Food for thought:

http://www.raf-upper-heyford.org/GeezerAv8r.jpg

is that foxhunter or jetjok?????????????????????

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuck
- Big push was that MEC cannot and does not selectively represent its membership. It must represent all. They will not cave to "mob rule" regardless of any poll outcomes. Giving an inch on seniority will hurt future negotiations. Union has potential to let this turn into big battle that will hurt us in future negotiations.

- Age 65, if it passes, is seen as external event - federal regulation. Question was asked if MEC has considered any adjustments to potential loss of FO earnings/seniority/etc. Although some loss is probably guaranteed, DW refused to predict anything since there are so many unknowns and they defintely are not considering any present or future changes to help mitigate losses to junior members as this was/is an "external event".

Originally Posted by Gunter.
The statements above appear to be contradictions. When an issue is supported that is great for retirees or the most senior dudes (at the expense of junior dudes and their "peripheral" issues), they cry we must support all in the union. This is not the first time this has happened.

I have to agree - I remember a few months back when "the needs of the many didn't outweigh the needs of the few" when about 130 junior S/Os didn't get the union to go to bat for them (in fact rolled over) for passover pay, even when it seemed that was the right thing to do. As much as I would like to believe DW, and I agree that we need to be unified, I still remember...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Actually that is what a F/O awaiting to upgrade will look like in a few years.

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/sh...t=12866&page=8

Tuck,
I believe this is amusing of DW. You state he says that the IPA is taking the easy way out (with two EEOC complaints <ng>). Then, there is contradictory statements "Age 65, if it passes, is seen as external event - federal regulation" and "FDX ALPA could vote against the Age 60 change but it would do no good as this is sure to pass - made this point over and over."

So if it is sure to pass, and an external event, then why stir up literal hatred in the IPA with an "official" stance that is extraordinarily devisive? We do have a committee that is tasked to deal with it's passage, when done. That is fair to all IPA members. If ALPA "doesn't "get on board" (Legislature's words) then ALPA would lose seat at table at very slight chance of shaping this rule" the IPA with 2800 members would stand a zero chance regardless of our position. So, it is not an easy way out. (again, we are getting EEOC complaints filed against the IPA) but definitely a smart one. DW's own words "Age 65, if it passes, is seen as external event - federal regulation" suggests little impact we can muster, UPS can, but they have lots of influence and resources relative to us hourly employees.

Lets first define things:

ALPA can't vote "for "or "Against" the Age change. They do not have any voting authority in the House or Senate. They can Offically oppose or support pending legislation on the Hill. I beleive it has already been explained why ALPA is considering no longer opposing any change to Age 60.

ALPA's Official stance as of today is Still "Opposed" (That might change this week during the Executive Board meeting, but the Stance today is still Opposed)

IPA's position on AGE 60 is "Nuetral" In other words they aren't taking any stance. I believe that is what DW was referring to as the "Easy way" out. BTW Isn't Bob Miller your Union President over age 60? What is his position? AHH I see he is nuetral on what he knows is a done deal.

ALPA could certainly continue to Oppose any change.
I believe that anyone who thinks anyone is going to stop this from happening is Smoking.cr**K, well lets hope the aren't drug tested too soon.

I believe ALPA leaders are merely trying to relay the inevtiable to the memebership. It is very clear that the majority of ALPA members would prefer the rule not change.
It is also clear that most of the ALPA members who prefer the rule not change, realize that it is going to change and they further realize that maybe, just maybe, ALPA might at least be able to steer some of the legislation to soften the blow of what we all know is negative for most of us.

So yes, ALPA leaders could have taken the easy way out and continued to oppose a rule that they know the can't stop. They made a tough call when they announced the effort to explore a change in stategy. Don't you think they knew many members would be angry? They knew it but they are hanging their necks out anyway. I am sure it was a tough call and Time will soon tell if they made the right call. If this rule get legislated this summer...................I can hear the calls now..........Where the Hell is ALPA and what are they doing about this.................Meanwhile the IPA leadership will still be nuetral, how convienent.


BTW what is CAPA (of which IPA is a part) doing with respect to this legislation? What Senators and Congressman do you have working on behalf of CAPA? and other Pilot specific issues? How much in PAC money have you guys raised again? I guess I'd take the easy way out too.

Let's see
SWA is for it
APA is opposed
IPA is Nuetral

RedeyeAV8R,
You really dislike the IPA, :D Here is some things the lowly IPA pressed and push that benefit all of us. I have enclosed some excerpts.
* Cargo airliners were exempted from having to have collision avoidance systems (TCAS). The Independent Pilots Association (IPA) petitioned for rulemaking in 1996.
* Cargo airliners did not have to have escape slides at the entry doors, although some of these doors are up to 20 feet (three stories high) off the ground. The IPA petitioned for rulemaking filed in 1996.

* Cargo airliners were exempted from having to have fire suppression systems in cargo holds, although they are allowed to carry flammable, oxidizing and explosive hazardous materials not allowed on passenger aircraft. IPA comments in Docket 28937 requested fire-suppression capabilities for all cargo holds.

* Airports with only all-cargo operations do not have to have ARFF (Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting) services. The IPA still presses on the Hill for this legislation.

We asked for and rcvd help from ALPA as well as other cargo carriers.
As for CAPA,
"CAPA is a trade association comprised of over 22,000 professional pilots. CAPA's purpose is to address safety, security, legislative and regulatory issues affecting the professional flight deck crew member on matters of common interest to the individual member unions. The five members of CAPA are:
Allied Pilots Association (APA), Independent Pilots Association (IPA),
National Pilots Association (NPA), AirTran,
Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (SWAPA)
Teamsters Local 1224 ABX Air "

So CAPA would appear to be neutral on age 60 since it's members, like ALPA, have differing views. ibid NWA as stated by DW. and yet ALPA is "neutral" at this time.

