What has ALPA done for me lately?

[PCL_128]

That ICAO rule change signified when Age 60 was politically lost, and I think whether Duane or Prater or whoever was running ALPA, it was done deal at that point.

Duane remained opposed to the rule change even after ICAO announced their adoption of the new age-65 limit. As much as pilots loved to hate Duane, he was truly a pilot advocate. If you asked him what he felt about age-60, his answer was a simple "the members are opposed to increasing the age, and I stand by that." His personal opinion was irrelevant in his mind, because he supported the membership. Ironically, this steadfast refusal to go against the will of his membership was part of the reason that so many people grew to hate him. He personally hated many of the concessionary agreements and didn't feel that they were necessary, but he refused to tell the pilots that they couldn't have the agreements that they voted in favor of. The pilots later blamed him for these very agreements that they voted for, not knowing that he had been opposed to them the entire time.

 

[ualdriver]

Duane remained opposed to the rule change even after ICAO announced their adoption of the new age-65 limit. As much as pilots loved to hate Duane, he was truly a pilot advocate. If you asked him what he felt about age-60, his answer was a simple "the members are opposed to increasing the age, and I stand by that." His personal opinion was irrelevant in his mind, because he supported the membership. Ironically, this steadfast refusal to go against the will of his membership was part of the reason that so many people grew to hate him. He personally hated many of the concessionary agreements and didn't feel that they were necessary, but he refused to tell the pilots that they couldn't have the agreements that they voted in favor of. The pilots later blamed him for these very agreements that they voted for, not knowing that he had been opposed to them the entire time.

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? I think DW would have done pretty much what Prater (and the executive is doing now. Remaining opposed to the change "at all costs" (including burning valuable political bridges that we'll need in the future) probably would not be the thing to do concerning this issue, and I believe would be against the will of the Membership.

 

[Flopgut]

Let me start off by saying that I enjoy your posts.

Gotta disagree though. You seem to imply that the it's Prater's fault (through being the new guy, for example) that the Age 60 thing was going to change. That's what I don't agree with. I think it was pretty clear that the Age 60 thing was going to change to Age 65 when ICAO changed their rules to let guys fly to that later age. The FAA was in a quandry at that point: Do they ban ICAO carriers from flying over U.S. Airspace if one of their pilots is over age 60? Is it safe for ICAO carriers to have over age 60 pilots and not U.S. carriers? Do we tell U.S. pilots that they can't fly past age 60 while ICAO pilots over age 60 are flying overhead?

That ICAO rule change signified when Age 60 was politically lost, and I think whether Duane or Prater or whoever was running ALPA, it was done deal at that point. It was inevitable that the Age 60 rule was going to change, and that if we continued to fight it, it would politically harm us. That's why I don't think we (ALPA guys) should be saying that Prater acted contrary to ALPA pilot direction. Per those polls, I think he's acting exactly as directed. And I think common sense dictates that he act this way as well. We don't want any political bridges/relationships burned as I believe we have much bigger issues coming down the road.......

I enjoy your posts and part of me wishes I could see things the same way, I'd probably be healthier.

I want my union to care about what I think. Not ICAO. I probably should be trying to communicate that better, and I can't stress it enough. Some things we can't give on. Maybe this is something we can adapt to, but I want to hear ALPA say: There will be some things we CAN NOT budge on!

Did you hear about those guys that went over to Jet Airways? Many were over 60, others were close to it. Did you know they are having to get Canadian credentials? It's rummored this age isn't going to change and these pilots won't be able to fly into the US. (I don't know the whole story but they're having some drama) I bring this up, not to make fun of these guys' efforts, but to point out: we're very much trying to hit a moving target with this ICAO stuff. ALPA needs to be figuring out how to make things better for the average, current member whose got a future on the rocks. They could chase ICAO around on this for years. This is becoming counterproductive to helping the traditional ALPA member. Remember, the three votes had a low turnout, but each included the same results.

 

[Occam's Razor]

I think it was pretty clear that the Age 60 thing was going to change to Age 65 when ICAO changed their rules to let guys fly to that later age. The FAA was in a quandry at that point: Do they ban ICAO carriers from flying over U.S. Airspace if one of their pilots is over age 60? Is it safe for ICAO carriers to have over age 60 pilots and not U.S. carriers? Do we tell U.S. pilots that they can't fly past age 60 while ICAO pilots over age 60 are flying overhead?

That's not the way it works. The FAA doesn't care if other countries have different standards or medical requirements than we do. We allow pilots to fly past age 60, but not in the window seat of a Pt 121 airliner. Our ATC controllers use different medical and training standards too.

Blakey made it very clear that the FAA wasn't going to touch the Age 60 issue unless Congress provided some indemnification.

The "quandry at the FAA" perception is manufactured. Nobody in the regs branch wants to open the Pandora's Box of Minimum Cognitive Standards, testing to those standards, and the toughest nut of all: Self-Certification. That comes from their testimony and their consultation with the House Transportation Committee. The "patch" was the "babysitter" rule proposal.

That's why I don't think we (ALPA guys) should be saying that Prater acted contrary to ALPA pilot direction. Per those polls, I think he's acting exactly as directed.

I think he thinks he is, too. I have evidence he reached that opinion before he polled the membership. Regardless, he's got enough "mandate" in the guise of the "If it is going to change, should ALPA..." response to press the issue on the Hill.

 

[Flopgut]

This may come as a big surprise, but I don't blame Tilton, I don't blame Paul W., I don't blame any one person for the deep cuts in pay, work rules, and pension that we at UAL took- and for that matter we all took. I lay the blame at the feet of the MANY pilots who worked for 1/2 the hourly rate, crappy work rules, and no retirement in the late 90's and early 00's. They are the ones who used their low compensation packages to undercut the fares of the legacies at the time, and the legacies had a choice: bring their employees' total compensation package down to the level of our new LCC competitors or go out of business. I don't care who UAL's Master Chairman was. The pensions were going away, our wages were going to be significantly cut, and our work rules were going to be trashed or we simply wouldn't be able to compete with the JetBlue's of the LCC world. I think Paul W. really screwed up with one of side letters concerning RJ flying, but other than that, it didn't matter who the MC was at the time, we were screwed as long as we had an industry where 1/2 the pilots were flying for a half or a third of the going rate. And it will happen again if airlines like Virgin, Skybus, and Allegiant reach critical mass.

I got confused on who you were talking to in my last post. Sorry.

Be careful who you're blaming.

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. 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!!

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.

 

[ualdriver]

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.

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!!

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.

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.

 

[ualdriver]

Blakey made it very clear that the FAA wasn't going to touch the Age 60 issue unless Congress provided some indemnification.

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.

 

[PCL_128]

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?

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.

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.

 

[ualdriver]

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.

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.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

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?