From the ALPA Age 60 Website...

[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

 

[Falconjet]

Why do we need another poll? The last one was rigged as much as possible in favor of supporting a change. It clearly showed that the majority preferred that the rule remain. The senior ALPA national guys in Herndon are just looking for ways to again tell the majority that you know what is best for us and will do whatever is in your best interests.

You should do whatever you can to emphatically tell those 4 Captains that the majority of ALPA members are against the rule change. If you get the chance you should personally tell that to Capt Prater as well. I for one would appreciate that.

Good luck to you on the panel and thanks for your efforts.

I simply ask you and the others to remember the will of the majority when you go about your business.

FJ

 

[vetrider]

Do you favor changing the retirement age to 65, yes or no?

End of story. Anything more just convolutes things and sends us around in circles.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Whether or not Age 60 changes will be determined by the Congress.

That means it will come down to who has the most "pull" on Capitol Hill.

I don't think John Prater, even as the head of ALPA, has nearly the pull Duane Woerth enjoyed. He's still several years, and several hundred PAC checks, away from that level. That's one of the liabilities of electing someone with very little (Read: zero) National experience.

JP's a good guy, but we're not going to get the same level of influence in Congress from him that we had with Duane. That's unfortunate, given that the folks Duane had the most influence upon are now in charge of the committees and the process.

Oh well...

 

[BluDevAv8r]

I think you were addressing this post to me. You should also try getting in touch with Scott Stratton. He is a Captain with you guys and on the BRP.

Why do we need another poll? The last one was rigged as much as possible in favor of supporting a change. It clearly showed that the majority preferred that the rule remain. The senior ALPA national guys in Herndon are just looking for ways to again tell the majority that you know what is best for us and will do whatever is in your best interests.

I disagree. The poll is important because demographics have changed in the past 2 years as have contracts and status of pensions/retirement plans. New pilots have been hired and older pilots have retired. The last poll was conducted 2 years ago and while a nice baseline, we need more current data. This data will tell us with good confidence where the membership is on this issue. The polling questions were not written with any predetermined outcome in mind and were edited multiple times over in order to most accurately frame the issue.

You should do whatever you can to emphatically tell those 4 Captains that the majority of ALPA members are against the rule change. If you get the chance you should personally tell that to Capt Prater as well. I for one would appreciate that.

FJ, I think it is critical to point out that the BRP is NOT a policy making panel. We have nothing to do with the Association's current policy on Age 60 or whether or not it should change its stance. The purpose of the BRP is to analyze the potential economic, safety, and unity impacts of a change to the rule...so we can be ahead of this issue. The FAA has made it fairly clear that they intend on changing the rule and in light of that, Captain Prater wanted to organize a committee to analyze the impact of such a potential change. That said, ALPA's official position is still to oppose any change to the current rule on the basis of safety. But if the FAA and congress say it is going to change, it may very well change. Time will tell and nothing is set in stone.

Good luck to you on the panel and thanks for your efforts.

I simply ask you and the others to remember the will of the majority when you go about your business.

FJ

As I said above, our business has nothing to with the will of the majority or anything like that. We are studying economic, safety, and unity impacts on the profession. In other words, how will LTD programs be impacted? Staffing? Training programs? Medical standards? Etc. Our work isn't to decide if we should or should not support a change.

-Neal

 

[Phaedrus]

our business has nothing to with the will of the majority or anything like that. We are studying economic, safety, and unity impacts on the profession

Yes FJ, remember the change is a foregone conclusion....
See my original post. What the heck does he mean, "no matter the outcome". If the outcome is in doubt then the BRP ought to be looking at how to defeat it or some other committee (sheesh) ought to be leading the charge.
"We're pissing on your back! and telling you it's raining."

 

[BluDevAv8r]

Yes FJ, remember the change is a foregone conclusion....
See my original post. What the heck does he mean, "no matter the outcome". If the outcome is in doubt then the BRP ought to be looking at how to defeat it or some other committee (sheesh) ought to be leading the charge.
"We're pissing on your back! and telling you it's raining."

Again, the BRP's mission isn't to study whether or not to change the mandatory age. You should point your opinions at Captain Prater and the rest of the Executive Board (which is your MEC chairs) as they set policy on this issue. Have you written or called ALPA Government Affairs to talk about what is being done to oppose this change? I suggest you speak with Frank Voyack at National.

-Neal

 

[Phaedrus]

Neal,
I have and thanks for the suggestion. My opinions are not in any way pointed at the BRP nor you. I understand your mandate but it doesn't mesh with what Prater is stating and existing ALPA policy concerning this issue.
P

 

[Andy]

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.

Sweet. They won the war, but will lose everything arguing over the terms of surrender.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Whether or not Age 60 changes will be determined by the Congress.

That means it will come down to who has the most "pull" on Capitol Hill.

I don't think John Prater, even as the head of ALPA, has nearly the pull Duane Woerth enjoyed. He's still several years, and several hundred PAC checks, away from that level. That's one of the liabilities of electing someone with very little (Read: zero) National experience.

