Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You idiot. That was not written by USAPA. This is ALPA supporters at their worst, trying to make sh!t up.
no, it was going to "go down" regardless of what ALPA said about it. Language had already been passed in the house and senate changing the age, but it was vetoed by bush because it was attached to other spending bills, etc, that bush didn't like. They were simply just going to throw that language on another bill regardless. This language appeared before alpa changed its stance.Likely, it wouldn't have 'gone down.' And ALPA national pushed extremely hard to ensure that 2 over 60s could fly domestically. That surely wouldn't have gone down had it not been for ALPA.
in what way is ALPA actually corrupt? In your answer, please state specific facts. I don't see how ALPA is all of a sudden not useful. Didn't they make east guys the highest paid pilots in the industry less than 10 years ago?ALPA has outlived it's usefulness and has become increasingly corrupt.
cause they're breaking knee caps? Seriously...They're making Jimmy Hoffa's Teamsters look like choir boys.
nice fear mongering, but ALPA certainly isn't dying quickly...and what do you propose to "get alpa's house in order"??ALPA's become a part of the problem, not the solution. It either needs to get it's house in order QUICKLY or may very well die.
a good thing for pilots??? are you kidding? you want to imagine what this industry would look like if ALPA had never been? pick up Flying the Line and find out what being an airline pilot really could be like without alpa around. If alpa goes away, who's going to talk to congress about cabotage, open skies, etc? USAPA-PAC??And I see the death of ALPA, as it currently exists, as a very good thing for all pilots.
What possibly could be the "personal agenda" of an ALPA rep that he so bad wants to push on you?They're a bunch of snake oil salesmen that push personal agendas in the name of unity.
To be completely accurate, the APA raises it dues to 1.5% during Section 6, which of course takes years.My understanding is that APA and SWAPA charge 1%. I don't see any additional 'value' for double the dues.
No need for me to sing any praises for ALPA but unlike USAPA they don't exist solely to screw another pilot group.So while ALPA blowhards sit there and sing the praises of ALPA, they ignore the growing complaints from the masses.
Andy, I know you're upset about how Prater handled Age-60, but are you really dumb enough to let a single issue dictate your thinking? I always figured you for a much smarter guy. Prater's time will pass. He'll likely only serve a single term. That means only another 2 years and 10 months until this guy is gone. His mishandling of the Age-60 issue has cost us a lot, but throwing out the entire union because of Prater's mishandling of Age-60 is absurd.
No need for me to sing any praises for ALPA but unlike USAPA they don't exist solely to screw another pilot group.
At least screwing another pilot group isn't in ALPA's charter. The law is against USAPA's aims.I won't argue that this is trading one group of organized thugs for another group. However, alpa has a long and distinguished history of favoring one group of pilots to screw another group of pilots, including its own membership.
no, it was going to "go down" regardless of what ALPA said about it. Language had already been passed in the house and senate changing the age, but it was vetoed by bush because it was attached to other spending bills, etc, that bush didn't like. They were simply just going to throw that language on another bill regardless. This language appeared before alpa changed its stance.
in what way is ALPA actually corrupt? In your answer, please state specific facts. I don't see how ALPA is all of a sudden not useful. Didn't they make east guys the highest paid pilots in the industry less than 10 years ago?
a good thing for pilots??? are you kidding? you want to imagine what this industry would look like if ALPA had never been? pick up Flying the Line and find out what being an airline pilot really could be like without alpa around. If alpa goes away, who's going to talk to congress about cabotage, open skies, etc? USAPA-PAC??
Trust me, Andy, this was Prater's baby. He pushed and pushed and pushed until everyone went along with him. He distorted the issue, rigged the BRP in his favor to create a push poll to present to the EC and EB, etc... Do I think that more members of the EC and EB should have fought harder on this? Absolutely. Many of them fought pretty damned hard, though. There were numerous shouting matches that happened behind closed doors at the EC meeting, and the single dissenting voter wasn't the only one that was pissed off. He was just the only one that stood strong all the way to the end. The others fought pretty hard, but eventually gave in. They deserve some blame for that, but the truth is, the blame for this debacle rests solely with Prater, because it never would have happened in the first place if Prater wasn't in office. Place your blame where it belongs.PCL, it was not merely prater who pushed age 65; it was almost the entirety of ALPA national. What was the vote among the MEC reps? A couple of dissenting votes? This wasn't entirely prater; there is plenty of blame to go around alpa national.
I did plenty of work for National, and spent time in the Herndon and DC offices, but I was not a member of the EB or EC. But yes, I am certainly ashamed of Prater and his push polling and abuse of the system. But I don't blame the entire organization when the blame should really be directed at Prater himself. Neither should you.IIRC, you were at national at the time. You should be embarassed for the push poll and abuse of the system.
You've been listening to too many conspiracy theories. That simply never happened. The judge will soon throw out that lawsuit, and it will rest on the ash bin of anti-ALPA history just as the failed RJDC lawsuit now does.Do I need mention how alpa was busy trying to recruit American's pilots while 'representing' TWA?
