From the ALPA Age 60 Website...

[airfogey]

What really chaps me about your continuously, unchanging gripe is that my father lost a pension. A fully funded pension, about 25 years ago. You know what ALPA, the airline(s), and the gov't had to say about it? Tough sh!t! And when you read Flying the Line does it not occur to you that this business has always been like that? How come it matters more now that it's you that needs more? Why are you special? Don't act like it's [age 65] going to help everyone either. Because it does NOT help anyone in the least until after they turn 60, and it COSTS everyone else in the mean time. It will cost me less to raise a child than what this rule change will cost me in earnings.

Finally: Since we all have to simultaneously hear about how deservant you are AND how your generation of pilots is so much more capable than any other, consider this: When my father lost his airline job he went out and started at another. He did real well; More than replaced his airline money. And he showed all his kids how to do well at something other than flying. So if you're that much better than anybody/everybody why don't you get out there and find a great job? Let this profession be what it is supposed to be for everybody to take an equal turn at. Because if you're a liability at 60, you'll probably still be one at 65. And I'm not going to enjoy the sequel to this in five years unless it includes language that allows me write your wrinkly old butt off my taxes.

Well Flopgut, I'm certainly not anymore deserving than anybody else, and I've got seven years to go under the present rules and if it doesn't change in this country I can always look for a flying job overseas and fly til I'm 65 if I want.
ALPA changed their stance against age 60 in 1980 under the pretense of safety but their wording was all about how everyone has a nice pension and everyone was hired with an expectation of retiring at 60 etc. I'm glad your father did well--although he probably did not enjoy his new career as much as flying, but your point also drives home the fact that there really is no unity in ALPA--only 40 or so seperate unions with very divergent interests. If you work for a carrier with a defined benefit plan you probably are more interested in retiring as early as possible before the plan goes tango uniform--if you work for a carrier that has a defined contribution plan you probably would like to be able to work longer to fund your plan more. Maybe just maybe you actually like your job and don't see why you should be arbitraily kicked out at a certain birthday.
Airlines didn't go out of business in the past-the Civil aeronautics board found a stronger airline for them to merge with-now it is dog eat dog- and the leanest, strongest, meanest, most innovative dog is going to win. I've flown with many pilots from Branniff 1 and 2, old Frontier, Eastern, old Continental, Transamerica, Capitol, etc etc etc at my airline that had to start over and I would not begrudge them the chance to work a few more years to be able to afford a better retirement.
Also, since foreign airlines are flying in our airspace, and since ALPA represents Canadian airlines and has signed contracts that have age 65 as a retirement age for them-they cannot claim that age 60 is a bona fide occupational qualification anymore--ALPA is breaking the law in discriminating against its most senior members- the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 forbids labor organizations from discriminating against their members because of age.

I don't quite understand your statement about this profession being one for everyone to take an equal turn at--its always been feast or famine-airlines hired pilots with 100 hours or less in the mid 60's and in the mid 70's you could have been #1 in your class in flight school, have 10 mig kills over Viet Nam, been a former Blue Angel, and have every rating in the book and never get an interview with anybody--its all timing--but that doesn't mean that since some airlines have done much better than others since 9-11 that continuing to institutionalize discrimnation is right.

Airfogey

 

[BluDevAv8r]

I don't know Neal. I don't think you're "covering our 6" too well. You're just reacting, they are in the driver's seat. There is a complete lack of organic, forward thinking out of ALPA. It's the same broken record in that regard. It should not be hard for a sophisticated and well funded union like ALPA to make a political play.

Some would call this reacting and others would call this forward-thinking. Depends on your viewpoint I guess. Please don't confuse the BRP with ALPA Policy and PAC activities, etc. The BRP has a very strict and limited mission and in that sense, the BRP is forward-thinking. Your frustration is with ALPA's overall action since the FAA's announcement. Have you communicated that with your MEC Chairman as well as ALPA President?

But, as always, we're going to end up making the FA union look smart?!

How so?

