S. 65 and H.R. 1125 still alive (age 65)

[Andy]

The reality is simply that 30% participation and results of 55/45% against don't exactly indicate a mandate.

Those results are good enough for a contract to be signed.
However, I'd be surprised if there were less than 50% participation and 60/40 opposed to a change. But the poll is biased in favor of age 65, so some of the results of the poll will be used to make a case for changing ALPA policy.

The phone poll is complete; what were the results from that?

 

[PCL_128]

However, I'd be surprised if there were less than 50% participation

I think you're going to be very surprised, then.

But the poll is biased in favor of age 65, so some of the results of the poll will be used to make a case for changing ALPA policy.

The BRP designed the poll, and one of the BRP members is a regular poster on this forum. I'll let him respond to that in detail. Suffice it to say that as opposed as I am to a change, I still don't believe there was any bias cooked into the polling questions.

The phone poll is complete; what were the results from that?

They haven't been released yet, but the EC was briefed on them by the BRP.

 

[Andy]

The BRP designed the poll, and one of the BRP members is a regular poster on this forum. I'll let him respond to that in detail. Suffice it to say that as opposed as I am to a change, I still don't believe there was any bias cooked into the polling questions.

The BRP isn't exactly representative of the membership; they look pretty long in the tooth. I'd be curious to know where the BRP stands on any change - my bet is that it's something along the lines of 5-2 in favor of changing to age 65.


PCL128, thanks for the responses. My anger is not directed toward you; I am just frustrated by the abuse of power at ALPA national.

 

[PCL_128]

The BRP isn't exactly representative of the membership; they look pretty long in the tooth. I'd be curious to know where the BRP stands on any change - my bet is that it's something along the lines of 5-2 in favor of changing to age 65.

If Neal S. says that there was no intentional bias in the questions, then I believe him. He's never done anything to harm his credibility. If he wasn't on the panel, then I might be a little more skeptical.

PCL128, thanks for the responses. My anger is not directed toward you; I am just frustrated by the abuse of power at ALPA national.

No problem. I understand the frustration.

 

[whymeworry?]

Fact is, MOST of the surveys are coming from the older pilots (from a friend of mine at ALPA Nat'l). The younger in our group are either uninformed about this survey or apethetic. They will only have themselves to blame if the survey #s comes out in favor of age 65.

This group of pro-age 65ers are being predictably selfish about this issue.... they don't want to hear the safety arguement, nor do they care about their union brothers and sisters who are still on the street or facing years of stagnancy. They only care about keeping their rich lifestyles in tact. This issue is NOT about age-discrimination, this is NOT about a so-called pilot-shortage, this is NOT about keeping in step with ICAO.... This is about economics... the economics of the pilots who insist on changing the rule.

Am I wrong here? Fine, then why don't they fly as F/O if they want to fly past 60?

If the younger pilots want their voices heard, they'd better get their surveys in before the cutoff.

 

[Freight Dog]

I just saw Prater's message and when he started talking about Age 60, I wanted to hurl. If you can't see that he's basically sold us out in favor of raising the age to 65, you gotta be blind...

 

[Dumb Pilot]

World politics of open skies and the increased demand of crews in the next decade will move this forward. There is no stoping it

 

[whymeworry?]

I just saw Prater's message and when he started talking about Age 60, I wanted to hurl. If you can't see that he's basically sold us out in favor of raising the age to 65, you gotta be blind...

Prater will do what the board tells him to do. The board will do what the membership say to do. It's that simple.

 

[Flopgut]

PCL 128: Do you want participation, just for the sake of participation? Or do you want to see the union do what the membership wants? It's pretty clear that communications are jammed on this (the second poll is about to get short circuited, no one at national will communicates directly) and we've got a rogue union president. I don't think you're considering (or maybe haven't seen) how other unions work/function. This IS NOT how it's done.

 

[BoilerUP]

I've done the BRP Poll, I've talked to my reps, and I sent an email directly to Capt. Prater. The response I got from a Mr. John Mazor at ALPA Communications included, among other things, this line:

"Barring any change in the official ALPA policy, the Association will oppose any NPRM proposal to change the Age 60 rule."

I can only say I hope so...but I do fear 65 is a foregone conclusion. If the politicians in Washington want it, its gonna happen. Surprisingly enough, the only thing that might be standing in its way is the powerful airline lobby.

At the point the US government finally farks us younger pilots, the only thing to hope for, nay demand from ALPA, is fair representation and consideration of the younger segment of ALPA members so that older ALPA members do not receive a massive career windfall.