Capt Prater is selling us out

[pipe]

Ladies and Gentlemen-

Here is one man's opinion, but if I don't get it off my chest I'm gonna lose it by tommorrow morning!

The ALPA membership has clearly demonstrated opposition to changing the AGE 60 RULE. We then pay big bucks to have this opinion voiced as a collective, organized effort. These are facts.

It would appear that Capt Prater has chosen to edit the membership voice on the Age 60 issue because of his personal feelings and that of those surrounding him. Why does every article mention the opinions of the pilots at SWA, AA, JetBlue, etc., but not the collective opposition of the ALPA membership?

We need a grass-roots effort starting at each LEC. We must force each LEC to force each MEC to force Capt Prater to represent us - as he is sworn to do.

I, for one, do not appreciate having 5 years of my life and millions of dollars given away by Capt Praters inaction (due to his personal feelings).

RISE UP!!!!!

PIPE

 

[airfogey]

Captain Prater is not selling ALPA out. May be this time around we'll have an honest poll without 2/3rds of the reponses thrown out to statistically norm the age groups responses. Its about time that the largest pilot union stop 25 years of institutionalized discrimnation against their most senior members who have paid them the most accumulated dues over the years.
Airfogey

 

[Jonny Sacko]

What happened last time. Some old Codger couldn't get involved enough to answer the survey, "because nothing really matters to me, I'm the captain"?? I guess just for your horrible "All about me" attitude, we'll all have to go through that again. GREAT THANKS...... REALLY

 

[pipe]

Captain Prater is not selling ALPA out. May be this time around we'll have an honest poll without 2/3rds of the reponses thrown out to statistically norm the age groups responses. Its about time that the largest pilot union stop 25 years of institutionalized discrimnation against their most senior members who have paid them the most accumulated dues over the years.
Airfogey

What the he!l are you talking about??? If the furloughees (who are members in good standing) had been allowed to vote it would have been further against change.

But, you're certainly correct. To use statistical norming and create an accurate survey is certainly inferior to whatever it is you learned in statistics in 1954.

PIPE

 

[Lear70]

Do you have any PROOF that it is simply because of his PERSONAL feelings?

Might it, perhaps, be something more to do with the ALPA folks on Capitol Hill telling him that it's a DONE DEAL, regardless of whether he goes along with it or not?

Why then, spend MILLIONS of dollars chasing after something that has not only the support of Congress and the Senate (or at least a good majority of them), but also a large percentage of your voting members?

NOTE: I did NOT say the "majority" of ALPA members, but still a pretty large percentage last time I saw the poll.

Yes, it will affect my upgrade, also (I'm 35), and I'd rather have seen a 5 year lockout on it so that it couldn't be perceived as profiteering by those who are about to turn 60, but then again, those are the guys who now have no pension and who need it the most.

It's really not fair to anyone, but I believe better than the alternative.

Plus, by the FAA making it a NPRM, it extends the timeline to make it happen by 18-24 months AT LEAST. If it had been passed by Congress or the Senate, we probably would have seen a much faster implementation date.

So count your blessings, that's 18-24 months MORE of retirements which, if you're working for CAL, is HUGE!

 

[Lear70]

But, you're certainly correct. To use statistical norming and create an accurate survey is certainly inferior to whatever it is you learned in statistics in 1954.

That's not entirely accurate.

They're POLLING a group of people, not drawing a statistical average.

A TRUE poll does not throw out the high and low deviation as an average would; it's a simple number, just like an election.

You wouldn't expect your MEC elections to throw out the highest and lowest votes, would you?

Same difference.

Don't be emotional about this, it distracts your logical though process.

 

[pipe]

That's not entirely accurate.

They're POLLING a group of people, not drawing a statistical average.

A TRUE poll does not throw out the high and low deviation as an average would; it's a simple number, just like an election.

You wouldn't expect your MEC elections to throw out the highest and lowest votes, would you?

Same difference.

Don't be emotional about this, it distracts your logical though process.

It's very simple. Put it on an electronic ballot for all members in good standing, open voting for two weeks, count.

No emotion there. The emotion is about ALPA's failure to do this.

PIPE

 

[Lear70]

No argument there...

Must have misunderstood you, I thought you were saying something other than a pure vote count would somehow be better...

