Why the H is ALPA Advocating MPL Licensing?!

[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.