can detect you think I am. I simply want good decisions to be made going forward.

Secondly, UAL ALPA and the lawsuit. Sure, that was going to be a tough deal. But it was a must win and you didn't. You got b!tchslapped and you had an unlimited budget from ALPA. Would CAL ALPA have won? I don't know...maybe not. But I have no doubt that if another airline had dropped the ball UAL ALPA would be calling for them to fall on their sword.

Retirement age change needed to be phased in. Or made no limit at all. To manage expectations would have been to at least acknowledge that there would be pain at the bottom of the profession. Acknowledge that there would eventually be medical standard changes instead of simply declaring that no change for two years was a victory. Managing expectations would have been to show that in addition to making a pilot able to work longer, ALPA was going to help pilots actually reach a retirement. Acknowledging that simply working longer wasn't necessarily going to mean being able to retire. Just look at where we are now: Do you think guys who work to 65 in this current environment are going to be better off than they were at 60? My prediction is no. I bet 75%+ of age 65 retirees won't be ready to retire financially. Age doesn't matter. You've got to get all the other issues put together. Prater needed to have a game plan laid out that showed the exact strategy we were going to use to make this a career again. He didn't do that because he doesn't care. He only cares about the senior types aged 55+. Period. You're going to end up losing another lawsuit to the age 60+ guys I'm afraid. We're all going to be paying assesments for ten years to a bunch of geezers who really don't want to work now at all. And BTW, stanby for Prater to admit he was wrong (about the time he's retiring) and crank a homerun out of the park for them and seal the deal.

 

[ualdriver]

Secondly, UAL ALPA and the lawsuit. Sure, that was going to be a tough deal. But it was a must win and you didn't. You got b!tchslapped and you had an unlimited budget from ALPA. Would CAL ALPA have won? I don't know...maybe not. But I have no doubt that if another airline had dropped the ball UAL ALPA would be calling for them to fall on their sword.

Let's be realistic here. We have a large (and getting smaller) MCF, but it's not "unlimited." We didn't lose for lack of money. We lost because the judge found that UA ALPA is responsible for "illegal job actions" under the RLA whether or not ALPA actually organized them. So if a bunch of guys are pissed off and decide to call in sick in a given month (for example), whether ALPA knows about it or not, whether ALPA organized it or not, ALPA is responsible- or at least that's what the Judge said. UA ALPA is taking a very aggressive stance against management and unfortunately we got screwed over yet again over an unfavorable interpretation of the RLA. Nobody needs to "fall on their sword." I hope other pilot groups take aggressive stances against their management as well, and if it leads to some lawsuits....well....that's the price we pay for putting up a bit of a fight.

Retirement age change needed to be phased in. Or made no limit at all. To manage expectations would have been to at least acknowledge that there would be pain at the bottom of the profession.

Yeah, you're assuming Prater can just "manage expectations" and make that happen. What if he "managed" that expectation but that's not your "managed expectation?" What if that's not my "managed expectation?" Can I or that person come on flightinfo.com and complain about how ALPA isn't "managing expectations" according to my particular definiton of "managed expectations" and MF ALPA? I mean, that's what you're doing, isn't it? ALPA didn't do a "phase in" or "no limit at all" so therefore you're pissed. How does ALPA come up with a way to "manage" the tens of thousands of expectations we all have in such a way that we're all happy?

Further, ALPA can't just walk into the halls of Congress and say, "this is the way it's going to be." But let's say Prater got a gradual "phase in" as you suggest. You criticize ALPA for the lawsuits that it's going to be facing about the "hard" Age 60 cutoff. How many lawsuits would there be if we "phased it in" for example? We'd just be changing one class action suit for another. I fail to see how any cutoff will please all pilots.

Acknowledge that there would eventually be medical standard changes instead of simply declaring that no change for two years was a victory.

Maybe that was a victory? Maybe there were some members of Congress who wanted more stringent medical requirements NOW for guys flying over Age 60? Maybe another Congressperson raised his hand and said, "if medical requirement XYZ is required for a 61 year old, shouldn't a 31 year old be required to pass that requirement as well? They're flying the same airplane, right?" Now maybe we end up in a situation where we have a bunch of guys making rash changes to medical requirements that suddenly affect ALL pilots. Then maybe we have some ALPA pilots under the age of 60 unable to pass these new requirements. Now they're MF'ing ALPA because they could fly before and now they can't make a living.

The above is conjecture on my part, but it wouldn't surprise me if something like that could have happened. So now we get a breather to figure out what needs to be done before any rash changes are made. Maybe Prater was "managing medical expectations" by getting that passed?