:beer:

 

[Flopgut]

I detect an active lack of challenge to this by Prater. Hopefully what he plans to do is mitigate the affects on the majority by:

Patterning the FE rule by only allowing age 60+ fly FO.

Seeking pay protection provisions for FOs that fly with old pilots.

Spreading out implementation over a 5 to 10 year period.

Or any other mechanism that balances this proposed new reality. Anything short of that and the discussion needs to be centered around forming a new union.

 

[Drill Sgt. Dad]

Age 60 is age discrimination, period!!!!! ALPA is supporting this for economical reasons as it will prolong furloughs and upgrades. This is NOT a safety issue. There is no basis for the age 60 rule. Why is it safe for a Canadian or a British pilot to fly in and out of the Sates being over 60, but not safe for Part 121 pilots to have the same privilidges? Also, is it unsafe for a US pilot to hit 60, then go to Canada or the Carribean and still fly to 65? Times have changed, the industry has changed, and the age limit will change. This industry is full of changes, if one can't deal with changes, then maybe one should rethink is this what they want to do?
We can argue this all day, but the AAPAD is making alot of headwaves on changing this outdated age discrimination rule.
It may not happen tommorrow, but it will happen within a few years.
Will many be able to hold medicals? Maybe, maybe not. I am blind as a bat and I don't see my vision (No pun intended) to hold out that long, but I would like to fly as long as I am physically and medically able to do so.

 

[Lear70]

Hopefully what he plans to do is mitigate the affects on the majority by:

Patterning the FE rule by only allowing age 60+ fly FO.

Good luck with that. From what the news organizations are putting out there, it's an increase in the CA age, with F/O age required to be under 60 (no combination of both seats over 60 at the same time).

Seeking pay protection provisions for FOs that fly with old pilots.

Good luck on that, too. The FAA could NOT mandate pay issues, that's a union argument with each individual carrier.

Spreading out implementation over a 5 to 10 year period.

That one's possible, but it would face opposition by the over-60 crowd and they'd take it back to the Hill again.

Or any other mechanism that balances this proposed new reality. Anything short of that and the discussion needs to be centered around forming a new union.

Good luck with that, too. No offense, but there's just too many people that are either for it or are relatively unaffected. You'd have a TOUGH time getting ALPA tossed out at most of the carriers.

 

[pipe]

Age 60 is age discrimination, period!!!!! ALPA is supporting this for economical reasons as it will prolong furloughs and upgrades. This is NOT a safety issue. There is no basis for the age 60 rule. Why is it safe for a Canadian or a British pilot to fly in and out of the Sates being over 60, but not safe for Part 121 pilots to have the same privilidges? Also, is it unsafe for a US pilot to hit 60, then go to Canada or the Carribean and still fly to 65? Times have changed, the industry has changed, and the age limit will change. This industry is full of changes, if one can't deal with changes, then maybe one should rethink is this what they want to do?
We can argue this all day, but the AAPAD is making alot of headwaves on changing this outdated age discrimination rule.
It may not happen tommorrow, but it will happen within a few years.
Will many be able to hold medicals? Maybe, maybe not. I am blind as a bat and I don't see my vision (No pun intended) to hold out that long, but I would like to fly as long as I am physically and medically able to do so.

Where does the discrimination argument stop? Maybe aircraft manufacturers are discriminating againt those with vision of 20/100 by making the numbers on the gauges too small.

Where does it stop people? Everyone is not being discriminated against. Sometimes lines must be drawn because humans have proven that many have an innate inability to police themselves.

PIPE

 

[L'il J.Seinfeld]

The senior FOs at UPS are screwed. They choose not to upgrade so they can bogart the best trips. The problem is that they fly woth the most senior capts. With the impending change the senior over 60 FOs will have to downbid so they don't get paired with an over 60 capt.

UPS said hell no to ALPO. Why would it be so hard for other carriers?

 

[sat74]

Age 60 is age discrimination, period!!!!!

If Age 60 is age discrimination, then how is Age 65 NOT age discrimination???

 

[Flopgut]

No offense, but there's just too many people that are either for it or are relatively unaffected. You'd have a TOUGH time getting ALPA tossed out at most of the carriers.

