LivingInMEM

Aeris, no I would not. But, I do not fault anything the US Air East guys are doing to support their position. Nothing is over until it is over - especially with such drastic results. There is no fair way to merge two ALPA lists - therefore, the best answer is most likely something that is well outside of the container as far as traditional ALPA thinking goes.

Kronan, I think this is changing the thread, but I have to answer.

What I got from that document you posted:

Pg 5 - Do you favor changing the Age 60 rule?
Phase 2 - 52% NO / Web Surbey - 53% NO / Phase 1 - 52% NO

Pg 23 - Do you favor changing the Age 60 rule?
Yes - 42% / No - 53.7%

Those numbers are pretty much black and white - the majority does not support the change. It is worth noting that no other qualifiers were thrown in on these to cloud the issue - just a simple yes or no.

Now, the following stats fall into the "leading the witness" category in my opinion. The question was "Suppose it is evident that the FAA or Congress is determined to change age 60 rule and that the rule will, in fact, change. Do you feel that ALPA should maintain its opposition to any change in the age 60 rule or drop its opposition or modify its policy to be able to address the FAA or Congressional efforts to change the rule?"

What qualifies as "...and that the rule will, in fact, change"? That differs for each person and is not clarified at all. Do we have to wait until a majority of congress actually commits their votes for the bill, or can we just think that they will vote a certain way, or can we assume if it makes it out of commitee then it will pass, etc? Anyway, the results were:

Maintain opposition - 36.3% / Drop opposition - 23.9% / Modify policy - 37.6%

Why did they throw in a drop opposition category AND a modify policy category? Wouldn't that lead some to believe that "modify policy" is different than "drop opposition"? If they are different, than can we assume that "modify policy" is not "drop opposition"? Wouldn't one assume "drop opposition" would include the modification of policy anyway? To me, modify policy could be "we're still very opposed to this change, but if you are going to change it anyway than you need to consider a, b, and c. Did I mention we are opposed to the change?" Wouldn't that "modify policy" vote in essence still be a maintain opposition vote? If they wanted a statistically valid result, shouldn't the responses have been "maintain opposition / modify policy / not sure / rather not say"? Of course, if they weren't interested in a statistically valid result but were more interested in the results they wanted.....

To say that 62% of the members polled supported the change because that's what the "drop opposition" and "modify policy" percentages total together is a little bit disingenuous and statistically invalid as it combines sample categories. If you want the pure numbers, go with the straight do you support the rule change numbers of 42.7% - Yes / 53.7% - No. By the way, a valid survey would also include a matematically derived margin of error and an explanation of how the sample group was chosen (for example, what is the average age of the respondents). A group of avg age 25 would respond differently than a group of avg age 59.

And, while we are at it. Pg 14 states that the BRP identified several issues with the bills being considered at the time. The respondents were asked if they agreed with the fact that this is an issue that needed to be addressed by ALPA. On pg 16, the issue is "Legislative language to prevent retroactive application of change to Age 60 rule so that no one over 60 on effective date may serve as a captain or FO for a Part 121 airline unless newly hired w/out credit for prior seniority or longevity" (notice the words "no one over 60" and "w/o credit for prior seniority.."). And the number of respondents that said that issue was of importance to them was, wait for it, 76%. On Pg 18, the question asked "The resolution recommends that ALPA support efforts to modify the rule if such efforts incoporate ALPA's priorities regarding .... no retroactive application of a rule change.....and appropriate rule implementation." Pg 19 asks "To what extent do you support or oppose this approach?" and among the answers were Strongly Support - 30% / Mostly Support - 34%. Notice, again they include the "no retro" clause and 64% agree to some extent.

76% said that no one over 60 should make it back to the front seats - no one; and 64% agreed that ALPA support efforts to modify the rule if (and assumingly only if) the efforts incorporated, among other things, no retroactivity for anyone over 60. Is that what ALPA finally recommended - or did they recommend retroactivity for those over 60 that were still on the seniority list (clearly in conflict with the wording as asked in the survey)?

Looking at the numbers, I definitely get the impression that they asked the members what they thought - and then did what the leadership wanted anyway.