Capt Prater: Here is your sign!

[PCL_128]

On this issue, ALPA National is not OK with it. They know how the membership feels about this. But they also know that this rule is going to change.

You can't have American citizens flying on foreign carriers, in American airspace, in jets commanded by pilots over age 60, with the approval of the American government, and not expect this change. To stop this from happening, you've also got to stop our (The U.S.) participation in the ICAO, and the alloowing of ICAO carriers to fly in our airspace with Pilots over age 60.

Do you honestly think that Capt. Prater hasn't even discussed this with the FAA Administrator? He has and knows where the Administrator stands on this issue. Would you rather he come in and pound on her desk? All that does is alienate him from the Washington decision makers. If ALPA can't stop this from happening ( like Deregulation) then the best thing is for them to try to have a voice in the implementation of these new rules ( unlike Deregulation).

Every day in our (U.S.) airspace we get a living example of how safe it is for an over age 60 pilot to be in command of a passenger carrying aircraft.

Something bad....I mean, real bad, would have to happen for the Administrator to change her stance on the repeal of the age 60 rule.

...who wants to go first....?

Tejas

Thank God someone gets it!!!

 

[PurpleInMEM]

On this issue, ALPA National is not OK with it. They know how the membership feels about this. But they also know that this rule is going to change.

You can't have American citizens flying on foreign carriers, in American airspace, in jets commanded by pilots over age 60, with the approval of the American government, and not expect this change. To stop this from happening, you've also got to stop our (The U.S.) participation in the ICAO, and the alloowing of ICAO carriers to fly in our airspace with Pilots over age 60.

Why not? Because it isn't fair? Nothing else is fair, why should this be any different. When all other forms of federal discrimination are eliminated then I'll be on board with this change.

I'm sick of my government deferring the interests of her constituents to the benefit of global trade and international harmonization. This is about money.

We don't seem to have any trouble standing up militarily anywhere in the world, but on the international trade arena we're a bunch of pussies. Instead of just accepting what the dirty Euros tell us, maybe we should just say no.

If we don't get pissed off at this, what's next?

Viva la Revolution!

 

[Freight Dog]

So you're willing to allow foreign control, foreign ownership, cabatoge, bankruptcy reform, etc... to go unaddressed simply because you disagree with how Captain Prater has handled a single issue? Very short-sighted.

No, I am not. But given Prater's performance so far, it wouldn't surprise me if he was willing to allow all that. To put it bluntly, I don't trust Prater at all. He sure talks the talk, but so far, he hasn't walked the walk.

It appears that APA will put up a bigger fight than ALPA on any of the issues mentioned above, INCLUDING that "single issue" you're talking about. Therefore, I'll donate to APA-PAC as a friend, but ALPA-PAC won't see a rusty penny from me.

 

[PCL_128]

No, I am not. But given Prater's performance so far, it wouldn't surprise me if he was willing to allow all that. To put it bluntly, I don't trust Prater at all. He sure talks the talk, but so far, he hasn't walked the walk.

Captain Prater is doing what he feels is best for the profession and for the membership. Although I don't support a change to the age-60 rule, I do support Captain Prater's actions. This rule change is inevitable, and preparing for it is a top priority. The BRP will allow us to do that, as will Captain Prater's appointment to the ARC. I hate the fact that this rule will change, but whining about it and blaming people that aren't responsible for it is not productive.

It appears that APA will put up a bigger fight than ALPA on any of the issues mentioned above, INCLUDING that "single issue" you're talking about. Therefore, I'll donate to APA-PAC as a friend, but ALPA-PAC won't see a rusty penny from me.

ALPA-PAC doesn't accept contributions from non-members, so I suspect that APA-PAC doesn't either. Regardless, the APA doesn't carry the same weight on Capital Hill that ALPA does. ALPA represents 66,000 members. The APA represents roughly 10,000. Strength in numbers means something on Capital Hill. When Congressmen/Senators want to know what air line pilots think about something, they call ALPA, not the APA.

Excluding yourself isn't the solution. Withholding your contributions to the PAC hurts yourself and your brother pilots. There are some very important fights that ALPA will have to deal with on Capital Hill in the next few years. PAC participation rates are important to protecting your career. Don't make an emotional decision based on one issue.

 

[Freight Dog]

Captain Prater is doing what he feels is best for the profession and for the membership. Although I don't support a change to the age-60 rule, I do support Captain Prater's actions. This rule change is inevitable, and preparing for it is a top priority. The BRP will allow us to do that, as will Captain Prater's appointment to the ARC. I hate the fact that this rule will change, but whining about it and blaming people that aren't responsible for it is not productive.