Managing expectations would have been to show that in addition to making a pilot able to work longer, ALPA was going to help pilots actually reach a retirement.

Isn't that what all ALPA members strive for? Isn't that what we collectively try for with every contract? I don't need Prater telling me about the obvious.

Acknowledging that simply working longer wasn't necessarily going to mean being able to retire. Just look at where we are now: Do you think guys who work to 65 in this current environment are going to be better off than they were at 60?

Yeah, I do. A widebody Captain at United will make over a million dollars over that 5 years. If he invests like a typical pilot, however.......

Prater needed to have a game plan laid out that showed the exact strategy we were going to use to make this a career again. He didn't do that because he doesn't care. He only cares about the senior types aged 55+. Period.

I don't believe that Prater only cares about senior types aged 55+. Could he lay out a better, more clear strategy? Sure. You can always do something better.

You're going to end up losing another lawsuit to the age 60+ guys I'm afraid. We're all going to be paying assesments for ten years to a bunch of geezers who really don't want to work now at all. And BTW, stanby for Prater to admit he was wrong (about the time he's retiring) and crank a homerun out of the park for them and seal the deal.

We would have ended up with a lawsuit no matter where the cutoff was. The only thing that would have changed is who (i.e whoever was on the wrong side of any designed cut-off) was suing ALPA. No matter how you design an Age 60 cutoff, someone feels they get screwed. They then sue. And of course, it's ALPA's fault.

 

[ualdriver]

First off, I'm not nearly a pissed and bitter as I can detect you think I am. I simply want good decisions to be made going forward.

P.S. Can we make closing statements and be done with this? I've got stuff to do that doesn't involve flightinfo!

 

[Hamburger]

After having talked to my MEC reps, my very knowledgeable MEC legislative reps, and learning of Prater's answers to my MEC's questions concerning the issue, I totally disagree with your assessment of how Age 65 came about and why ALPA took the position it did.

If your MEC is so very knowledgeable, how did y'all end up where you are?
How many rounds of concessions has it been? ESOP? Have you even had a strike vote?

You believe that Age 65 changed because Prater "let it happen," correct? In other words, you're calling him and our entire leadership liars because they wanted Age 65 to happen, changed it against the will of the majority, and therefore you don't trust our leadership. Yet, you do not provide ONE IOTA of proof to back that thesis. Nothing. Give me a date. Give me a time.

It's in the congressional record from July 19,2005:
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/i...tness_ID=6032e75d-d828-485c-8455-02f54926e145

 

[Flopgut]

ualdriver, I'll close with these thoughts: 65 is over. UA ALPA's loss in court is over. We're going after the RLA now. Let's not accept anything less than an effort on ALPA's part that includes the entire membership. Period! You think that's a given (who wouldn't?) but I'm telling you it's not. Prater is licking his chops over the solid argument we have to make against the RLA and sizing it up for his demographic to get the big pieces. The end play on challenging the RLA is simply too big and sweeping a result that Prater will have difficulty moving it toward the most senior. He will get political. Start moving some pieces around and try to get guys like you to wander over to his way of seeing things. Don't be that guy!

Nobody wins til we all win.

BTW: You know what one of Prater's fartcatchers told me when I explained that another, different issue was going to screw the bottom half of the list? He pointed out to me I was in the top half of the list. And then said nothing else.

Additionally, I do not loathe Prater. I just don't trust him to do exactly what he should.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

If your MEC is so very knowledgeable, how did y'all end up where you are?
How many rounds of concessions has it been? ESOP? Have you even had a strike vote?

NOt sure about ALPA pilot groups in the past (PAA for example) but I would argue, despite set backs (we all have them, do we not?), that the UAL ALPA pilots have done more for the profession than others...

It's in the congressional record from July 19,2005:
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/i...tness_ID=6032e75d-d828-485c-8455-02f54926e145

Mr. Chairman, let me conclude my statement by saying that commercial aviation is the safest form of transport in human history. I am proud of the role that ALPA pilots have played in achieving that reality. We cannot take that reality for granted, however. We must do all we can to defend and preserve our safety record—and resist all attempts to change safety regulations simply to boost profit margins. The Age 60 Rule is a safety regulation and should not be changed or repealed unless and until the FAA—not ALPA or any other pilot organization—is convinced, based on sufficient and conclusive evidence, that such action would not have a negative effect on safety.​

 

[Voice Of Reason]

ATTENTION THREAD HIJACKERS (and MODs)

STICK TO THE TOPIC and stop HIJACKING this one.
TAKE IT to one of the 900,000 Age 65, Alpa slam, Alpa Defense, Lib/Repub threads.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

It appears, that it is a complex issue....