JP's a good guy, but we're not going to get the same level of influence in Congress from him that we had with Duane. That's unfortunate, given that the folks Duane had the most influence upon are now in charge of the committees and the process.

Oh well...

good stuff....what is said above....

D Woerth had allot of pull of the Hill. He was well connected. Prater will do well, but it takes time to build trust, respect and relationships.

One thing is definite.. ALPA is a respected Association on CapHill. Unlike other AFL-CIO unions ALPA is known as a very issue orientated group. They are bi-partisan supporting Congressmen who are pro- airline pilot.

ALPA has repsect on the Hill. Thus it has "pull". But not that much pull.

Only 14% of ALPA members contribute to the CapHill lifeblood: Money.

Nobody cares about Air Line Pilots in Washington. Meaning nobody is going to be nice to Air Line Pilots cause we are pilots. It is all about quid pro quo. You take care of me and I'll take care of you. ALPA is a small group. Only 66,000 members. There are plenty of other groups with deeper pockets. But again, ALPA has much repsect with congressmen and thier chief of staffs for thier bi-partisan issue orientated approach.

I ran into a few Teamsters. On old fogey couldn't get passed Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick. The point? Do you want the Age 60 issue solved or do you want to talk about Chappaquiddick? Do you want pension reform or do you want to have the satisfaction of telling Teddy that he is a schmuck?

The goal? Get as many congressman elected to CapHill that favor ALPA and Age60. If you had that then it doesn't matter what the FAA and Blakley do. This is how we almost single handidly squashed foreign control last Nov. This is why Virgin America is having to do massive changes to get certification...

Prater doesn't have the backing of ALPA members to be THAT influential. The influence that all of you think he should have...

Why?

Beacuse when Prater says to any given pro pilot congressman what percentage of his pilots contributed to his (re) election campaign Prater says 14%. What if Prater could say 50%? 75%? 90%? That would be effective. Age 60 would be a heck of allot easier to win for us.

When the Delta guys were against the USAIR takeover, DAL pilots showed up in uniform to the hearing and lined the back wall. It worked.

Are you ready to show up on CapHill in FULL uniform to fight age 65? If you aren't willing to show up, send emails and make a few phone calls then it says that ALPA pilots are apathetic.... Don't concern yourself with the Air Line Pilots, they are non players... spectators in this Age 60 issue....

What else are you willing to do? Because Congressmen want to get re-elected. And elections cost big bucks.


Do you wanna to give a few dollars to help Prater be more effective on the Hill?



Well do ya punk?

 

[Tejas-Jet]

good stuff....what is said above....

D Woerth had allot of pull of the Hill. He was well connected. Prater will do well, but it takes time to build trust, respect and relationships.

One thing is definite.. ALPA is a respected Association on CapHill. Unlike other AFL-CIO unions ALPA is known as a very issue orientated group. They are bi-partisan supporting Congressmen who are pro- airline pilot.

ALPA has repsect on the Hill. Thus it has "pull". But not that much pull.

Only 14% of ALPA members contribute to the CapHill lifeblood: Money.

Nobody cares about Air Line Pilots in Washington. Meaning nobody is going to be nice to Air Line Pilots cause we are pilots. It is all about quid pro quo. You take care of me and I'll take care of you. ALPA is a small group. Only 66,000 members. There are plenty of other groups with deeper pockets. But again, ALPA has much repsect with congressmen and thier chief of staffs for thier bi-partisan issue orientated approach.

I ran into a few Teamsters. On old fogey couldn't get passed Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick. The point? Do you want the Age 60 issue solved or do you want to talk about Chappaquiddick? Do you want pension reform or do you want to have the satisfaction of telling Teddy that he is a schmuck?

The goal? Get as many congressman elected to CapHill that favor ALPA and Age60. If you had that then it doesn't matter what the FAA and Blakley do. This is how we almost single handidly squashed foreign control last Nov. This is why Virgin America is having to do massive changes to get certification...

Prater doesn't have the backing of ALPA members to be THAT influential. The influence that all of you think he should have...

Why?

Beacuse when Prater says to any given pro pilot congressman what percentage of his pilots contributed to his (re) election campaign Prater says 14%. What if Prater could say 50%? 75%? 90%? That would be effective. Age 60 would be a heck of allot easier to win for us.

When the Delta guys were against the USAIR takeover, DAL pilots showed up in uniform to the hearing and lined the back wall. It worked.

Are you ready to show up on CapHill in FULL uniform to fight age 65? If you aren't willing to show up, send emails and make a few phone calls then it says that ALPA pilots are apathetic.... Don't concern yourself with the Air Line Pilots, they are non players... spectators in this Age 60 issue....

What else are you willing to do? Because Congressmen want to get re-elected. And elections cost big bucks.


Do you wanna to give a few dollars to help Prater be more effective on the Hill?



Well do ya punk?

KA-BOOOOOM !!! There it all is boyz...When a guy sez they should get rid of ALPA over one issue, but will not lift a finger to make change happen from within...you've got apathy...big time...

Taking it Back? Heh-heh, sure you are...

Tejas