Prater's Blue Ribbon Panel (5 Captains/1 First Officer)

[Tejas-Jet]

The MEC members that voted for this jerk should be held accountable for their actions.

...and you can get this ball rolling with a recall motion at your next LEC meeting.

Let us know how it goes for you.

Tejas

 

[Falconjet]

...and you can get this ball rolling with a recall motion at your next LEC meeting.

Let us know how it goes for you.

Tejas

You may think its funny Tejas, but there is quite a groundswell forming for exactly that.

It will be very interesting to see how long Prater remains in office.

FJ

 

[FoxHunter]

That is not acceptable. If I am a 59 year old FO, who enjoys the schedule and don't want to upgrade, why is the goverment going to force me out???????

Congratulations Prater, you just opened up the biggest can of warms. Way to go to make a name for yourself. This age 60 "possible change" would result in discrimination lawsuits not matter what. The age 60 rule works, ALPA members by almost 70% want it in place, and it won't solve any issues. NO TO THE CHANGE.

Also, Prater if you read this board: Honor, respect, and represent the will of the membership, or RESIGN, before you are forced out.

The age is going to 65 so just get over it. The international standard was raised to 65 on 23 NOV 2006 and on that date the FAA appoved all airline pilots up to the age of 65 as PIC, except pilots flying for US airlines. The FAA Administrator made it very clear that the FAA can no longer claim age 60 is about safety.

The only reason the age 60 rule was not overturned by the court was safety. The coming litigation should be interesting. Age 60 was never intended to be a junior pilot affimative action program.

Federal law protects all over the age of 40 from age discrimination. How much should each pilot be compensated for his loss between age 60 and age 65? Should each pilot be awarded punitive damages? Who will pay? ALPA, APA, ATA, individual airlines?

Who is against the change to age 65? 30,000+- junior pilots. Who is for it? FAA, AARP, all senior groups, 90%+ of the general public.

Yea, throw Prater out and bring Duanne back. The only impact will be the amount of the future assessment to pay for the award.

 

[vetrider]

Should each pilot be awarded punitive damages? Uh, no. What are we supposed to do, find every living pilot who retired after 1960 and give him five years worth of reparations?

Blakey also made it clear that there is a process to go through and there will not be any waivers for those who don't make the cutoff. Maybe its not ideal for all, but thats just the way it is going to be. Just like you say to the "younger" guys Fox, get over it.

Just for the record, upping the age is fine with me, its time has come. I just get tired of the whining coming from both sides of the issue.

 

[Flopgut]

The only reason the age 60 rule was not overturned by the court was safety. The coming litigation should be interesting. Age 60 was never intended to be a junior pilot affimative action program.

Federal law protects all over the age of 40 from age discrimination. How much should each pilot be compensated for his loss between age 60 and age 65? Should each pilot be awarded punitive damages? Who will pay? ALPA, APA, ATA, individual airlines?

Fox! You have a great idea! Who should pay you ask? Why none other than guys like yourself! I was very concerned you APAAD types would be sueing the union, because airlines and agencies are easily idemnified. Guys who haven't flown captain haven't really done anyone wrong. But you my friend, you have benefited for decades, I think YOU are the one who needs to pay at least most of any money that might be owed. Afterall, YOU benefited the most, doesn't matter if you thought it was a bad rule. Good point on punitive damages too! Yep, you certainly should pay them.

I think I'll join AARP, let them know exactly which group of pilots has been stealing all these years, and which ones have the deep pockets.

Think about it bud, you might be the one who ends up being sued.

 

[vetrider]

Yep, Larry Flynt turned the tables and sued Jerry Falwell. Be careful what you start Fox. Pandoras box and theater of the absurd all in one package, gotta love it.

 

[FoxHunter]

Fox! You have a great idea! Who should pay you ask? Why none other than guys like yourself! I was very concerned you APAAD types would be sueing the union, because airlines and agencies are easily idemnified. Guys who haven't flown captain haven't really done anyone wrong. But you my friend, you have benefited for decades, I think YOU are the one who needs to pay at least most of any money that might be owed. Afterall, YOU benefited the most, doesn't matter if you thought it was a bad rule. Good point on punitive damages too! Yep, you certainly should pay them.

I think I'll join AARP, let them know exactly which group of pilots has been stealing all these years, and which ones have the deep pockets.

Think about it bud, you might be the one who ends up being sued.

Age 60 was a safety regulation! Never in place for my benefit or others. Too bad you will be pushed back another 5 years and still have to pay for the damage caused those that were discriminated against.

I guess Prater might want to avoid as much of that as possible.

 

[Flopgut]

Fox, I realize reading comprehension is not your strong point, and that it won't be enough for you to actually "retire". You'd rather see this profession ruined than pass on a good career to another. That's one characteristic of your generation we can all count on.

Go ahead and sue ALPA. I don't think you'll win anything, but if you do I think we'll just close it. And that could be a good thing. Get some new representation. Maybe we could even dust off the closed shop concept? End the right to work crap. I can tell you this for sure: If FEDEX were a closed shop, you wouldn't be shooting your mouth off! You'd be out of work.