The fact that Captain Prater answers an NPRM with a BRP, instead of simply doing what the APA did and then withdrawing input, when it was abundantly clear what the membership's MAJORITY wanted, goes against every reason unions exist.

Perhaps Captain Prater had it on good authority that no matter what ALPA or the APA did, the FAA (or Congress) was going to change the rule and as a result he wanted ALPA to be prepared for that change. I don't know for sure...I'm just speculating. As for what the membership wants, that is why we conducted new polling and are about to conduct an online survey as well.

The BRP will enable oversight to say we had input, and therefore we agree to it, even though that's NOT what our union should be doing.

The BRP is merely investigating the effects of a possible change and once that investigation is concluded, it will be given to the EC/EB and they can then use that information as part of their decision making process for what to going forward.

What if this were a different issue, like foreign control? He has just shown them how to get anything past us! Put a few dollars in front of the more senior types who happen to be running the show and they'll get whatever they want!

I disagree wholeheartedly with your assertion that a few bucks on the top end can shift the entire ALPA policy on Age 60.

This is a huge issue Neal. This gets botched and we will all end up with less than half of what we ever hoped for out of this. The only way to fix it will be with new representation.

I agree it is a huge issue but I don't understand how you can say that if Age 60 goes to 65 that we will lose more than half of what we hoped for. Can you elaborate on that statement?

I think there might be a disconnect of responsibility on Captain Prater's part. I like the guy, so it's been hard for me to recognize.

Look, you know what my personal opinion is on the issue but I also know that if the FAA wants to change the rule then the FAA will change the rule. Can we lobby harder? Sure. And I hope we do (if that is what the EB decides to do). But it may or may not affect the final outcome.

-Neal

 

[The Prussian]

What happened???

Did Airfogey's most excellent post suck the oxygen out of the room...or what???

 

[Phaedrus]

Close...it was so stale that it sucked all the humidity out of the room.

 

[The Prussian]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Flopgut]

Well Flopgut, I'm certainly not anymore deserving than anybody else, and I've got seven years to go under the present rules and if it doesn't change in this country I can always look for a flying job overseas and fly til I'm 65 if I want.
ALPA changed their stance against age 60 in 1980 under the pretense of safety but their wording was all about how everyone has a nice pension and everyone was hired with an expectation of retiring at 60 etc. I'm glad your father did well--although he probably did not enjoy his new career as much as flying, but your point also drives home the fact that there really is no unity in ALPA--only 40 or so seperate unions with very divergent interests. If you work for a carrier with a defined benefit plan you probably are more interested in retiring as early as possible before the plan goes tango uniform--if you work for a carrier that has a defined contribution plan you probably would like to be able to work longer to fund your plan more. Maybe just maybe you actually like your job and don't see why you should be arbitraily kicked out at a certain birthday.
Airlines didn't go out of business in the past-the Civil aeronautics board found a stronger airline for them to merge with-now it is dog eat dog- and the leanest, strongest, meanest, most innovative dog is going to win. I've flown with many pilots from Branniff 1 and 2, old Frontier, Eastern, old Continental, Transamerica, Capitol, etc etc etc at my airline that had to start over and I would not begrudge them the chance to work a few more years to be able to afford a better retirement.
Also, since foreign airlines are flying in our airspace, and since ALPA represents Canadian airlines and has signed contracts that have age 65 as a retirement age for them-they cannot claim that age 60 is a bona fide occupational qualification anymore--ALPA is breaking the law in discriminating against its most senior members- the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 forbids labor organizations from discriminating against their members because of age.

I don't quite understand your statement about this profession being one for everyone to take an equal turn at--its always been feast or famine-airlines hired pilots with 100 hours or less in the mid 60's and in the mid 70's you could have been #1 in your class in flight school, have 10 mig kills over Viet Nam, been a former Blue Angel, and have every rating in the book and never get an interview with anybody--its all timing--but that doesn't mean that since some airlines have done much better than others since 9-11 that continuing to institutionalize discrimnation is right.

