Why the H is ALPA Advocating MPL Licensing?!

[spitfire1500]

When or how many hours are needed before you consider a F/O no longer low time?
I have flow with newly upgraded CA and new hire FO, and for both the experience was the same. It is called a learning curve.
What is the magic number you are looking for?

AN ATPL license!

 

[bluesideup340]

AN ATPL license!

Do you support something like the EU mode? In the EU it is called "Frozen ATPL", which means the Pilot is tested to ATPL standards but is not allowed to exercise the privilege (i.e. Captain) until s/he has 1500hrs. In the meantime the Pilot flies as FO in schedule flight operation to build flight time.

Still the question remains, what is the magic about 1500 hrs? What science or empirical data supports 1500 hrs of total flight time as a means to measure or certify experience?

 

[PCL_128]

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

Depends on how the poll was taken. If it was a phone poll, 10% is usually more than enough, because you eliminate self-selection bias and other statistical problems. That's scientific polling. But 10% on an internet poll, which suffers from self-selection bias, is not scientific in the slightest. Phil Comstock, the owner of the Wilson Center, will tell you that you really need to have at least 50% participation in an internet poll to get close to scientific results, preferably closer to 70%.

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.

"Unilaterally changed?" You know better than that. Capt. Prater doesn't have that power. The change to the Age 60 Policy went through a vote of the Executive Council (all the EVPs) and the Executive Board (every MEC Chairman) before it was changed. One member of the EXCL voted NO, and 20% of the roll call votes on the EXBD voted NO.

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

I think it would be pretty much where it was last time: almost dead even. I think the phone polling was right at the margin of error, and the internet polling was well within the margin of error due to the low participation.

Don't get me wrong; I was a strong opponent of changing the policy, as you may remember, and I still am. But lack of pilot participation sealed our fate on the issue. If we had had 85% participation in the internet poll and 60% had said NO, then there's no way that they policy would have been changed.

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.

How does he have this resolution in front of him? This is the first I've heard of it, and the only resolution on the website you provide was ratified by the CAL MEC, not by a higher governing body. Has this resolution been submitted to the EXCL, EXBD, or BOD?

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.

That's ridiculous. He's doing it because it's a way to remove pilot pay from the equation on cutting costs. If you make a "pilot surcharge" on a ticket, then it gets tacked on after the fare just like 9/11 security fees, fuel fees, etc... I'm not sure if it's the best strategy, but it's a valid point.

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.

Actually, pretty much every analyst and airline executive agrees that bag fees and other sources of ancillary revenue are here to stay, and will make up a huge portion of airline revenue going forward.

He just wants the easiest, quickest money he can hoard away for his own generation he can get.

Have you ever met John? Ever spent some time talking to him about these issues? It seems unlikely to me, based on your accusations. John may not have been the best choice for ALPA President (I happen to think that he's doing ok, even though I supported Duane), but he's no selfish jerk only looking out for his own generation. He's doing what he thinks is right.

 

[zonker]

There WAS a poll on Age 60. The majority wanted too keep it.

 

[PCL_128]

There WAS a poll on Age 60. The majority wanted too keep it.

The (slight) majority of the minority. The majority never even bothered to vote.

 

[Flopgut]

PCL: I'd like to send you something. Could you PM an email address to me? Your box is full.

 

[Flopgut]

Depends on how the poll was taken. If it was a phone poll, 10% is usually more than enough, because you eliminate self-selection bias and other statistical problems. That's scientific polling. But 10% on an internet poll, which suffers from self-selection bias, is not scientific in the slightest. Phil Comstock, the owner of the Wilson Center, will tell you that you really need to have at least 50% participation in an internet poll to get close to scientific results, preferably closer to 70%.

Part of the low participation on 65 IMHO was/is the fact that since the day 60 was the limit there has always been an opposition to it. You've always had a minority of pilots who weren't able to retire griping about the limit but it stuck around for 40 years. I think it grew to be white noise. It certainly seemed to me that it was buried in a larger transportation bill that was going nowhere. Until John did something to get it pulled out and passed at some less than legit vote period.


"Unilaterally changed?" You know better than that. Capt. Prater doesn't have that power. The change to the Age 60 Policy went through a vote of the Executive Council (all the EVPs) and the Executive Board (every MEC Chairman) before it was changed. One member of the EXCL voted NO, and 20% of the roll call votes on the EXBD voted NO.

Yes, you're right. My bad.


I think it would be pretty much where it was last time: almost dead even. I think the phone polling was right at the margin of error, and the internet polling was well within the margin of error due to the low participation.

Don't get me wrong; I was a strong opponent of changing the policy, as you may remember, and I still am. But lack of pilot participation sealed our fate on the issue. If we had had 85% participation in the internet poll and 60% had said NO, then there's no way that they policy would have been changed.

I can understand one polling on 65. Then John wanted to have the second. Even before the ink was dry on the first. Then that didn't go his way so he set up the third. That one wasn't going his was so he disbanded the BRP and made it happen anyway. I can tell that I enjoyed very much calling CAL ALPA and asking Snake Donaldson if was enjoying cleaning his desk out. That stunt cost him his position.


How does he have this resolution in front of him? This is the first I've heard of it, and the only resolution on the website you provide was ratified by the CAL MEC, not by a higher governing body. Has this resolution been submitted to the EXCL, EXBD, or BOD?



That's ridiculous. He's doing it because it's a way to remove pilot pay from the equation on cutting costs. If you make a "pilot surcharge" on a ticket, then it gets tacked on after the fare just like 9/11 security fees, fuel fees, etc... I'm not sure if it's the best strategy, but it's a valid point.

