Why the H is ALPA Advocating MPL Licensing?!

[atpcliff]

Hi!
I was ALPA, but was furloughed before IOE, and since then, have not worked at a union carrier (not for lack of trying).

Don't know what the ALPA opinion is, but what I was taught at Trans States is different, for example, than what the YIP FSDO (and I know a bunch of other FSDOs/airlines are teaching).

cliff
NBO

 

[ACL65PILOT]

MPL scares me, but as with Carbon trading, you need to do a few things. One is determine where the winds are blowing. It appears that this is going to pass by a wide margin. What I see ALPA doing is getting far enough in front of an issue so that they can have some say in how it is done. In effect it is the lesser of two evils.
You can either get it done to cause the least amount of issues, make sure the language is such that it develops a productive pilot, or you can fight against it and not be involved in what will eventually pass.

We need to ask ourselves what is better. No input on something that will pass either way, or input to make the changes that will make this a safe program from the foundation up.

I personally wish that the political winds were blowing strong enough to defeat this, but they are not. Our congressmen and women are only concerned and support anything that many appear to lower the cost of a ticket. They do not look at the pitfalls of the ideas and how they could truly effect the traveling public.
Getting in on the ground floor allows us to have some much needed input in to a horrible idea. If we can marginalize some of the risk, and beef this program up, we may be able to use it to our advantage.

 

[PCL_128]

ALPA is supported by the dues paid by its 55,000 members...NOT "300 million consumers plus the international market".

As such, wouldn't it be a worthwhile endeavor to actually represent the desires and will of the membership?

How do you know what the desire and will of the membership is on the MPL issue? I would wager that the loudmouths on flightinfo don't represent the overwhelming majority of the ALPA membership.

MPL scares me, but as with Carbon trading, you need to do a few things. One is determine where the winds are blowing. It appears that this is going to pass by a wide margin. What I see ALPA doing is getting far enough in front of an issue so that they can have some say in how it is done. In effect it is the lesser of two evils.
You can either get it done to cause the least amount of issues, make sure the language is such that it develops a productive pilot, or you can fight against it and not be involved in what will eventually pass.

We need to ask ourselves what is better. No input on something that will pass either way, or input to make the changes that will make this a safe program from the foundation up.

I personally wish that the political winds were blowing strong enough to defeat this, but they are not. Our congressmen and women are only concerned and support anything that many appear to lower the cost of a ticket. They do not look at the pitfalls of the ideas and how they could truly effect the traveling public.
Getting in on the ground floor allows us to have some much needed input in to a horrible idea. If we can marginalize some of the risk, and beef this program up, we may be able to use it to our advantage.

Thank God someone around here gets it!

 

[JohnDoe]

Thank God someone around here gets it!

And there will be plenty of people like pcl 128 who will get it as well and pony up big bucks to pay for their mpl training so they can fly the BIG jets.

Meanwhile, we will be on the street. But the important thing is that alpa GOT IT! And they are TAKIN IT BACK baby!

We are our own worst enemies.

 

[BoilerUP]

How do you know what the desire and will of the membership is on the MPL issue? I would wager that the loudmouths on flightinfo don't represent the overwhelming majority of the ALPA membership.

I don't...but do you? Does ALPA National?

Given that a VAST majority of those "loudmouths on flightinfo" have come out in VERY strong support of a change requiring ATP minimums to act as a 121 crewmember, it doesn't take a Wilson Poll for me to surmise where they would stand on MPL.

Please, if you and/or ALPA National know the will and desire of ALPA membership on MPL, share it with the peanut gallery here.

 

[JohnDoe]

Please, if you and/or ALPA National know the will and desire of ALPA membership on MPL, share it with the peanut gallery here.

He doesn't know. And neither does alpa national (either that or they will ignore it).

I have not talked to one person that I have flown with that thought mpl was a good idea.


One thing to keep in mind about pcl 128 when discussing things with him: He is a hypocrit. He comes on here beating his chest about "defending the profession" "alpa...union...rah rah rah" He, IMHO, did one of the most damaging things to this profession, second only to scabbing: He bought and paid for his job and training at gulfstream.