What do you call conceding defeat before the actual NPRM is even put out? Speaking of NPRM's... wasn't there a DOT NPRM about allowing foreign ownership and we put up a big fight against that? What happened with this one?

Strength in numbers means something on Capital Hill. When Congressmen/Senators want to know what air line pilots think about something, they call ALPA, not the APA.

Right, just how they called ALPA about Age 60 rule.

Excluding yourself isn't the solution. Withholding your contributions to the PAC hurts yourself and your brother pilots. There are some very important fights that ALPA will have to deal with on Capital Hill in the next few years. PAC participation rates are important to protecting your career. Don't make an emotional decision based on one issue.

Look, if an ALPA president openly or covertly disregards the direction of the majority, they've lost their credibility. Prater has lost it.

What makes you think he won't sell out on foreign ownership, cabotage, Akaka bill, etc.? What, because those are sacred? Because he says so? What about Age 60? I can already hear it... it was bound to happen, right?

Well, foreign ownership is bound to happen too. Just look at our merchant fleet. Why don't we form a Red Ribbon Panel to start planning for foreign ownership too just so we don't get excluded because we opposed it?

Cabotage? There's an idea... just like the Mexican truckers here thanks to NAFTA. After all, it's bound to happen in our industry too. Let's form a Pink Ribbon Panel to explore implementation of cabotage as well. God forbid we oppose it and we get excluded from implementation.

PCL, your attitude presents the defeatist attitude that's been prevalent at Herndon for the last 7 years. ALPA talks the tough talk, I'm hoping to see them walk the tough walk. Oh yeah, nevermind... almost forgot... ALPA.... 'nuff said.

 

[007]

I'm sure changing the rule to 65 will be predicated on ensuring one pilot flying is under 60. If it's for the love of flying instead of money as some argue, leave the captain rule at 60 and everyone who wants to fly to 65 can be a senior FO. This protects career advancement, makes the older pilot a senior bidder, and eases the scheduling problem.

FUNNY, I've made the same argument on several other threads. Nobody ever responds to it. Things that make you go HMMMMM.

In other words the "love for flying comment" is total the biggest bunch of horsepuckey.

 

[Huck]

I called it "RSO - Right Seat Only."


Went over like a lead balloon. It's the money......

 

[AAflyer]

Captain Prater is doing what he feels is best for the profession and for the membership. Although I don't support a change to the age-60 rule, I do support Captain Prater's actions. This rule change is inevitable, and preparing for it is a top priority. The BRP will allow us to do that, as will Captain Prater's appointment to the ARC. I hate the fact that this rule will change, but whining about it and blaming people that aren't responsible for it is not productive.



ALPA-PAC doesn't accept contributions from non-members, so I suspect that APA-PAC doesn't either. Regardless, the APA doesn't carry the same weight on Capital Hill that ALPA does. ALPA represents 66,000 members. The APA represents roughly 10,000. Strength in numbers means something on Capital Hill. When Congressmen/Senators want to know what air line pilots think about something, they call ALPA, not the APA.

Excluding yourself isn't the solution. Withholding your contributions to the PAC hurts yourself and your brother pilots. There are some very important fights that ALPA will have to deal with on Capital Hill in the next few years. PAC participation rates are important to protecting your career. Don't make an emotional decision based on one issue.

APA carries more weight than you think (or may even know). While ALPA represents 66,000, how may actually donate to the PAC? I thought I saw numbers from the past, and you would have been surprised by total donations from both sides. They were similiar in numbers.

While ALPA tried to defend their airlines' respective pensions they were wiped out by BKs. Congress didn't seem to care what ALPA had to say about that.

APA in coordination with AMR lobbied congress for pension releif. We got it, and now were one of the few legacies with a well funded pension (A and B fund).

When you add our brethern from NPA, SWAPA, IPA, (CAPA) we have a rather large voice on the hill. I still feel ALL unions should pursue issues like this together. There is strength in numbers.

Regards,

AAflyer

 

[Falconjet]

PCL: You are an idiot if you think Capt Prater knows what is best for us despite our overwhelming opposition to the change. He knows what is best for him, that is about it.

FJ

 

[Purpledog]

The problem is that his intentions are to protect his interests instead of those of the majority of ALPA members

Ain't that the truth! Our own MEC doesn't seem to be raising much of a stink about it either. It's time to put some under 50 pilots into our MEC leadership. Nevermind, I'll just be happy with my 1% B fund increase in a couple years and my A fund increase. Oh wait, I was excluded from that because of my date of hire. The Navy has JOPA, maybe we need JALPA!