None taken. I disagree however, opposition to this will solidify as the negative effects start to illuminate and I think all those ideas are possible. This is going to be an enormous mess and watershed event for pilot labor. I've been in three unions, I'm an ALPA supporter, I've interacted with, and like, Captain Prater. But the bottom line is: you don't enthusiatically support what the majority of your membership wants and it's time for something new. Could be a good thing, you know? ALPA's recent history could be improved upon.

 

[pipe]

The senior FOs at UPS are screwed. They choose not to upgrade so they can bogart the best trips. The problem is that they fly woth the most senior capts. With the impending change the senior over 60 FOs will have to downbid so they don't get paired with an over 60 capt.

UPS said hell no to ALPO. Why would it be so hard for other carriers?

I gave them another chance after the TWA debacle, but continued inaction on this issue and I may become a conscientious objector. Having my career obliterated twice by their inaction despite membership mandate is seriously UNSAT.

PIPE

 

[Flopgut]

Lear: I think that age 60+ flys FO is a pretty good one. It's exactly what the FAR allowed FEs to do. You've already got FEs that are under 65; you're not going to see them go back to the left seat and a guy who flew FE for five years, hit 64.5 on the day this changes, and not file a lawsuit?

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Don't like what Capt Prater stand for? Recall him....start at the LEC level and take it from there....let us know how it goes.

All the CAL guys should have an opportunity to voice their opinions....since his road show is coming to IAH very soon.

 

[Lear70]

Lear: I think that age 60+ flys FO is a pretty good one. It's exactly what the FAR allowed FEs to do. You've already got FEs that are under 65; you're not going to see them go back to the left seat and a guy who flew FE for five years, hit 64.5 on the day this changes, and not file a lawsuit?

Believe me, I'm not saying it doesn't suck for the guys who get delayed to upgrade (me included), and I don't necessarily disagree with them going to the right seat IF they were CA pay protected but, in the end, that's not what the FAA has planned and, in all likelihood, isn't what's going to happen.

As far as filing a lawsuit, good luck with that one, too.

You'd be suing the Federal Government, not your employer. Your employer simply followed FAR's.

Indeed, if your employer FAILED to follow the FAR's and somehow tried to do what you're suggesting, forcing the over-60 crowd to fly as F/O's when the FAR change was CLEARLY intended to allow them to continue flying as PIC, you'd end up with age discrimination suits from THOSE guys against the employer.

 

[SoCentralRain]

What the he!l are you talking about??? If the furloughees (who are members in good standing) had been allowed to vote it would have been further against change.PIPE

Well, here's one 30-something furloughee who votes for the change. We're not all like you. Relax.

Cheers,
SCR

 

[Flopgut]

Believe me, I'm not saying it doesn't suck for the guys who get delayed to upgrade (me included), and I don't necessarily disagree with them going to the right seat IF they were CA pay protected but, in the end, that's not what the FAA has planned and, in all likelihood, isn't what's going to happen.

As far as filing a lawsuit, good luck with that one, too.

You'd be suing the Federal Government, not your employer. Your employer simply followed FAR's.

Indeed, if your employer FAILED to follow the FAR's and somehow tried to do what you're suggesting, forcing the over-60 crowd to fly as F/O's when the FAR change was CLEARLY intended to allow them to continue flying as PIC, you'd end up with age discrimination suits from THOSE guys against the employer.

I don't know, seems you've got an accepted FAR to pattern with the age 60+ FE rule on the books. The only thing that will enable a captain to fly past age 60 is a >60 FO. That's expanded responsibility for the FO with no additional authority, not the way most FARs get crafted or passed. The exact rules have yet to be written and input will be considered. We need ALPA to communicate the exact concerns of the membership's majority.

 

[pipe]

Well, here's one 30-something furloughee who votes for the change. We're not all like you. Relax.

Cheers,
SCR

Never claimed you were like me, but I am in the majority.


PIPE

 

[Lear70]

You can do that yourself, as well.

The NPRM will have a period of comment. The more people who voice concerns such as this, the more likely they'll consider it in their final rule.

Who knows, maybe they'll change just enough to allow age 60 as an F/O. It would give them 5 more years at Max F/O pay (still almost 6 figures at most major carriers - or more), and not create a undue financial hardship on the junior guys scheduled to upgrade.

Just a thought...

 

[Flybynite]

That's expanded responsibility for the FO with no additional authority.

Could you explain how it is expanded responsibility? Under 60 in the other seat is simply political. The captain is PIC and if the PIC becomes incapacitated the SIC takes over. How does that change? Just curious on your reasoning.