 

[BoilerUP]

I've talked at length with PCL - he's admitted the "sin" of his PFT, chocked it up to being naive & uninformed, and worked to educate others to prevent them from making the same mistake he made.

Constantly bringing up the past, when somebody already acknowledges they did wrong and has made efforts to make amends for it, distracts from the issue at hand.

I'm no longer an ALPA member, but when I was I was a feverent supporter of National and thought they caught a lot of undeserved crap from their membership because of the decisions made by that same membership (concessions, etc). Unfortunately, the attitude I'm seeing in this thread is one all-too-common with those in political positions in DC - get elected by people to represent them and all of a sudden you know what's best for your constituents more than they do.

I'm all for working to mold a regulation that's coming down the pike regardless of what people want...but that shouldn't 1. prevent opposition to it if that's what the membership wants and 2. with regards to MPL, seems highly at odds given the desire of some to raise 121 minimum experience to the ATP level.

We got the "Fair Treatment of Experienced Pilots Act" because (supposedly) people feared a shortage of experienced pilots in the cockpits of US airlines. Following Colgan, the same sentiment got proposals on the table to require airline crewmembers to hold an Airline Transport Pilot certificate.

And now, supposedly, we're to believe Congress is ready to throw all that desire to keep & put experienced pilots in airline cockpits away and let people fly in 121 cockpits with a fraction of the flight experience that even the lowest of regional airline bridge program had?

What's changed?!?

 

[PCL_128]

Given that a VAST majority of those "loudmouths on flightinfo" have come out in VERY strong support of a change requiring ATP minimums to act as a 121 crewmember, it doesn't take a Wilson Poll for me to surmise where they would stand on MPL.

Remember, ALPA has come out in strong support of the House resolution that requires an ATP for all 121 pilots, and I think it's a safe bet that most ALPA members would agree with that stance.

ALPA's MPL stance isn't to support it instead of that, but to provide the minimum requirements that an MPL program would have to adhere to in order for ALPA to find it acceptable. ALPA's MPL policy is far more restrictive than any MPL proposal out there today.

Please, if you and/or ALPA National know the will and desire of ALPA membership on MPL, share it with the peanut gallery here.

The only way to know that would be to poll the entire membership, and the last time we tried that on Age 60/65, the majority of the membership didn't even bother to participate. Besides that, it just isn't realistic to poll the membership on every single issue that comes up. MPL isn't even on the front burner for the FAA or Congress right now, so this issue isn't a priority for a long time. Right now ALPA is pushing the ATP requirement, which is on the front burner, and I don't think anyone here would disagree that that would be in the best interests of the membership, and supported by the vast majority.

MPL is something that will probably be dealt with several years down the road, so getting worked up about it right now makes no sense. ALPA's MPL Policy is merely in place to make sure that we can influence MPL standards to be much more restrictive than how they've been proposed to date in other countries, so that when MPL rears its head in the States, we've already been pushing for stronger standards for a while.

 

[JohnDoe]

We got the "Fair Treatment of Experienced Pilots Act" because (supposedly) people feared a shortage of experienced pilots in the cockpits of US airlines. Following Colgan, the same sentiment got proposals on the table to require airline crewmembers to hold an Airline Transport Pilot certificate.

And now, supposedly, we're to believe Congress is ready to throw all that desire to keep & put experienced pilots in airline cockpits away and let people fly in 121 cockpits with a fraction of the flight experience that even the lowest of regional airline bridge program had?

What's changed?!?

Nothing has changed. You have to get rid of the notion that alpa is always looking out for their constituents best interests. Then it is easy to understand. It is all politics and what they can get for themselves whether it is favors, position (ie alpa officers ending up with airline management positions, federal positions), keeping their pensions at the cost of other contractual items, etc. etc.

alpa is as bloated and bureaucratic as any government entity out there.

 

[Skywest Pylot]

Nothing has changed. You have to get rid of the notion that alpa is always looking out for their constituents best interests. Then it is easy to understand. It is all politics and what they can get for themselves whether it is favors, position (ie alpa officers ending up with airline management positions, federal positions), keeping their pensions at the cost of other contractual items, etc. etc.

alpa is as bloated and bureaucratic as any government entity out there.

