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

[Andy]

ALPA expects that attempts will be made to attach or include S. 65 and H.R. 1125 in each chamber's version of the 2007 FAA reauthorization bills which the committees of jurisdiction are scheduling to debate and vote on in May or June.

Wondering how bad this smells? Congress passed H.J. Res. 20, funding the FAA through FY07 with a continuing resolution. It is very unlikely that the House or Senate would debate or vote on an appropriations bill that expires on 30 Sep 07 when there's already a continuing resolution in place funding those agencies.
Perhaps ALPA's goal is to try to slide this into the FY2008 FAA Reauthorization Bill. In a Congress where the Democrats control both houses and have control of the appropriations subcommittees. And ALPA is trying to stop this? I don't think so.

 

[rf285]

I think if the membership says no and the leadership goes against their wishes, we should all join the Allied pilot's association. At least they stand on principle.

 

[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.



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

I just read Agenda Item #52 from the 24-26 April Executive Council Meeting. A REAL eye opener.

Here is how they're manipulating the polling results:
"WHEREAS while the initial polling results show that ALPA members oppose a change in the rule by a narrow majority, the poll also shows that 66% of ALPA members want to modify its policy on Age 60 if it is evident that the rule will change, and"

http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/...View.aspx?itemid=7974&ModuleId=2044&Tabid=256

That is shameful, outright manipulation of a biased poll. I'm disgusted.

 

[Occam's Razor]

I think if the membership says no and the leadership goes against their wishes, we should all join the Allied pilot's association. At least they stand on principle.

Mmm'kay, now we're getting somewhere!

Let's all join the APA! That way everything will be different! Suddenly, everybody will volunteer, run for office, and become actively involved in legislative efforts. Our PAC will soar like the APA's! Arabs will hug jews! Al Qaeda will surrender on the deck of USS Abraham Lincoln. We'll need supplemental oxygen to cope with the string of breathtaking successes!

(sigh)

ALPA ain't a building. It ain't a logo. It's pilots. It should be all of us, but it's not. It turns out it's only those pilots who get involved. If you ain't gonna get involved until we get the "L" out of ALPA, then you are a telemarketer's wet dream! As you probably know, a large segment of ALPA (Spoiler Alert! APA too!) does nothing but whine about ALPA being unsuccessful in efforts that they have refused to actively support. (adverb highlighted for effect). That is no different than the APA!

Slap a new name and logo on an apathetic pilot group, and they'll still be an apathetic pilot group.

 

[BoilerUP]

Slap a new name and logo on an apathetic pilot group, and they'll still be an apathetic pilot group.

I think that is the most accurate, truthful, and honest post in the history of Flightinfo.

 

[tomgoodman]

Grrrr...

Slap a new name and logo on an apathetic pilot group, and they'll still be an apathetic pilot group.

Maybe a ferocious name on letterheads and t-shirts will strike terror into the hearts of the enemy. For example, "Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam" or "Nippon Ham Fighters".

 

[BluDevAv8r]

I think if the membership says no and the leadership goes against their wishes, we should all join the Allied pilot's association. At least they stand on principle.

While I think the APA is a strong credible union, I also think they have it a little easier than ALPA. APA represents one airline and one pilot group. It is natural that they will have a much easier time unifying their pilots than ALPA...who has many different airlines with far more pilots. Furthermore, APA has thousands of pilots on the street...it is a lot easier for them to fall on their sword on this issue. That said, I have been very impressed with APA's response to not only this issue but their management bonuses as well as their concessionary bargaining process as a whole.

-Neal

 

[BluDevAv8r]

Congress had taken a laissez faire attitude toward the change and planned on leaving it to the FAA. Now all of a sudden there is talk of this change being fast tracked and buried in the DOT's appropriations bill. It is inappropriate for legislation to be included in appropriations bills and is not the normal procedure for getting legislation through Congress.
The ONLY way that this is happening is because some of ALPA national is lobbying Congress behind closed doors in favor of the change. If ALPA had continued to oppose any change, this would not be happening.

Andy,

If you look at the legislative history on this issue dating back a few years, you will find that your analysis above is incorrect. There are several people in Congress on both the House side as well as the Senate side that have made this their pet project for years. Do a little research on this issue going back a few years and you will see what I am talking about...this stuff has been going on a lot longer than Prater's short tenure.

-Neal

 

[XJTAv8r]

While I think the APA is a strong credible union, I also think they have it a little easier than ALPA. APA represents one airline and one pilot group. It is natural that they will have a much easier time unifying their pilots than ALPA...who has many different airlines with far more pilots. Furthermore, APA has thousands of pilots on the street...it is a lot easier for them to fall on their sword on this issue. That said, I have been very impressed with APA's response to not only this issue but their management bonuses as well as their concessionary bargaining process as a whole.

