"Fair" treatment for "experienced" pilots comes home to roost?

[SMOE]

Perhaps its time to stiffen the medical requirements for a Class I or II. Maybe a good expose to the press about how easy it is to shop around for a certificate might weed some of the old bastards out.

 

[pkober]

Everyone calm down!!!

ALPA National will fight hard to prevent this from happening. They fought hard to stop age 65 and they will fight hard to stop this lawsuit.

I have all the confidence in the world in our "leadership".

 

[Flopgut]

Here's the deal: These guys don't want to come back. They just want the money. ALPA is going to be the single entity without a chair when the music stops. This could be the end of ALPA. (I don't think any of us will pay assesments to keep it going) This could be a good thing in the end.

 

[NuGuy]

I said there would be lawsuits for this within a year of the leglislation passing. The age 65 pundits on the board said no, that could never happen because of the wording of the bill.

Heyas ATR,

I warned of the very same thing. This was a HUGE Pandora's Box that has been open, and it's going to cost each of us dearly.

If they continue to press to test this, I say that ALPA's position should be "Fine, overturn it, and it reverts back to previous FAA policy, IE age 60"

Nu

 

[Superpilot92]

It was before the bill was passed, they stay out. Period. They never should have allowed this in the first place. Just a bunch of greedy whiny a$$holes who benefited from the rules all their careers and then wanted to change them at the end to benefit again. Nothing like the "me generation."

Absolutely!! :uzi:Over 60 Pilots :smash:

 

[Superpilot92]

If they continue to press to test this, I say that ALPA's position should be "Fine, overturn it, and it reverts back to previous FAA policy, IE age 60"

Nu

Now thats an idea.:beer:

 

[Dizel8]

Now thats an idea.:beer:

How is ALPA going to do that, remember ALPA HQ said age 65 was coming with or without their approval.

So what makes anyone think, ALPA has the power to change it? I would say the odds are between non existant and none!

 

[atrdriver]

Here's the deal: These guys don't want to come back. They just want the money. ALPA is going to be the single entity without a chair when the music stops. This could be the end of ALPA. (I don't think any of us will pay assesments to keep it going) This could be a good thing in the end.

If they didn't want to come back we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

 

[MILF Hunter]

How is ALPA or John Prater going to go forward protecting its membership? They (ALPA and APAAD) sold this bill in Washington based on a pilot shortage, and keeping our most experienced pilots employed. We are looking at possible furloughs at every major. How are they going to protect the junior guys and gals. My guess is ALPA won't do sh!t, as usual. I'm still waiting for a pilot shortage.

 

[ualdriver]

You anti-ALPA guys are UFB. First of all, you blame ALPA for a change in the Age 60 rule that was going to happen anyway, whether you, I, or ALPA liked it or not. But it's ALPA's fault. Fine.

Fortunately, ALPA leadership doesn't come to flightinfo.com for legislative advice. Despite having been able to keep Age 60 over the past decade or two, this time ALPA sees the writing on the wall months ago and sees that Age 60 is going to change, like it or not. They realize that they can "fight to the death" and not get a role in the rule making that will ultimately decide how Age 65 is shaped or they can change their position and have a chance of receiving some "gets."

One of the "gets" that ALPA receives for not ridiculously "fighting to the death" is wording in the Age 65 legislation that will prevent guys who have already retired under the Age 60 rule from coming back, which would obviously be pretty bad for all of us.

So now you anti-ALPA guys confuse me. You complain that ALPA didn't "fight to the death" concerning Age 60 and blame ALPA for the change. ALPA wisely didn't "fight to the death" concerning Age 60 so that they could get this wording (among other things) into the legislation to keep the already retired guys from coming back, WHICH IS WORDING THAT ALPA ONLY GOT BECAUSE THEY WERE FORCED TO CHANGE THEIR POSITION ON AGE 60. The only reason you don't have guys flooding back to the seniority list RIGHT NOW is because of the wording ALPA was able to obtain by not foolishly "fighting to the death." But then you complain about that, too!

For those of you who bit**ed about ALPA not "fighting to the death" concerning the rule change, how can you come on here and complain about this protection ALPA was able to fight for ONLY by being forced to change its position on Capital Hill? If ALPA had done things "your way," we'd probably already have even more furloughs as there would have been NOTHING to prevent all of these guys from coming back in the first place. Again, some of you guys are UFB!