Airfogey

It's seniority. Everybody understands how you get hired. Once you get hired, seniority progression takes over. That's how a Blue Angel functions seemlessly with a far less experienced [qualified] pilot who is senior to him/her. You're 53, a captain, and it looks like this could be a huge windfall to you. Of course you like it, but seniority progression has to suffer for you to get this.

There are so many things that can end our FAR 121 flying careers that it hurts to think about it. Dealing with a normal retirement age should be the easiest. And if you don't like 60, are you going to be happy with 65? Is everybody?

The corporate world doesn't have this simple seniority system. Airline pilots are spared the realities of getting to a certain age and having younger and less senior coworkers go ahead of them. Seniority let's us all take a turn at the best deal we can get until we are all equally discriminated against at age 60. It's a pretty clean deal, but you want to mess it up. You believe you're more special and deservant. You've got adequate seniority to insulate you from the worst schedules and are at the highest pay. You've got zero concern for the coworkers who will be working the worst schedule longer, so you're ready to remortgage their career for your own needs.

The reality is, younger workers go through older ones like poop through a goose. My old man had to learn that when he left flying. There are so many of you guys that have NO idea this goes on. You compare yourselves to other professions and it disgusts me. You've got to be more than just senior to get ahead in these other professions. Maybe you would like to do like some ICAO carriers and have rostering and assingments instead of seniority? Maybe you would like to have something like military rank and promotions instead? You think that Blue Angel is going to be your gearjerker? Think you'll be a captain? Look, you might be a Blue Angel and you might be the greatest pilot in the world. But there are too many old, lazy, washed out guys in professional situations similiar to yours to suggest guys like you have the whole game beat. Go find a job when you turn 60 and find out for yourself.

 

[Flopgut]

Some would call this reacting and others would call this forward-thinking. Depends on your viewpoint I guess. Please don't confuse the BRP with ALPA Policy and PAC activities, etc. The BRP has a very strict and limited mission and in that sense, the BRP is forward-thinking. Your frustration is with ALPA's overall action since the FAA's announcement.

-Neal

Neal: I just finished the survey. I'm disgusted.

You need a survey and an issue like retirement age to come up with the questions you've asked? If ALPA would LEAD on issues like retirement plans (have one maybe? start one?), medical issues (employ more doctors, do your own medicals Set the standards), and disability insurance (sieze that benefit from employer airlines and extend/manage it for the whole union) maybe we wouldn't have to be talking about working LONGER? ALPA's ever pragmatic approach is, I think, a smokescreen for not knowing what the he!! you're doing! Or, it's just another half answer to the problem ALPA always put's out right before they eat some of their own? Let's see, big payoff for senior members, screw job for the junior ones? Hmmm, I think I know where this is going. ALPA can NOT come up with a win/win? It's just too darn much to ask, eh? Can NOT actually FIX anything either? That wouldn't be "pragmatic".

I've communicated with JP. Heard nothing.

Forget the FA union thing. ALPA makes every union look smart.

If you think a few bucks isn't tipping the scale on this, you're crazy! Don't play dumb Neal, you're not anonymous on here (bet you wish you were with this ridiculous survey out). If this doesn't go the way JP wants it, he'll just have another BRP type thing to cloud it up a little more and have another survey. You're a smart guy, look at the last 30+ years. Fying the Line reads like a Greek tragedy my friend. ALPA's pragmatism is the furthest thing from what we actually need.

 

[Flopgut]

Neal:

Why don't we exclude the votes of members who have < 2 years left? It's sounds like it's not going to effect them, this is supposed to take a couple years. They need to focus on different things and so do those of us with many years to go.

Would a clearer message of what your membership wants have any bearing on what you're going to be doing?

 

[Falconjet]

Lets have the furloughed and probationary members "vote" as well.

FJ

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Lets have the furloughed and probationary members "vote" as well.

FJ

I am all for it... but don't you think we should walk before we run...

Last online survey only 1/3 of the eligible/active members even bothered to participate....