 

[Flopgut]

Believe me, I'm not saying it doesn't suck for the guys who get delayed to upgrade (me included), and I don't necessarily disagree with them going to the right seat IF they were CA pay protected but, in the end, that's not what the FAA has planned and, in all likelihood, isn't what's going to happen.

It's not that it sucks for those with delayed upgrade, it's that it sucks for everyone until the day you turn 60. Everyone loses until that day, and that is going to start to set in now. 80% will oppose this in 12 months.

BTW, why do you think these guys should be captain pay protected? The age 60+ FEs weren't pay protected, I don't get where you're coming from.

 

[Flopgut]

Could you explain how it is expanded responsibility? Under 60 in the other seat is simply political. The captain is PIC and if the PIC becomes incapacitated the SIC takes over. How does that change? Just curious on your reasoning.

The FOs age is the single thing enabling the operation. That FO is no closer to the tiller than he/she was before. That FO has no more authority than before to add fuel, reject the takeoff, or evacuate the jet. If something happens the oldster is simply going to happily retire with the bonus dollars, the FO is left with the problems. If something really bad happens, you can bet that oldster will be more than happy to let the FO take more heat

Responsibility combined with authority should relate favorably to pay. In this scenario the FO gets heaped with responsibility, gets no more authority or pay. Not a cool path to go down.

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

Captain Prater is not selling ALPA out. May be this time around we'll have an honest poll without 2/3rds of the reponses thrown out to statistically norm the age groups responses. Its about time that the largest pilot union stop 25 years of institutionalized discrimnation against their most senior members who have paid them the most accumulated dues over the years.
Airfogey

Save it!!!

Compromise.........just be like the FE rule.....you can fly until you are 105 but you can't be PIC, SIC is still gainful, non-discriminatory employment........That's fair for everybody. When you played this aviation game, the rules were 60 and buh-bye..........

What the F were you senior dues paying members doing with all of your cash? Supporting the union?!?!?!?! If you lost your pension, sorry, so did I....but i don't have a ___________ (Fill in the blank, Boat, ex-wife, girlfiend etc.) to pay for......you should have set up an alternate plan.....

Making the rest of us drag our bags another 5 years more just makes me wanna puke.......

 

[Drill Sgt. Dad]

If Age 60 is age discrimination, then how is Age 65 NOT age discrimination???

65 is as well!!!! But at least at 65 one can start collecting Social Security on a limited basis. At 60, with no more pensions or retirement, it's either off to the Fractionals (which is getting harder to get on with) or to Costco or Home Depot.
Canada has no upper age limit. But as US pilots, we are held to a double standard? All these who are arguing and fighting to keep age 60, will be the same ones arguing and fighting to raise the age when they approach 60.

 

[Flybynite]

The FOs age is the single thing enabling the operation. That FO is no closer to the tiller than he/she was before. That FO has no more authority than before to add fuel, reject the takeoff, or evacuate the jet. If something happens the oldster is simply going to happily retire with the bonus dollars, the FO is left with the problems. If something really bad happens, you can bet that oldster will be more than happy to let the FO take more heat

Responsibility combined with authority should relate favorably to pay. In this scenario the FO gets heaped with responsibility, gets no more authority or pay. Not a cool path to go down.

I say again, how is that different from today? The PIC is the PIC, what changes from 59.5 to 65?

 

[BoilerUP]

65 is as well!!!! But at least at 65 one can start collecting Social Security on a limited basis. At 60, with no more pensions or retirement, it's either off to the Fractionals (which is getting harder to get on with) or to Costco or Home Depot.
Canada has no upper age limit. But as US pilots, we are held to a double standard? All these who are arguing and fighting to keep age 60, will be the same ones arguing and fighting to raise the age when they approach 60.

What about air traffic controllers who are forced to retire at age 56? (yes I know there is a waiver process now, but it is not universal)

What about the fact I can't run for President until I am 35?

Why can I be drafted into military service at age 18 but cannot purchase a handgun until age 21?

Speaking of age 21, why can one not drink alcohol until 21?

My career aspirations will have gone *poof* depending on how this is implemented. The baby boomer captains that have sold out the junior pilot again and again the last 30 years will have the last laugh selling out the young pilots...so they can once again "get theirs".