Originally Posted by
Nevets
By the way, Im 33 and favored changing the age 60 rule. It was inevitable. So even if you were against it, it was advantageous for ALPA to change its policy on age 60 in order to mitigate its effects when legislation was being written. I think ALPA was very successful in that regard.
I agree in that I think age 60 no longer made sense, particularly since it was enacted not by a safety agency conducting due process, but in a corrupt deal between AA's C. Smith and some congressional buddies...in order to get rid of highly paid senior CA's
I also think 65 is about the right cutoff age, although large medical advances might extend that someday.
However, a large majority of ALPA rank-and-file was opposed (obviously for career reasons), and I think the Prater should have gone with their desires. Unions don't exist to "do the right thing", they exist to look after the interests of their members. Personally I think ALPA should have pushed for a gradual phase-in which would have dampened the short-term impact....unfortunately that might not have allowed all the Uber-senior alpa leaders to stay past 60.
Oh, and all that crap about more stringent and frequent medicals for all pilots wasn't going to happen anyway...the whole point of this exercise is to avoid a pilot shortage....the ATA would not have allowed medical requirements which would ground 5-10% of the pilot force.
