Originally Posted by
Nevets
What retirement and work rules did FAPA have to concede in bk? Where those things substantial? Also, age 65 was a foregone conclusion. Which is why ALPA changed its opposition to that. It passed unanimously in both chambers of confess and signed by the president in a matter of days! But if it wasn't for ALPA changing its opposition, it wouldn't have been able to mitigate its effects, such as limiting pilots who had already reached their 60th birthday from coming back. ALPA, out of any other pilot union, has the size to affect legislation. Fapa or even capa cannot say that to the extent ALPA can.
Of course ALPA will continue to put their money towards advocating for safety. The bigger ALPA, the more clout it has. Others will continue to benefit off of ALPA pilots in this regard. You guys can join and put your own voice into alpa's safety advocacy instead of just hitching a ride.
That was my point. FAPA was offered work rule changes rather than giving up pay rates, but refused. The argument over what the rules were worth vs what each dollar/hr was worth would have taken long enough to push us into contract rejection, and the company would have gotten both - same as all the Legacy carriers had happen to them.
It's an academic question about whether ALPA fighting the age 65 / ICAO rule change would have affected anything, but my point is that the goal of ALPA's majority and the goal of the FAPA majority may diverge. If we are ALPA represented we join their numbers in representing a plan that may not benefit Frontier pilots (regionals vs Legacies comes to mind - how is ULCC vs Legacy going to be handled?)
FAPA has participated in ALPA's safety programs (and paid its own way to attend), and will continue to do so. No freeloading. We are all of the same mind on those goals at least.
Merry Christmas!