Sad but true.

 

[jonjuan]

The only way to know that would be to poll the entire membership, and the last time we tried that on Age 60/65, the majority of the membership didn't even bother to participate. Besides that, it just isn't realistic to poll the membership on every single issue that comes up.

So, what you are saying is that the majority of ALPA members didn't return their for/against age 65 ballots? Sure it isn't realistic to poll the membership on every issue, but certainly age 65 was an issue which was pretty divisive.

 

[PCL_128]

So, what you are saying is that the majority of ALPA members didn't return their for/against age 65 ballots?

Nope. ALPA opened the ballot to the entire membership and even marketed it by emails and snail mail, but the majority of the pilots didn't bother to log in and cast a vote.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Have you watched 300 lately?

ALPA is supported by the dues paid by its 55,000 members...NOT "300 million consumers plus the international market".

That is fine. But the 300 Million consumers, which include 55,000 ALPA members (don't forget, an ALPA member will raise hell that ticket prices are too low, then he'll turn around buy a cheap fare or do the same in another industry... jacking down the guy trying to make a living...)...

So there are 300 million consumers and they are all represented in some form or another....

So who wins? 55,000 or 300,000,000? Who has more money? More votes? More representation...??

Look, we live in a hyper consumption society. The dollar is all that matters. Airlines, while deemed vital to the health of the economy are traded like the latest fad on Wall Street. Airlines should be treated as valued public utilities... but that would be socialism. So, no we can't do that...

So fair and reasonable pay for safety sensitive jobs is just window dressing. Show pony stuff, like the Congressional Hearings. Congressman says.. "hey look at me voters, I care about safety... " Meanwhile, industry interest are giving this guy money...

As such, wouldn't it be a worthwhile endeavor to actually represent the desires and will of the membership?

What do you suggest? Militancy? As soon as a vocal minority gets aggressive the excuse to not invite them to the next meeting is valid.

Being at the table to influence the MPL legislation is better than not being at the table at all, because you're persona non grata.... as that in the best interest of members?

If not, what is?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

How does ALPA's support of 1500 hours/ATP for FO's effect MPL?

 

[BoilerUP]

How does ALPA's support of 1500 hours/ATP for FO's effect MPL?

Perhaps I'm mistaken...but isn't the whole purpose of MPL to put pilots into airliner cockpits with substantially lower flight experience but with training geared toward the multi-crew environment?

If so, wouldn't MPL be in direct opposition to the desire to set a minimum standard of ATP flight experience to be in a 121 cockpit?

I understand the desire to "have a seat at the table", but I suppose I'm just naive enough to think elected officials have a duty and responsibility to represent their constituents in a manner that places their desires before any other interested (or disinterested) parties. Safety is ALWAYS in direct opposition to the bottom line, but by God somebody has to take a stand somewhere and if the Association isn't going to do that then who will?

Where does the slippery slope of offering no opposition & no alternatives to proposals detriment to the airline piloting profession end?

I can almost see the FI.com posts now..."Cabotage winds are blowing and it appears it'll pass by a wide margin, so the best we can do is have a seat at the table and try to influence what happens."

I'm the first to admit that ALPA National bears an unfair burden of responsiblity from the membership as a whole for their own decisionmaking...but from where I'm sitting it appears there's far more rolling-over going on than there is fighting and leadership.

I hope I'm wrong...

 

[PCL_128]

It seems that you're ignoring the fact that ALPA is pushing hard for the ATP requirement. MPL isn't even on the radar screen right now in this country. Why the worry about it? It isn't as though ALPA is pushing for MPL. ALPA merely has a policy in the Admin Manual that requires certain prerequisites for any MPL program is ever proposed in this country. And again, an MPL program has not been proposed in this country. Pilots get worked up about the craziest stuff.

 

[A Squared]

Really bad example!! You don't know the history or the big picture.