John needs to say "$3 for the crew", not $2 for the captain and $1 for the FO". He reveals his true nature and I believe it will grate on oversight. Put something in front of them that leverages the arguement against the broader strategy against us: The RLA.

Actually, pretty much every analyst and airline executive agrees that bag fees and other sources of ancillary revenue are here to stay, and will make up a huge portion of airline revenue going forward.

I don't know. If SWA doesn't join up with it, we'll lose it. Which is the story with too many of our gains. It's another thing we'll have stripped away from us in the competitive equation. Let's lash our future dollars to RRB and force the free radicals like SWA match the dollars in payroll taxes and then TRULY remove it from the competitive equation.

Have you ever met John? Ever spent some time talking to him about these issues? It seems unlikely to me, based on your accusations. John may not have been the best choice for ALPA President (I happen to think that he's doing ok, even though I supported Duane), but he's no selfish jerk only looking out for his own generation. He's doing what he thinks is right.

I work for CAL, so yes I've met John. Spent a lot of time listening to guys like him and IMHO, John wants a Mulligan on every adversity he encounters.

 

[PCL_128]

Part of the low participation on 65 IMHO was/is the fact that since the day 60 was the limit there has always been an opposition to it.....

I think you're giving pilots too much credit. The truth is much simpler: pilots are just too lazy to participate in their own representation.

It certainly seemed to me that it was buried in a larger transportation bill that was going nowhere. Until John did something to get it pulled out and passed at some less than legit vote period.

I disagree that the vote wasn't legit, but I agree that it wasn't going anywhere until ALPA pushed it. I think we could have delayed this at least another 2-5 years. But that's not what the EXCL and EXBD required, unfortunately.

I can understand one polling on 65. Then John wanted to have the second. Even before the ink was dry on the first. Then that didn't go his way so he set up the third. That one wasn't going his was so he disbanded the BRP and made it happen anyway.

The BRP was not "disbanded." They completed their work and presented their recommendations to the EXCL and EXBD.

John needs to say "$3 for the crew", not $2 for the captain and $1 for the FO".

I think you're just being a little too sensitive. Captains cost more to pay than copilots. Pretty simple.

Put something in front of them that leverages the arguement against the broader strategy against us: The RLA.

ALPA does have a committee working on amending the RLA. The resolution that created the committee came from UAL. I don't think it would be wise to get rid of the entire RLA, though. Better to make adjustments that prevent the abuses that happened under the Bush administration.

I don't know. If SWA doesn't join up with it, we'll lose it.

SWA will have no choice but to initiate baggage fees, and probably pretty soon. Have you looked at their revenue statements lately?

I work for CAL, so yes I've met John.

Yes, thousands of pilots have met him, but have you actually had a conversation with him about these issues? I doubt it.

 

[Flopgut]

I think you're giving pilots too much credit.

Let's agree to disagree here. ALPA works for the pilots. Consistent, reliable and predictable results trump low participation. I respect you not agreeing.

The BRP was not "disbanded." They completed their work and presented their recommendations to the EXCL and EXBD.

The BRP was not done before John ended the third survey, if I remember right. Or was it that John had the EXCL vote first? Either way, he spoiled their efforts.

I think you're just being a little too sensitive. Captains cost more to pay than copilots. Pretty simple.

Of course captains cost more than FOs. But what's pretty simple to me is that we are all doing the same job, basically. The goal here is to see each member be able to retire comfortably with a certain amount of money. That amount should be more equal than different. This needs to be reverse engineered and that's not what John is doing. He wants double for himself and could care less about the rest of the group in reality. BTW, with John's retirement age change, who's an FO and who's a captain? We've got 400 pilots at CAL over 60. That's 400 pilots who should be captains that aren't (the way I see things) and who won't be getting the money with John's quick math. Of course sh!t happens right? I should get over the 65 thing, right? K. But here's the deal: When someone was sitting in John's seat outside the CBA, you better believe he wasn't getting over it. No way. It's been thirty years and he hasn't got over it, no matter what he says. If he's so over it, he can give back his strike pay...with interest. Did he not want to see others pay past dues to ALPA?? You bet he did. Maybe he ought to give back what he took?

 

[PCL_128]

The BRP was not done before John ended the third survey, if I remember right. Or was it that John had the EXCL vote first? Either way, he spoiled their efforts.

That's been several years, so I don't remember the exact sequence of events. I'd have to dig through old files. In any case, the BRP completed its work and made its recommendations to the governing bodies. Their efforts were not "spoiled" by Capt. Prater.

Of course captains cost more than FOs. But what's pretty simple to me is that we are all doing the same job, basically. The goal here is to see each member be able to retire comfortably with a certain amount of money. That amount should be more equal than different. This needs to be reverse engineered and that's not what John is doing. He wants double for himself and could care less about the rest of the group in reality. BTW, with John's retirement age change, who's an FO and who's a captain? We've got 400 pilots at CAL over 60. That's 400 pilots who should be captains that aren't (the way I see things) and who won't be getting the money with John's quick math. Of course sh!t happens right? I should get over the 65 thing, right? K. But here's the deal: When someone was sitting in John's seat outside the CBA, you better believe he wasn't getting over it. No way. It's been thirty years and he hasn't got over it, no matter what he says. If he's so over it, he can give back his strike pay...with interest. Did he not want to see others pay past dues to ALPA?? You bet he did. Maybe he ought to give back what he took?

We might as well not even get into this. You can't seem to let the Age 60 issue go, and your hatred for Capt. Prater seems to stem from that. I've worked with him quite a bit, and needless to say, I find your opinion of his character to be completely inaccurate.