From the ALPA Age 60 Website...

[Phaedrus]

“This topic has the keen interest of every airline pilot in the United States...[and] our union must use its considerable influence to protect our members’ interests no matter the outcome.”--Prater

What does he mean, "no matter the outcome"?

 

[thepotato232]

It means that the political maneuvering is over, the decision is made, and the union is giving you the mushroom treatment so they can try to save face later.

"Well, we fought it 'til the end, but..."

 

[Phaedrus]

It means that the political maneuvering is over, the decision is made..

Funny, it sounded to me like he's trying to sell the angle that the outcome itself is in doubt. If he truly feels that way, and I am interpreting him correctly, how come ALPA isn't fighting against this as it is the stated policy?
How about using that "considerable influence" to take the fight in the direction mandated by the members and by the existing policy?

>>Rez force field: ON<<

 

[Falconjet]

No, what that azzhat is saying is that even though the majority of ALPA members are against the change, it is really in our (read HIS) best interests and we should all just be happy that they know what is better for us than we do.

Recall Capt Prater now!

FJ

 

[Falconjet]

He's given up the fight and only wants to implement change in a manner that would protect his (and the ALPA organization) interests.

What he fails to understand is the magnitude of the fallout that will occur if the change passes and he doesn't do anything to fight it. The younger and /or junior members of ALPA who will have just been sold out by our own will leave in groves. It will possibly be the end of ALPA.

FJ

 

[luckytohaveajob]

ALPA has not fought to protect age 60 yet.

If ALPA allows age 65 to go unchallenged, ALPA must be dissolved after disregarding the majority of its members.

 

[PCL_128]

No, what that azzhat is saying is that even though the majority of ALPA members are against the change, it is really in our (read HIS) best interests and we should all just be happy that they know what is better for us than we do.

Recall Capt Prater now!

FJ

You still haven't answered my question: just why exactly do you think it's in Captain Prater's best interest to change the rule?

 

[Occam's Razor]

Here's some scoop: Unless Congress passes legislation that protects the govenment and airlines from lawsuits by pilots "harmed" (ha!) by implementation of the new rules, it ain't gonna happen.

A cut off will be set and many "victims" (RJDC lawyers take note!) will claim that they were unfairly cut off.

 

[Phaedrus]

OR: Where are you getting this information? It was stopped legislatively only to have the FAA issue an NPRM. Why would the legislature now pass a law protecting something they wouldn't pass in the first place?

 

[Occam's Razor]

My dope comes from the guy NWA hired to lobby Congress and schmooze the FAA on the plan. He is very adamant - The Administrator made it clear: No change unless Congress steps-up and gives the FAA and airlines protection.

The devil's in the details.

 

[NuGuy]

Heyas,

Occam is right. Every over and soon to be over 60 fogie has his finger on the "sue" button to go back with not only seniority, but full longevity and probably back pay, too. With the usual big bucks involved with any class-action type suit, you can bet the sharks are tripping all over themselves to position for a slice of the pie.

The REAL fun begins when these guys show back up in the left seat at the top of the seniority lists.

There are so many things that an S.O.S. would be good for...drug and alcohol testing, treatment from the TSA, the grand theft of the pensions, wholesale destruction of working conditions...this is just the latest. You really begin to wonder when enough is enough.

Nu

 

[Deuce130]

You still haven't answered my question: just why exactly do you think it's in Captain Prater's best interest to change the rule?

More pilots flying for 5 years longer at the upper end of the seniority pay scale = more money in dues. That said, I hope Occam is right (for a change ) and that the age 65 rule never changes.

Even if the rule changes, I don't think ALPA will be affected. Those in the upper echelon of ALPA members (ie. 58+) will be just fine with the ruling, for the most part, and ALPA will press on. Besides, it's not like we'd have anywhere else to go. I'm certainly not going to turn in my union card over one issue.

 

[Phaedrus]

Thanks OR....and indeed you are correct, the devil is always in the details. Let's hope your NWA dope dealer is correct as well

 

[PCL_128]

Occam is indeed correct. I spoke with a member of the ARC last week, and he backed up this info. The issue is essentially in stale-mate right now. Congress doesn't want to change the rule because they view it as an FAA issue, but the FAA won't change the rule until there is protection passed by congress for litigation. Until one or the other concedes, then things are on hold. Don't let your guard down, however. The pro-change lobby is very active, and they just might be able to drum up enough support in congress to pull some new legislation out of their asses to protect from litigation. If that happens, then expect an NPRM to follow very quickly.

 

[AlbieF15]

Occam,

How is this for irony.

Those pushing for Age 60 changes say its only FAIR, and we are being greedy if we protest their extending their careers.

At the same time--even proponents realize that SOME folks will be cut out of the deal because the effective date of change has to happen sometime, and the legal ramifications of a change will cost the airlines a host of legal fees, time, and effort.

The fact that those "short sighted" over 60 folks who don't understand why THEY should be excluded while their close counterparts will reap a huge windfall and will bitterly protest and sue may just (according to your sources) keep ANYTHING from changing....

Delightful. Absolutely delightful. The actions of a few over 60 pissed off senior pilots may just help scores of junior guys for the next several years. I think I'm going to go outside and roll in this like a dog rolls in a dead rabbit, with my tongue hanging out and everything. Yummy, yummy irony...

 

[PlaneDrvr]

I'm certainly not going to turn in my union card over one issue.

I am not going to turn in my ALPA card over either; however, "if" ALPA does not follow the view of a clear majority of its members, and fight this rule change, with every resource it has, right up to the end, then whenever ALPA leadership calls on me to support them in the future, NOT likely that I will be there.

And, I agree with those who have stated that nothing can pass without congressional action to protect the FAA, Gov't and companies from lawsuits; as Blakley even stated that herself on numerous occasions, prior to the public announcement sometime in the next year or so.

How about this as a possible solution; since everyone who currently holds an ATP, knew when they applied for and received the ATP at age 23, that they could only fly to age 60. Therefore, if any change of the age 60 rule is going to occur, anyone who applies for/receives an ATP, after the 'effective rule change date,' will be allowed to fly to age 65, but NO ONE will be 'grandfathered' Sounds fair to me.

And another thought, for those who claim that age 60 is "age discrimination" is it also age discrimination that you still have to be 'at least 23 years of age' in order to hold an ATP? Why not 21 yrs of age? Don't see any of them yelling and screaming to change that limit, that's right, it does benefit them!! Sorry, that was a silly question.

Just my $0.02, for what its worth. Actually with inflation, "my $0.02" is probaly now only worth about $0.01.

 

[vetrider]

Its a moot point ultimately, because the FAA wants to change the age to 65, and they are moving to do so, and will most likely succeed no matter what ALPA or the APA says.

But as far as ALPA goes I want to see another poll so we can get to the bottom of which side ALPA is supposedly not representing. I hear pro change and soon to be retiring guys whizzing and moaning about cooked numbers and ALPA not representing them. I also hear now the anti change folks complaining that ALPA is not representing them.

We need another poll. We need a simple poll. A one question poll. Here is the question.....

Do you want the age to change to 65, yes or no?

No more of the crap in the last poll with ten million hypothetical scenarios. There is another poll coming up, if it is like the last one it will be clear as mud again, with room for both sides to interpret how they like and whiz and moan about it.

If it is the simple question above, then maybe, just maybe, at least one of the two groups of whizzers and moaners will finally shut up at least. If it is convoluted like the last one, it will be as useless as whizzing in the ocean to raise the tide, and we'll never hear the end of it from both sides.

 

[BluDevAv8r]

Its a moot point ultimately, because the FAA wants to change the age to 65, and they are moving to do so, and will most likely succeed no matter what ALPA or the APA says.

But as far as ALPA goes I want to see another poll so we can get to the bottom of which side ALPA is supposedly not representing. I hear pro change and soon to be retiring guys whizzing and moaning about cooked numbers and ALPA not representing them. I also hear now the anti change folks complaining that ALPA is not representing them.

We need another poll. We need a simple poll. A one question poll. Here is the question.....

Do you want the age to change to 65, yes or no?

No more of the crap in the last poll with ten million hypothetical scenarios. There is another poll coming up, if it is like the last one it will be clear as mud again, with room for both sides to interpret how they like and whiz and moan about it.

If it is the simple question above, then maybe, just maybe, at least one of the two groups of whizzers and moaners will finally shut up at least. If it is convoluted like the last one, it will be as useless as whizzing in the ocean to raise the tide, and we'll never hear the end of it from both sides.

This poll has already started and the very first question is what you want it to be. Other questions are asked however...and for very good reason.

-Neal

 

[Fly4hire]

Occam is indeed correct. I spoke with a member of the ARC last week, and he backed up this info. The issue is essentially in stale-mate right now.

Do you have the names of the ARC Cmte members?

 

[Tejas-Jet]

How about this as a possible solution; since everyone who currently holds an ATP, knew when they applied for and received the ATP at age 23, that they could only fly to age 60.--->Not exactly true. Many pilots hold ATP's that do flight instruction, test flying, corporate, crop dusting, etc. and many are over the age of 60.

And another thought, for those who claim that age 60 is "age discrimination" is it also age discrimination that you still have to be 'at least 23 years of age' in order to hold an ATP? Why not 21 yrs of age? Don't see any of them yelling and screaming to change that limit, that's right, it does benefit them!! Sorry, that was a silly question.---->Actually, it's not a silly question. I didn't get this age 65 ball rolling, but I support it....I also won't get the ATP age 21 ball rolling. But if someone else gets it going....I'll support that too.

Tejas