Oh, and thanks for the tip about sueing you! We can all probably get this tied up for a good 15-20 years.

 

[PCL_128]

There seems to be a misunderstanding about this BRP. The BRP's purpose isn't to decide whether Age-60 should change (that's already been decided by the FAA); the purpose of the BRP is to determine how to implement the change in a way that most benefits us and does the least damage.

 

[Huck]

It's not a NRM, it's a NPRM....

 

[PCL_128]

It's not a NRM, it's a NPRM....

You're talking theory, I'm talking reality. The rule is changing. Get used to the idea.

 

[Huck]

You said "that's already been decided by the FAA." No it hasn't.

The rule is changing. Get used to the idea.

That's just whistling past the graveyard. I could just as easily say, "The rule will be tied up in court for ten years. Get used to the idea."

The reality is - no one knows anything at this point. The most profound change to our careers since we got our ATP's and we know zero percent of how we will be affected.

Meanwhile better start getting ready for your stress test. Get used to the idea. (Hey! That phrase is fun! I think I'll start using it too....)

 

[atafan]

Meanwhile better start getting ready for your stress test.

I know plenty of 30 somethings that might get dinged by the test, so bring it on!

 

[FoxHunter]

Fox, I realize reading comprehension is not your strong point, and that it won't be enough for you to actually "retire". You'd rather see this profession ruined than pass on a good career to another. That's one characteristic of your generation we can all count on.

Go ahead and sue ALPA. I don't think you'll win anything, but if you do I think we'll just close it. And that could be a good thing. Get some new representation. Maybe we could even dust off the closed shop concept? End the right to work crap. I can tell you this for sure: If FEDEX were a closed shop, you wouldn't be shooting your mouth off! You'd be out of work.

Oh, and thanks for the tip about sueing you! We can all probably get this tied up for a good 15-20 years.

Flop, your situational awareness is lacking. That could be the reason that you appear not to know what you are talking about.

 

[Flopgut]

Fox, if you think you've seen every trick in this business get ready to be surprised.

 

[Flopgut]

You know, I'd go ahead and accept a pretty large assesment if I knew it was going directly into a fund that gets YOU retired out of this business! The profession would be a lot better off.

 

[BluDevAv8r]

Neal: You did great work at XJET, and you're intellectual for a pilot. That's why they want you. Please proceed with caution; you can be too smart for collective bargaining. There are only three rules: Get the money, get the money, and get the money. You might think I'm wrong, but watch carefully where these captains take this: directly to thier pockets. This isn't new opportunity for all (like new equipment) like they will try to assert. This needs to be balanced as best it can and preserve, among other things, age 60 normal retirements and seniority progression. Please resist the lucrative, koosh job they offer you at ALPA national and the "instant check airman" deal you'll be surprised by from the company. You're better than that.

Additionally, please don't think that because I reffered to you on here that I was trying to call you out. You didn't have to reveal yourself, and if you don't post anymore, that's OK.

Good luck. I hope you and Captain Prater can prove me wrong.

Flop,

Thanks for the reply (and the kind words) and the elaboration on your initial post. I agree with all of what you said above and don't worry about calling me out...you didn't do that. I usually sign all of my posts on here with my first name. It is no secret who I am, etc. I'll continue to post as much as I can, within the confines of practicality obviously.

For the record though, I don't expect (or want) a cushy job at National nor do I expect check airman job. I do expect, however, to not be able to please everyone and that I will also have a bullseye on my back from here on out.

-Neal

 

[Golden Falcon]

Mary Irene MAC Millan??? straight shooter!!

 

[Fly4hire]

Federal law protects all over the age of 40 from age discrimination. How much should each pilot be compensated for his loss between age 60 and age 65? Should each pilot be awarded punitive damages? Who will pay? ALPA, APA, ATA, individual airlines?

Get in line behind slavery reperations.

Now how about the age discrimination about to be imposed against co-pilots who cannot fly past 60 so the PIC can fly to 65? I see that as problematic as the age 60 rule.

 

[Flopgut]

Flop,

For the record though, I don't expect (or want) a cushy job at National nor do I expect check airman job. I do expect, however, to not be able to please everyone and that I will also have a bullseye on my back from here on out.

-Neal

To add to the record: You probably are the right guy for an eventual ALPA national position, it won't be one of the easy ones though.

 

[Flopgut]

Flop,

I do expect, however, to not be able to please everyone and that I will also have a bullseye on my back from here on out.

-Neal

You're the only FO on there, so you're in a tough spot. Either way it goes, anyone who knows you will have no less than high regard for your effort.

 

[Freight Dog]

You're talking theory, I'm talking reality. The rule is changing. Get used to the idea.

Hmm... last I checked, NPRM stands for Notice of Proposed Rule-Making.

But that's all besides the point, right? It's a done deal, reality, the rule is changing, right?

Please, do us all a favor, and drop that cheesed*ck signature line because you've already surrendered along with ALPA National.

But being that blindly-committed ALPA cheerleader, why don't you point me in the right direction so I can play some Texas Hold'em with big-wigs at ALPA National? I'll clean them out simply because I know they'll fold every time. Maybe this way I can make up the loss of my A-plan and no upgrade due to ALPA's Surrender Policy.

 

[Dizel8]

Now how about the age discrimination about to be imposed against co-pilots who cannot fly past 60 so the PIC can fly to 65? I see that as problematic as the age 60 rule.

Actually, that is a very good point, I wonder how exactly they are going to deal with that, I can see that being rather expensive for the airlines, with scheduling conflicts and whatnot.

 

[Freight Dog]

I guess another solution would be NO AGE 60+ F/Os. :beer:

How about no AGE 60+ CAPTAINS OR FOs? :beer:

 

[Freight Dog]

The age is going to 65 so just get over it. The international standard was raised to 65 on 23 NOV 2006 and on that date the FAA appoved all airline pilots up to the age of 65 as PIC, except pilots flying for US airlines. The FAA Administrator made it very clear that the FAA can no longer claim age 60 is about safety.

So once again, FoxHunter... what is the rationale for one pilot having to be under 60 if one is over 60? I'm still waiting to hear your answer, and you've never been able to answer that one. Oh, and the "it's how the ICAO does it" is a cop-out answer. I really want to know why is it not OK for both pilots to be over 60?

If the FAA truly thinks it's safe to have over 60 pilots flying in the 121 world, then they shouldn't do this ICAO crap allowing only 1 pilot in the cockpit to be over 60.

If it's not about safety, then what is it about?

Anxiously awaiting your answer...

 

[jetjockey#1]

The age is going to 65 so just get over it. The international standard was raised to 65 on 23 NOV 2006 and on that date the FAA appoved all airline pilots up to the age of 65 as PIC, except pilots flying for US airlines. The FAA Administrator made it very clear that the FAA can no longer claim age 60 is about safety.

The only reason the age 60 rule was not overturned by the court was safety. The coming litigation should be interesting. Age 60 was never intended to be a junior pilot affimative action program.

Federal law protects all over the age of 40 from age discrimination. How much should each pilot be compensated for his loss between age 60 and age 65? Should each pilot be awarded punitive damages? Who will pay? ALPA, APA, ATA, individual airlines?

Who is against the change to age 65? 30,000+- junior pilots. Who is for it? FAA, AARP, all senior groups, 90%+ of the general public.

Yea, throw Prater out and bring Duanne back. The only impact will be the amount of the future assessment to pay for the award.

I don't even know where to start with my response, but, here I go. First of all, in Europe the change the rule for one reason, and one reason only. THEY DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH QUALIFIED PILOTS. that is the only reason, nothing to do with safety or anything else. Here we have thousands upon thousands of highly qualified 121 captains looking to move on to bigger equipment, with the additional endless supply of student pilots to fill the regional ranks.

Second of all, it is not discrimination to force a pilot to retire at 60, I am not saying it, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT SAID IT. I believe they stated that firefighters are also forced to retire "early', but do we want as a society to have a 65 year old firefighter try to pick you up, and carry you and your family out of a burning building? I don't, I guess you do though.

Also, changing the rule is only going to increase the discrimination law suits. Why is a 60 year old FO forced to retire while the captain enjoys the pay? I guess you are advocating to allow both pilots past 60, you must, otherwise you would be the biggest hyprocite.

As far as who is against changing the rule? I am, and almost 70% of ALPA members, plus APA. I believe that's a bit more than 30,000 junior pilots. If you have a surgeon who is schedule to operate your heart next week, and the staff working with him day in and day out, tell you he has no business operating on anybody, and then the accounting department asking you to pay 10K tells you he is fine, as far as we know, who are you going to believe? never mind, I already know.

As far as Prater, I believe he should represent the will of the membership, or at least of the majority, 70% of the membership. As far as I am concern, I would have expected him to come out and publicly oppose the attempt ocurring right now, and fight it tooth and nail, instead, he is dividing ALPA more in a couple of months that Duane did in countless years.

We are opening a door we have no business opening. Next thing you know the FAA will come up with a NRPM to change the flight time in a 24 hour period to be increased to 10 hours, and since NRPM means a change not matter what, Prater will just go along with it, and cooperate with the FAA......Right??, past performance predicts future performance.

Bottom line is, the rule has been in place for decades, it works, and the very people wanting to change it, they do for only one reason, because they are enjoying the benefits of it. Otherwise, why all these highly experienced pilots are not willing to take the right seat at the bottom, and pass all their experience to new captains??

bottom line is PRATER NEEDS TO RESPECT AND HONOR HIS POSITION. He needs to come out and oppose the possible age 60 change, otherwise he will be recalled. 70% of ALPA members oppose a change, APA opposes a change, and the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT opposes the change, what else do we need?

 

[007]

I've got an idea.
We need a flowback program. When they turn 60, they can all get hired by the regionals as captains. Now that would be a great idea.

The junior guys get to move on. The senior guys, who are all on here saying they just wanna do it for the love of flying, get to keep flying.

Now I like this idea, it's win-win for everyone.

 

[brownie]

Not that is any of my business but all u alpa memebers should overwhelm your prez with letters and phone calls after all u earned that right and he needs to response to each of u, that's pretty much how things work around our union. MAJORITY OF VOTES WIN