The 737 and the Super 80 were new in the market place at the same time. The 737 was certified with two pilots, the S80 was certified with three. But, it was Delta that had the S80s, and back in those days the Delta guys were among ALPA's elite. ALPA wasn't going to ask the Delta guys to get their hands dirty so they let them agree with DAL mgt to fly the S80 with two pilots. ALPA forced the other two pilot groups who flew the 737 to carry out the third man in the cockpit fight and it didn't matter that that airplane was certified with two. It was ridiculous; ALPA's hypocracy is what undid the third pilot fight. When the battle over three pilots collapsed ALPA put Frontier's MEC in trusteeship. [/I]!!

The Super 80 came out in 1980, which was about a decade and a half after the 737 was flying. You might have meant the DC-9 which was flying two years before the 737. Regardless, neither the DC-9 nor any of it's derivatives ever required a flight engineer. Prior to the development of the DC-9, aircraft over 80,000 lb MGTOW were required by CAR 4b certification standards to have a flight engineer. Douglas planned to get around this, by artificially limiting US DC-9's to a Certificated MGTOW of less than 80,000 lb, even though the same airplane operated overseas would have a MGTOW considerably greater than 80,000 lb. This loophole, in the end was not required as the FAA changed the relevant regulation (now Part 25) on April 21, 1965, and changed the requirement in Part 121 for an FE on the flight crew before the delivery of the first DC-9.

 

[Flopgut]

The Super 80 came out in 1980, which was about a decade and a half after the 737 was flying. You might have meant the DC-9 which was flying two years before the 737. Regardless, neither the DC-9 nor any of it's derivatives ever required a flight engineer. Prior to the development of the DC-9, aircraft over 80,000 lb MGTOW were required by CAR 4b certification standards to have a flight engineer. Douglas planned to get around this, by artificially limiting US DC-9's to a Certificated MGTOW of less than 80,000 lb, even though the same airplane operated overseas would have a MGTOW considerably greater than 80,000 lb. This loophole, in the end was not required as the FAA changed the relevant regulation (now Part 25) on April 21, 1965, and changed the requirement in Part 121 for an FE on the flight crew before the delivery of the first DC-9.

Thank you for the correction. It was the DC-9-50, not the S80.

I stand by everything else I said. Flying the Line Volume 2 spells it out pretty good starting at page 42. It's carefully written to not reflect too poorly on the Delta pilots at the time.

 

[Flopgut]

Nope. ALPA opened the ballot to the entire membership and even marketed it by emails and snail mail, but the majority of the pilots didn't bother to log in and cast a vote.

Point: Wilson just finished a poll for CAL ALPA and sampled only a little over 10% of the pilots. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Age 65 had three total votes that were to be all consistent until John ended the 3rd poll, disbanded the Blue Ribbon Panel, and unilaterally changed the unions position on the issue. That is indefensible behavior on his part.

There is no question how the membership would vote now on 65 in my mind. I'm sure you are not confused either.

 

[Flopgut]

Here is what this all means on pilot Main Street today:

Prater has a resolution in front of him outlining an argument to allow airline pilots full benefit under the RLA, to include participation in the RRB. Read about it all at: www.pilotpensionnow.com Even Larry Kellner would liked to have seen an update to the RLA. Read about that here: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/steffy/6326252.html
But what does John do with his time in front of the House last week? He attaches his arguement for improved working lives of pilots to the chickensh!t baggage fees airlines are charging! "If airlines can charge $25 for a bag, then why can't they charge $2 for the captain and $1 for the FO per passenge?" [paraphrased] Why does he do that? Because John wants half the profession to get double what the other half gets. He's trying to ignore a solid argument based on regulation and Congressional Acts, even when he's in front of Congress, because he sees a quick buck for imminent retirees as an overwhelming and urgent need. Yeah, these bag fees are making money right now. But they won't last. Congress knows that. John knows that. Even the aforementioned airline CEO Kellner would probably agree. He just wants the easiest, quickest money he can hoard away for his own generation he can get. It's not solid union leadership.

The RRB would fund itself via airline payroll taxes. Airline pilots would stop paying Social Security. A good portion of your retirement funding would be removed from the competitive equation and you would not have to worry about getting rolled back to zero.