Faulty premise. There are no competing interests in representing both the regionals and the majors. Sounds like you've been reading too much RJDC propaganda also.And how about alpa going out and recruiting all of the regional carriers and then representing both the main carrier and the regional partner, in spite of competing interests? Need I go on?
Trust me, Andy, this was Prater's baby. He pushed and pushed and pushed until everyone went along with him. He distorted the issue, rigged the BRP in his favor to create a push poll to present to the EC and EB, etc... Do I think that more members of the EC and EB should have fought harder on this? Absolutely. Many of them fought pretty damned hard, though. There were numerous shouting matches that happened behind closed doors at the EC meeting, and the single dissenting voter wasn't the only one that was pissed off. He was just the only one that stood strong all the way to the end. The others fought pretty hard, but eventually gave in. They deserve some blame for that, but the truth is, the blame for this debacle rests solely with Prater, because it never would have happened in the first place if Prater wasn't in office. Place your blame where it belongs.
I did plenty of work for National, and spent time in the Herndon and DC offices, but I was not a member of the EB or EC. But yes, I am certainly ashamed of Prater and his push polling and abuse of the system. But I don't blame the entire organization when the blame should really be directed at Prater himself. Neither should you.
That simply never happened. The judge will soon throw out that lawsuit, and it will rest on the ash bin of anti-ALPA history just as the failed RJDC lawsuit now does.
Faulty premise. There are no competing interests in representing both the regionals and the majors. Sounds like you've been reading too much RJDC propaganda also.
At least screwing another pilot group isn't in ALPA's charter. The law is against USAPA's aims.
Andy, I know you're upset about how Prater handled Age-60, but are you really dumb enough to let a single issue dictate your thinking? I always figured you for a much smarter guy. Prater's time will pass. He'll likely only serve a single term. That means only another 2 years and 10 months until this guy is gone. His mishandling of the Age-60 issue has cost us a lot, but throwing out the entire union because of Prater's mishandling of Age-60 is absurd.
They voted for it because after much fighting and screaming back and forth, Prater somehow managed to convince them that the rule was going to change anyway and that this was the only way to handle the situation. I still disagree with this assessment to this day, but Prater convinced them.The Nuremberg defense? They voted for it in spite of being philosophically opposed to it?
ALPA operates as a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. You elect leaders that you trust, and they represent your interests based on their best assessment of the situation. Despite your assertion, nothing in the Bylaws suggests that the reps are required to vote the way that a majority of the minority suggested in a poll. To the contrary, the Bylaws are extremely clear that the membership is unable to mandate their representatives to vote a certain way. Your Congressman is supposed to represent the interests of his constituents, but that doesn't mean that he has to poll his constituents to get their opinion on every issue and then vote the way they tell him. He is elected by you to represent your interests to the best of his determination. ALPA operates the same way. If you don't like that, then you can always propose a resolution to change the Bylaws to a system of direct democracy. But I don't think you'd like the results. Direct democracies are usually abject failures.With the way that ALPA's bylaws are set up, our elected reps are supposed to represent us at national.
Not sure what you're trying to say here, but nothing was "behind closed doors." ALPA's official policy had changed out in the open for everyone to see. You knew that the new policy was in favor of the change. Did you honestly expect them not to lobby on the Hill in favor of their new position?Yes, just as alpa didn't go behind closed doors on the hill and get Oberstar to kick the age 65 bill out of committee when the timing was right.
That's exactly what I'm telling you. Captain Woerth never actually made organizing a huge priority. Bringing new carriers into ALPA was something that he cared about, but he placed many other issues ahead of that. The idea that he put everything on the line and risked the entire future of the Association just to recruit the AMR pilots is absurd. He honestly never cared that much about it. Prater is actually the much bigger fan of organizing activities. Duane wouldn't even allocate the funds.I remember the HUGE push prior to the merge to get more carriers under the alpa umbrella. Are you telling me that nothing of the sort happened?
ALPA accepted the SCABs because it was the only way to bring the loyal CAL strikers back into the Association. At CAL, the SCABs make up such a huge portion of the pilot group that it would have been impossible to merge the IACP with ALPA without the support of at least a significant minority of them. The decision was made by the BOD that it was more distasteful to turn their backs on the loyal strikers than it would be to "forgive but not forget" the SCABs.And over time, I'll be told that alpa didn't welcome scabs back into the fold in order to get CAL to rejoin alpa.
Scope is not a conflict of interest. It is beneficial to all pilots at both the regional and major levels.Scope.
Quite frankly, I can't even believe that you'd write such a statement. Pinnacle and Northwest. United and Mesa. Delta and Comair. Need I go on?
Ever heard the expression "cutting off your nose to spite your face?" It seems apt in light of your quote.I don't like USAPA's goals, but if it sends a wake up call to Herndon, then I'm all in favor of it.