-Neal

Neal,

What's your take on the belief that some in ALPA leadership have their own agendas and are trying to push a "fast-track" Age 65 Rule through Congress instead of waiting for the FAA's NPRM process?

 

[BluDevAv8r]

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?

The first phone poll is complete. The survey is on-going until May 10 and once that is complete, another phone poll will be conducted to validate the results of the first poll and the survey. The results will be made public shortly thereafter, just like they were the last time 2 years ago or so.

The poll is absolutely not biased either way. That said, it was important not only to test pilots absolute feelings on the issue of Age 60/65 but also to test their sentiments using various scenarios and assumptions. Like it or not, some pilots' views on the issue do change if they believe that the age change is a foregone conclusion and if there is an opportunity to affect the change in a manner that is most beneficial to ALPA pilots.

Don't shoot the messenger Andy.

-Neal

 

[Andy]

Andy,

If you look at the legislative history on this issue dating back a few years, you will find that your analysis above is incorrect. There are several people in Congress on both the House side as well as the Senate side that have made this their pet project for years. Do a little research on this issue going back a few years and you will see what I am talking about...this stuff has been going on a lot longer than Prater's short tenure.

-Neal

Neal, I'm FULLY aware of the Congressmen who have made this their pet project. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM are members of the GOP. The GOP no longer has control of either house of congress; you might want to do a little research on which party currently controls the various committees in the House and Senate. There are a lot of 'friends of ALPA' on committees (including chairmanship) who have a great deal of influence over this matter. And they've suddenly gotten a change of heart on this matter without ALPA approval? That's a tough sell.

 

[BluDevAv8r]

Neal,

What's your take on the belief that some in ALPA leadership have their own agendas and are trying to push a "fast-track" Age 65 Rule through Congress instead of waiting for the FAA's NPRM process?

That is politics XJTAv8r and from day 1 of our participation on the BRP, the 7 of us agreed to leave the politics to the politicians since the Panel's mission isn't about recommending a change one way or the other...it is just to study the effects of a change (if it were to happen) so that ALPA can best manage its way through the change if it does in fact come down the pipe. I think you should call your MEC Chairman Bill Dressler and talk to him about the political issues you bring up if you have concerns. I speak with Bill often and he is very in touch with this issue, etc.

The only thing I will say, however, is that there has been a congressional push on this issue for a long time...from guys like Ted Stevens, Robin Hayes, John Mica, and James Inhofe.

-Neal

 

[BoilerUP]

The poll is absolutely not biased either way. That said, it was important not only to test pilots absolute feelings on the issue of Age 60/65 but also to test their sentiments using various scenarios and assumptions. Like it or not, some pilots' views on the issue do change if they believe that the age change is a foregone conclusion and if there is an opportunity to affect the change in a manner that is most beneficial to ALPA pilots.

I'm absolutely against any change from Age 60 to 65...but let's be honest here, that change is for all intents and purposes totally out of ALPA's control. They can lobby hard against it, protest in DC, or even suggest something like an SOS in opposition to it...but if the folks on Capitol Hill want it to happen, its gonna happen.

I think its a foregone conclusion that the retirement age is going to change - there is too much momentum. While that's not the outcome I desire, if its going to come to that I want to make damn sure my concerns about providing older pilots a career windfall are heard and that the ramifications of such a change on the career expectations of younger pilots are considered.

 

[seefive]

Maybe the Dems should have changed their position on every topic the last many years because the republicans had control of the house and senate and controlled the outcome. The idea that ALPA needs to change position to affect this issue is just a snowstorm bias by ALPA leadership to facilitate this change. It's shameful and ridiculous.

 

[Andy]

Like it or not, some pilots' views on the issue do change if they believe that the age change is a foregone conclusion and if there is an opportunity to affect the change in a manner that is most beneficial to ALPA pilots.

Neal,
That would be fine (influencing the change) IF ALPA were not pulling levers behind the scenes to fast track this thing. OK, I saw the realistic possibility of a change AFTER the NPRM, which would be late 2009. That would give me a little furlough buffer on the next economic downturn that will very likely occur in the next couple of years. United is not growing so the only way that I get a buffer is through attrition. And if attrition stops for another five years, there is a very good chance that I'll end up on the streets for another three or so years.

Neal, I do not intend to shoot the messenger; I appreciate you posting here.