Thank God for the APA!

[Tejas-Jet]

Great job APA, we (THE MAJORITY) Commend you. Here's what these SCABS's have now accomplished, and are pushing us into the mix also! Anyone over 60 flying will be treated like the SCAB they are!

Let's be careful with how we use the word "Scab".

A true "scab" is a person who has crossed a picket line to perform struck work.

 

[harleyman]

Wanting to force Pilots at age 60 is selfish and self serving. Some of the older guys need to work beyond 60, and if they are physicaly able to do so then why stop them. I am glad to see this moving through.

 

[BoilerUP]

Wanting to force Pilots at age 60 is selfish and self serving.

And lobbying to change the rule isn't selfish and self-serving?

Step down from your high horse man, the "Fairness Doctrine" doesn't pass the smell test, especially since air traffic controllers still have to retire at 56?

What's the difference between a pilot and an ATCer?

One lives out of a suitcase and hotel room eating food on the road for half a month, the other sleeps in his/her own bed every night. Oh yeah, and one has a government pension and the other doesn't.

This was about $$$$$$$$, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[harleyman]

Thats right it's all about $$$, maybe your wallet is fat, but for others they still NEED to work.

 

[BoilerUP]

Thats right it's all about $$$, maybe your wallet is fat, but for others they still NEED to work.

If I were still flying 121, my wealth at Age 60 (or even at 65) would be quite a bit less due to delayed career progression (left seat, major, then major CA) and time/value of money.

If you NEED to work, you still have the option of flying part 91, 91k or 135. OR, what I proposed to John Prater himself, would be requiring all PICs to be under the age of 60. This would have allowed those who NEED to work a means to earn a good income near top seniority in the right seat, while preserving upward career progression for younger pilots. I guess that was a untenable position...

I truly do hope you enjoy your career windfall, because that is exactly what pilots 55-59 just received - a career of upward progression due to pilots above you retiring at 60, only to change the rule before you were affected and receiving up to 5 more years at your top earning potential. At the expense of your younger and furloughed colleages.

 

[Deadalus]

[font=Arial,sans-serif]

Let's say the USAPA pilots...whoever they are, say they want age 60. What will USAPA do about it?

Put out a press release?

They'll use the $5 they have in the bank to lobby politicians. Oh wait, they're saving that for the next merger.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

This may all be true JohnQ. I still feel that ALPA should have followed what the membership wanted and that was to oppose the age change until it was changed.

It is a done deal. and ALPA got language put into the bill to make better (I didn't say good) for pilots. What did the APA do?

If what you are saying is true then why have 3 age 60 polls to see what the membership thinks?

b/c a minority particapted. The other polls were done to give pilots a second chance at personal prepsonsibility. and they still failed. Of those who did particapte a majority (of the minority) were the old geezers.. simply put the young guns didn't care...

Then after the final poll find the one question that they can hang their hat on to present to the membership, "if the rule were to change would you want ALPA to be an active participant in the process"
The leaders at ALPA wanted this to change, that much is clear.

the congressional vote speaks...

There is no question that as a stand alone bill the house and senate were going to pass this. No congressman or senator wants AARP (one of the more powerful lobby groups) against them with elections coming up next year. Finally while ICAO had changed the age requirements to 65, very few countries/companies have adopted the change.

Reference to which countires? How about Canada? Age 60+ ALPA pilots flying CRJs into DCA.

In the US there are going to be lawsuits left and right about when the law was passed and how they, the pilots were screwed. People are going to be grandfathered in (or try to be) You won't see this in other countries and you may never see age 65 at most of the countries. While we are looking at other countries/international carriers how about we take a look at their medical examinations. Our are a joke, you pay for your medical, period. No one is interested in whether you are in good health, the Docs just want their $90. If we were truly interested in safety we would chnage our very outdated medical exams. When the ALPA Blue Ribbon pannel met they refused to even intorduce this has a possibility. I for one think that guys may be able to fly past 60 but we need to change our medical. I dont want the age 65 to pass, it will hurt a lot of careers as well as slow the recall process for furloughs.

We will see how the lawuits and medical standards change..

 

[BoilerUP]

It is a done deal. and ALPA got language put into the bill to make better (I didn't say good) for pilots. What did the APA do?

Like what, Rez?

I don't see my proposal to National that would have required PICs to be under Age 60 (which would have allowed those that need the income to continue working while addressing the negative career ramifications for younger pilots) anywhere in the language of this bill...and I know I'm not the only ALPA member that sent suggestions to Prater, the BRP and National...

b/c a minority particapted. The other polls were done to give pilots a second chance at personal repsonsibility. and they still failed. Of those who did particapte a majority (of the minority) were the old geezers.. simply put the young guns didn't care...

In an election you still win as long as you get a majority of the vote, even if less than 50% of those eligible to vote participated.

Of the 18,725 that voted in the BRP survey, 53.7% said NO, they didn't favor changing the Age 60 rule (question #1) to 42.7% who voted YES I favor change.

Of the same 18,725 that voted for question #2 "Suppose it is evident the FAA or Congress is determined to change the Age 60 rule and it will change. Under these circumstances, do you feel ALPA should maintain opposition or drop opposition or modify its policy to address FAA or Congressional efforts to change the rule?" 36.3% said maintain opposition, while 23.9% said drop opposition or and 37.6% said modify policy.

ALPA National put drop opposition AND modify policy percentages together to get a majority and justify their flip-flop. Maybe I'm just a dumb Kentucky boy, but drop opposition and modify policy are not the same thing, nor are they mutually exclusive.

ALPA National spun responses to a poorly-worded #2 question and ignored the responses to the #1 question when they made their announcement.

THAT is what has members so pissed off with Prater and National: they seemingly disregarded the will of the membership that participated (regardless of its percentages - the apathetic be damned) and made the results fit the agenda of their desired outcome.

 

[Freight Dog]

Look Rez... ALPA sold out the junior pilot. You know Oberstar is ALPA's best friend on the Hill. Think he'd push this through this fast if ALPA maintained opposition? Come on Rez... we're not that dumb.

If ALPA listened to its members, this bill would have been buried in the FAA Reauthorization Act and probably not implemented until 2009 at the earliest.

We elected an idiot. Plain and simple.

 

[vetrider]

Wow, vetrider.....as two old moto-heads (I assume), I knew we'd eventually find something we could agree on.

I bet there is plenty of moto stuff we could agree on, your avatar for one, but we best leave the airline stuff out of it. Still an Alpa guy despite the moron at the top.

 

[FO 4 Life]

In case you didn't know, both the House and Senate UNANIMOUSLY passed the Age 65 bill--not one congressman anywhere (!) opposed it--not even in the APA's back yard--so much for effectiveness.

I don't think they actually voted. I'm not sure any of them really care. The bill wasn't even discussed in its new form. There would only be a real vote or discussion if one of them wanted it.

 

[igneousy2]

ALPA National spun responses to a poorly-worded #2 question and ignored the responses to the #1 question when they made their announcement.

THAT is what has members so pissed off with Prater and National: they seemingly disregarded the will of the membership that participated (regardless of its percentages - the apathetic be damned) and made the results fit the agenda of their desired outcome.

YEA! What he said.

 

[PCL_128]

We elected an idiot. Plain and simple.

At least you're accepting some responsibility for it. Am I still the only one missing Duane?