Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

What has ALPA done for me lately?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
Think more about the RLA. Think about the ATSB turning down UAL on two loans. Almost as though they were trying to wreck your pension.
Click to expand...

Sorry, not a conspiracy theorist. The ATSB turned down our loan because they thought we could get outside financing and didn't need the government to back the loan. Seems that they were right.

Afterall, the PBGC is enjoying all that money now. How about when they had the audacity to report EARNINGS on that money?! Wasn't even their money, they barely loaned any of it! How about Tilton accounting mileage plus as a liability when you had a pension, now it's worth what? $4 billion!!
Click to expand...

The whole milage plus is thing is widely misunderstood, as well as its value while an airline is in bankruptcy vs. its value when an airline is solvent. Long story short, an airline's milage program is pretty much not worth anything if it is tied to a bankrupt airline on the verge of liquidation. It's worth a lot (Air Canada proved it) when your airline is solvent and making money. So whatever it is worth now has nothing to do with what it was worth when we were in bankruptcy protection.

If you can somehow attribute your losses to a guy flying an M80 from McAllen, TX to Vegas, you're not only doing exactly what mgt wants you to do, your doing more damage than any LCC ever did.
Click to expand...

No, I'm blaming OUR losses (UAL's and the rest of the legacies) on the 1000's of guys who flew for airlines like Airtran, Frontier, JetBlue, etc., for less than 1/2 the total compensation a guy at UA made, for example. It's impossible to compete with an airline with wages that are that far below industry norm.

And I'm not even sure "blame" is the proper word now that I think about it. I guess we live in a free country and pilots can work for any wage they want. But I don't blame Paul W., Tilton, whoever for the reason why we all make JetBlue wages.
 
Blakey made it very clear that the FAA wasn't going to touch the Age 60 issue unless Congress provided some indemnification.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure which is supposed to be the cart and which is supposed to be horse, but my point is that this whole change came about because of the ICAO rule change. The U.S. would have been telling their pilots they can't fly over age 60 while allowing ICAO airline pilots fly overhead who were over age 60, which was a totally hyprocritcal postion. That is what spurred the "sudden" change. Whether it was the FAA or Congress that wanted to fix this position (both under pressure from organizatoins that found age 60 discriminatory), I'm not sure. But when I was initially upset about ALPA's seemingly 180 on the Age 60 issue, I started calling my reps and e-mailing the legislative guys and that was the response that I received, in a nutshell.
 
ualdriver said:
OK, that's fine but what would he have done if Age 60 was going to change anyway, whether ALPA was against it or not, assuming he had stayed in?
Click to expand...
I think it's a false assumption that Age-60 was going to change anyway, at least for the foreseeable future. Prater saw a convenient excuse for pushing that reasoning with ICAO's decision and the proposed NPRM, but I don't believe for a second that this was really a closed deal, and we're seeing right now just how long this is being delayed. I think we can keep delaying this for years to come if we put our power behind the effort.
I think DW would have done pretty much what Prater (and the executive is doing now.
Click to expand...
I think you're not getting the full story on how this whole thing went down. This was not the unanimous opinion from the EC that you've been led to believe. Captain Miller may have been the only one to actually have the balls to officially vote NO, but he wasn't the only one that shared that opinion. This was a very contentious issue on the EC.
 
PCL_128 said:
I think it's a false assumption that Age-60 was going to change anyway, at least for the foreseeable future. Prater saw a convenient excuse for pushing that reasoning with ICAO's decision and the proposed NPRM, but I don't believe for a second that this was really a closed deal, and we're seeing right now just how long this is being delayed. I think we can keep delaying this for years to come if we put our power behind the effort. I think you're not getting the full story on how this whole thing went down. This was not the unanimous opinion from the EC that you've been led to believe. Captain Miller may have been the only one to actually have the balls to officially vote NO, but he wasn't the only one that shared that opinion. This was a very contentious issue on the EC.
Click to expand...

I'd be more than happy to hear how it went down, then. No doubt it was a contentious issue with the EC. Any "shades of grey" issue (i.e. is it time to realize that this issue is lost or do we keep fighting and perhaps piss off some political allies?) is certain to be contreversial.
 
Age 60 was going to change regardless of JP or DW in office... but DW had the long term situational awareness on Caphill and the long term relationships... to work the issue in what best for pilots....

Do you want a captain flying you around with 10000 hours or one with 2000 hours? They are both going to land the jet... but who do you want?
 
If either of those two are flying the jet I want a golden parachute just like the one they have!!!
 
ualdriver said:
Sorry, not a conspiracy theorist. The ATSB turned down our loan because they thought we could get outside financing and didn't need the government to back the loan. Seems that they were right.

Better a conspiracy theorist than a sufferer of Stockholm syndrom. Labor is not supposd to be the single shock absorber to all problems. Not in a national transportation system. Rail workers lost pensions during the Depression. That brought about the RRB www.rrb.gov for them. Do we deserve any less? Not when we're forced to play by RLA rules! Not after what we've been through!


The whole milage plus is thing is widely misunderstood, as well as its value while an airline is in bankruptcy vs. its value when an airline is solvent. Long story short, an airline's milage program is pretty much not worth anything if it is tied to a bankrupt airline on the verge of liquidation. It's worth a lot (Air Canada proved it) when your airline is solvent and making money. So whatever it is worth now has nothing to do with what it was worth when we were in bankruptcy protection.

Mileage Plus held a durable value with multiple airlines. Just ask credit card companies.

No, I'm blaming OUR losses (UAL's and the rest of the legacies) on the 1000's of guys who flew for airlines like Airtran, Frontier, JetBlue, etc., for less than 1/2 the total compensation a guy at UA made, for example. It's impossible to compete with an airline with wages that are that far below industry norm.

Easy. I take no pleasure in pointing out that it's perhaps you guys dragging everything down now. Your LCC side pay/work rules are as unconscienable to many as you were to those you cite.

And I'm not even sure "blame" is the proper word now that I think about it. I guess we live in a free country and pilots can work for any wage they want. But I don't blame Paul W., Tilton, whoever for the reason why we all make JetBlue wages.
Click to expand...

We need to address the larger issues. If you agree the RLA is a problem, then you can't let regulatory bodies off the hook and you can't blame LCC.
 
ualdriver said:
The U.S. would have been telling their pilots they can't fly over age 60 while allowing ICAO airline pilots fly overhead who were over age 60, which was a totally hyprocritcal postion.
Click to expand...

Not at all! Our pilots are allowed to fly into Europe and other destinations where pilots are required to get a chest x-ray once a year and undergo cognitive screening every 6 months.

We have had less stringent medical standards than ICAO for years. Is it hypocritical to allow US pilots (with our wimpy medicals) fly into countries with higher standards?

My congressman gets it. I think others do, too.
 
Occam's Razor said:
Boo Hoo!

I have a headache.

It was on sale!

Fine!

I'm going to my sisters!

(Nice try, but I speak the language...)
Click to expand...

I was only talking about trying to have a discussion with Rez O.

You can go back to your Thermos and chug a cup of STFU now.
 
Last edited:
flygirlqt said:
I was only talking about trying to have a discussion with Rez O.

You can go back to your Thermos and chug a cup of STFU now.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile.... your career and/or ALPA.....isn't meeting your expectations.... I am willing to work with you.......so is Occam, so is Captain X, so is FDJ2 and all the other ALPA cheerleaders....
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom