The last straw

[JPAustin]

To me it's all about 1.95%

The 1.95% from these senior Captains about to hit 60 is tremendously more than the junior regional guys 1.95%. It seems to me that if a majority of ALPA members didn't want this, the only reason for the change is more money in the coffers.

All the more reason that those of us who are regional pilots need our own, separate union working for our best interests. ALPA has made it clear that they support the major airline pilot over the regional pilot.

As for my personal opinion on what this does to my career progression? I think it's presumptuous to assume that life as we know it will cease to exist. I'll still get paid to do what I love. Another few years at the regionals still beats the desk I flew before I was a pilot any day.

Interesting point, I didn't think of that one. That will be more loot in the coffers.

 

[Flybynite]

I guess i was mislead thinking that the previous generation would have had the integrity to uphold reasonable working conditions and contracts. I was wrong to think that you would have had the backbone to stand up for someone other than yourself and demand we get paid fairly. I guess it is up to todays generation to make sure that future pilots have a career they can be proud of.

You voluntarily applied for a job that paid poverty wages. You voluntarily took the job knowing full well what the pay scale was. You voluntarily continue to work at a job with poor pay and horrible working conditions. You are the one who needs to demand to be paid fairly.

So after all that you have volunteered for, how should I demand that you get paid fairly?

 

[JPAustin]

I have a solution to all of this -- everyone get a day job, be home at night, and get the weekends off!

 

[Kaman]

I think that many of you that are reacting to this rule change are ignorant of history. The age 60 rule was instituted for no other reason, except anti-labor/union.
When Quesada took over as FAA Administrator he was in the pockets of Juan Trippe and all the other airline cronies of the late 50's. They wanted to lower their costs by lowering their salary structure. The age 60 rule was trumped up to get rid of all the high-dollar earning pilots on the seniority lists of TWA, Pan Am, EAL, etc...No extensive study was conducted, nor was any data collected to support a mandatory airline pilot retirement age.
Now, the airlines are hurting for pilots and will absorb high costs associated with training a large group of new-hires. Age 60 is being changed for no other reason, but financial expediency. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with safety or ICAO alignment (which is also a crock...screw globalization, but thats another issue). The whole thing stunk before and it stinks again. We as pilots are being manipulated and duped at the same time...AGAIN.

Regards,

ex-Navy Rotorhead

 

[PCL_128]

Kaman, nobody gives a sh*& why the rule was instituted in the first place. Most of us are well aware of the history, but that's not relevant to today's discussion. What matters is how it will affect things today.

 

[JPAustin]

I think that many of you that are reacting to this rule change are ignorant of history. The age 60 rule was instituted for no other reason, except anti-labor/union.
When Quesada took over as FAA Administrator he was in the pockets of Juan Trippe and all the other airline cronies of the late 50's. They wanted to lower their costs by lowering their salary structure. The age 60 rule was trumped up to get rid of all the high-dollar earning pilots on the seniority lists of TWA, Pan Am, EAL, etc...No extensive study was conducted, nor was any data collected to support a mandatory airline pilot retirement age.
Now, the airlines are hurting for pilots and will absorb high costs associated with training a large group of new-hires. Age 60 is being changed for no other reason, but financial expediency. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with safety or ICAO alignment (which is also a crock...screw globalization, but thats another issue). The whole thing stunk before and it stinks again. We as pilots are being manipulated and duped at the same time...AGAIN.

Regards,

ex-Navy Rotorhead

Ahem...

Allow me to enlighten you to one of MANY studies about pilot age and safety, in particular with the NORMAL duty patterns associated with flying (and don't give me any of the "the more senior you are the better the schedules are" bull):

http://cf.alpa.org/internet/projects/ftdt/alpmag/SLEEPLSS.html

UH OH!!! It seems that this is an ALPA ARTICLE!!!

 

[Kaman]

Ahem...
I wasn't referring to the current NPRM my friend. I was referring to the inside deals that resulted in the original age 60 rule. As much as I support ALPA, it's ideals and it's vision for the piloting profession. ALPA had little if any real influence on this current rule-making either. Unfortunately, much of the cronisim that drove the original rule are alive and well. Any studies, papers or speeches are nothing but feel good propoganda to make the rank and file feel like ALPA national is doing something.

 

[JPAustin]

Ahem...
I wasn't referring to the current NPRM my friend. I was referring to the inside deals that resulted in the original age 60 rule. As much as I support ALPA, it's ideals and it's vision for the piloting profession. ALPA had little if any real influence on this current rule-making either. Unfortunately, much of the cronisim that drove the original rule are alive and well. Any studies, papers or speeches are nothing but feel good propoganda to make the rank and file feel like ALPA national is doing something.

Agreed. To be honest with you, I was reading two other posts along with yours (the other two being very PRO Age 65 and citing safety as no concern) and I admit, I misplaced my tone onto you, as well as the article. Man, thats twice today I screwed up someones tone. My bad and I apologize. I have re-read your response and I see that you are simply pointing to the croniism of it all as drivers for the NPRM and its economically derived history.

I just happen to be a huge safety pundit, so when I read other posts saying safety has nothing to do with Age 65 (and everything to do with their bank accounts), I get irascible. I know your point wasn't that though.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Kaman, nobody gives a sh*& why the rule was instituted in the first place. Most of us are well aware of the history, but that's not relevant to today's discussion. What matters is how it will affect things today.

.......... some of us do care about the history of the age 60 issue..... The fact is, ALPA initially opposed age 60 because the 60% Afunds hadn't been negotiated yet. Then after the elephants (mainline pilots) had negotiated 60% FAE Afunds, ALPA decided to oppose any change to age 60.....

.....along comes 911 and BKs and these magical 60% FAE Afunds disappear......guess what happens next....The elephants realize that they will have to work past age 60, so the support flip flops yet again.... nothing magical....just follow the money....

....never had anything to do with safety....like most issues, it is all about the money....

 

[vtech]

Safety of flight had been one of the number one concerns when ALPA was against Age 65!

"Safety of flight" had NOTHING to do with the rule being instituted. The rule was instituted for economic reasons. "Safety" was the convenient reason argued AFTER the rule was instituted. PERSONAL economics is the egocentric argument of those who are now infuriated because the rule has been changed. Things change. If that comes as a surprise to you, get in touch with reality. Bitch and moan all you'd like. See if that does you any good. Plan for the future. Expect things to change including your expectations. Plan for the worst and hope for the best. Good luck to ya if you're planning on all your dreams to come true.