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.