United career progression

[UndauntedFlyer]

After Prater pushed the EC and EB into changing the policy, it was a foregone conclusion that the change would happen, because ALPA was really the only force in Washington holding it up. Did I personally fail in my own efforts? Yes, I did. I, along with many other reps from different airlines, fought hard to pass resolutions to stop this godforsaken policy change before it happened. But Prater still managed to do it

.

Internationally the age change was underway well before Prater. And didn't the Union elect him by a fair ALPA vote? And by your logic isn't your own president worse than a SCAB. You say that Prater has a record of harmfull actions while I only have words to make my points. So who is worse by your own rules?

I think of you as being no better than a SCAB. Just speaking to you is distasteful.

And this from a person who has never been in labor combat. Do you wear a battlestar? No. Have you ever walked the picket line for your airline's pilot strike, much less for 30 days as I did to earn my ALPA battlestars (which I have since thrown in the trash)? No. Who are you to speak and act as you do? Not much it is clear. You don't know who to hate. You even hate your own union president. What a tragedy. ALPA and the profession is doomed with reps like you. No wonder no one goes to meetings.

The truth sometimes hurts so you'll come back with more name calling because that's all you can do.

 

[PCL_128]

And didn't the Union elect him by a fair ALPA vote?

He got elected by having his MEC trade votes with another MEC. It was a slimy back room deal. Certainly normal in politics, but I wouldn't exactly call it "fair." Politics is rarely fair.

And by your logic isn't your own president worse than a SCAB. You say that Prater has a record of harmfull actions while I only have words to make my points. So who is worse by your own rules?

No, as much as I disagree with him, I think Prater did what he did because he honestly believed it was the right thing to do for the membership. It had nothing to do with selfish reasons. I'm completely convinced that your actions in relation to Age 65 are purely selfishly motivated. Big difference.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

It's not greed; it's just the logic of the plan!

PCL 128: Congratulations! You have surprised me by responding with a civil response. Maybe others will learn from your example.

The fact remains that Prater was properly elected. His position of returning ALPA to its original view on age 60 was known. He knew, you knew, I knew and everyone knew that age-60 was going to change and that it had to change in light of ICAO and the demise of the DB plans. There was no other answer. With a DC plan, just like all self-employed people and employees of companies with a DC plan, the concept is to work until you drop dead because a person never knows how much money will be required to live out their lives. It's not greed; it’s just the logic of such a plan. So when most all the airlines converted to a DC plan, it was only fair to those no longer under the DB plan to allow them to keep working. Again, it’s not greed; it's just the logic of such a plan.

It is a fact that I never had a problem with age-60 when I was covered by the DB plan. So when that plan was terminated any normal person must revert to the logical solution to what has happened, which means age-65. So yes, I did what I could to keep working, just like any normal person would and just like your newly elected union president believed must come. Prater, who you now speak rather kindly of, knew what had to come.

So now you and others want to vilify me for sharing the only logical view, the same view as your union president. The view that you say he believed was the right thing to do for the membership.

"I think Prater did what he did because he honestly believed it was the right thing to do for the membership."

Did I gain anything? No. Did you gain anything? It's a trade off: Nothing now, and later the option to work longer if you choose. You get something in the end, personally I got nothing. The only winners were those that were mostly uninvolved.

Remember I was always an ALPA member in good standing and "retired" as such, with battlestars and union combat experience. Shouldn't that entitle me to at least campaign to have my union ease up and change the rule sooner rather than later. Wouldn't any normal person do the same, just like your new President?

What really surprises me are those that seem to really believe that they are going to retire early at 55 or 60. Believe me, unless they have a huge pension, it just will not happen. Maybe if they have some kind of a horrible commute and work is like hell they'll leave early, but otherwise they'll all stay no matter what they say and maybe even believe today. There is just no motivation for such an early retirement under a DC plan. It’s not greed; it's just the logic of such a plan.

 

[PCL_128]

UF, I don't speak "rather kindly" of Prater. I don't think what he did was for selfish reasons, but he did act contrary to the will of the membership, and for that I advocate his recall. I never supported his candidacy in the first place, because it was clear that he was going to be in way over his head from the beginning. I proudly supported Duane at the 2006 BOD. If he had been elected, the age would still be 60. I have no doubt about that.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

He (Prater) did act contrary to the will of the membership, and for that I advocate his recall.

This statement is just not true. Since the Uinion was divided, at least half the membership supported change. He did act contrary to your half, but attitudes on this were changing. He did what was necessary.

 

[PCL_128]

This statement is just not true. Since the Uinion was divided, at least half the membership supported change. He did act contrary to your half, but attitudes on this were changing. He did what was necessary.

You obviously didn't look at the polling data. He acted contrary to the will of the membership. That is unacceptable.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

The opinion pole, as you well know, was divided right down the middle, and changing toward change. But that's beside the point, so let's not argue that.

How about this: If an airline has 90% male pilots and 10% women and the Union decides to make a rule that all women must stay as F/O's after age 50, is that fair even though the majority voted this change in?

Isn't that the same logic as was the age-60 rule?

 

[PCL_128]

The opinion pole, as you well know, was divided right down the middle

No, it wasn't. Not even close. But don't let facts get in the way of you trying to screw everyone else over for your own benefit.

How about this: If an airline has 90% male pilot and 10% women and the Union decides to make a rule that all women must stay as F/O's after age 50, is that fair even though the majority voted this change in?

Isn't that the same logic as was the age-60 rule?

No, it's not, because one is discrimination and the other is not. As you well know, the Supreme Court already ruled that the Age 60 rule was not age discrimination. Rules based on gender, however, are discrimination.

 

[Flopgut]

I just read through this thread to try and catch up.

It appears that what you are not acknowledging here Undaunted, is that ALPAs' being indemnified from lawsuits results from the fact that 60 and 65 aren't much different. They are BOTH discriminatory. Equally, in fact. If ALPA acted contrary to any law on age 60, then they are doing so no less on 65. Somehow, we have to move forward.

To that end (moving forward), were you not suppose to be applying for a new position with UAL?? You're on record as saying any hard feelings you might have on the timing of the rule change would be a distant second to you delight in applying to UAL as a new hire.

Shut us all up and get yourself hired again!

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Shut us all up and get yourself hired again!

Flopgut: Good to hear from you again. I'll skip comment on age 60/65, there's enough of that to last forever.

Regarding your interest in my applying to UAL, which is your qustion it seems. As is the point of this thread, and my interest in commenting on it in the first place, UAL is not what it was just one year ago and now I'm in another job that is OK with me. So why leave a good deal for a job with a company that's only selling off assets like the maintenance overhaul base, the short-haul business, reservations, the training center, meteorology services, food service, etc. Plus, has no new airplanes on order. That tells it all, UAL is making no investment in their future, and it is posturing for a sell off /merger, quite obviously. That sell off may very possibly include the bottom 3,000 pilots or more.


So before this thread was hi-jacked by ANDY and others regarding age-60/65, sponsorship of college programs, and personal insults, UAL was my concern and reason for comment. And in that reference, my comment has been for those coming to UAL to understand these facts before they make a big one-way leap to what may be the Titanic.

So for me, and people who care to listen to me, going to UAL at this time should be only pursued by the very young with nothing to lose, or others in similar situations. This may not be the time to jump ship because that ship seems to be sinking at an ever increasing rate. It is listing.