Not everyone will be ALPA. It won't work at UPS, I didn't deem that, it comes from the membership, just like the SWAPA, APA, Teamsters etc. Other carriers resist any labor organization, JetBlue and Skywest for example. I am amused by the derogatory comments of ALPA towards others.
However, no aviator can objectively deny the many benefits all have gained by those in ALPA over the years either.

Some Hill work :

PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE TRAFFIC ALERT AND COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEMS ON CARGO AIRCRAFT
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1997
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees...hpw105-5_0.htm

Excerpts..
Mr. DUNCAN. The subcommittee will come to order.

We've got some other Members on their way, but we're going to go ahead and get started here on time.

I would like to first say good afternoon and welcome to today's hearing regarding the issue of whether or not traffic alert and collision avoidance systems or TCAS, as it's commonly called, should be required aboard cargo aircraft.....

Currently, TCAS–II is required on commercial aircraft with a passenger seating configuration of more than 30 seats, and TCAS–I, at a minimum, is required on passenger aircraft with 10 to 30 seats.

The subcommittee is aware that the Independent Pilots Association, representing UPS pilots, has filed a petition for rulemaking with the FAA requesting that TCAS–II be required on cargo aircraft.

We have two panels filled with very distinguished witnesses from the Air Force, the Navy, the FAA, the National Transportation Safety Board, and we have a second panel consisting of representatives from the Air Line Pilots Association, the Independent Pilots Association, the Teamsters Airline Division, the Air Freight Association....

...As you've mentioned, we're reviewing a petition for rulemaking filed by the Independent Pilots Association that asks us to mandate the installation of TCAS–II on all transport category aircraft in cargo operations.

....
Mr. DUNCAN. And the petition that was filed that led to this hearing was filed by the Independent Pilots Association, and the next witness will be Captain Andre Dressler, who is a member of the Safety Committee for that association.

Captain Dressler, thank you for being with us.

Captain DRESSLER. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for allowing me to speak to you today on this.

Talking here on behalf of the Independent Pilots Association, we are about 2,100 flight crew members, professional men and women that pilot the aircraft of the United Parcel Service.....


Other Hill issues:
Cargo security post 9/11: See “IPA Lobbies Congress for Tougher Cargo Security.” Aviation Daily,January 6, 2003
FFDO:
how about the view many ALPA pilots had that were cognizant of DW's failure
to support an industry drive that was suppported by all the other labor unions and ALPA pilots who started APSA and the drive to "Petition to ARM PILOTS. This petition has been a coordinated effort between the Airline Pilots’ Security Alliance (APSA), the Allied Pilots Association (APA), the Southwest Airline Pilots Association (SWAPA), the Coalition of Airline Pilots Association (CAPA), and the Independent Pilots Association (IPA)."

Back to age 60:
You posted "IPA's position on AGE 60 is "Nuetral" In other words they aren't taking any stance. I believe that is what DW was referring to as the "Easy way" out. BTW Isn't Bob Miller your Union President over age 60? What is his position? AHH I see he is nuetral on what he knows is a done deal."

The IPA IS preparing the membership, as I stated in the previous post, the IPA has an AGE 60 Implementation Committee, composed of over and under 60 year old crewmembers who are preparing the IPA for implementation contractual issues, just like ALPA is doing. That is not "neutral" to activity, Like ALPA, the IPA isn't voting on this issue either. Bob Miller is one of five Executive Board members. He is one of five votes. Yes, he is over 60. he is not our king or dictator.

You posted "ALPA could certainly continue to Oppose any change.
I believe that anyone who thinks anyone is going to stop this from happening is Smoking.cr**K, well lets hope the aren't drug tested too soon."

We both agree on this :)

That is why the IPA website has posted all the organizations that are interested in change, and 25 other websites to allow individual members to educate themselves on the issues. Info on who to contact in the legislature etc. It is like a CSPAN arrangement. Pro and Con provided. I think that is smart for the IPA.

RedeyeAV8R,
You really dislike the IPA,

Nothing could be further than the Truth. I never said I hated or disliked IPA. I simply sated that IPA is nuetral on AGE 60. What kind of stance is that?
We were once independent as well. We realized that being independent we had little political power on the hill.

Here is some things the lowly IPA pressed and push that benefit all of us. I have enclosed some excerpts.

* Cargo airliners were exempted from having to have collision avoidance systems (TCAS). The Independent Pilots Association (IPA) petitioned for rulemaking in 1996.

* Cargo airliners did not have to have escape slides at the entry doors, although some of these doors are up to 20 feet (three stories high) off the ground. The IPA petitioned for rulemaking filed in 1996.

* Cargo airliners were exempted from having to have fire suppression systems in cargo holds, although they are allowed to carry flammable, oxidizing and explosive hazardous materials not allowed on passenger aircraft. IPA comments in Docket 28937 requested fire-suppression capabilities for all cargo holds.

* Airports with only all-cargo operations do not have to have ARFF (Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting) services. The IPA still presses on the Hill for this legislation.

All these things are true, but ALPA was also commenting and lobbying on the Hill for the very same things

We asked for and rcvd help from ALPA as well as other cargo carriers.

And help you received my friend.
As for CAPA,
"CAPA is a trade association comprised of over 22,000 professional pilots. CAPA's purpose is to address safety, security, legislative and regulatory issues affecting the professional flight deck crew member on matters of common interest to the individual member unions.

The five members of CAPA are:
Allied Pilots Association (APA), Independent Pilots Association (IPA),
National Pilots Association (NPA), AirTran,
Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (SWAPA)
Teamsters Local 1224 ABX Air "

I am well aware of who CAPA is. You forget Fedex (FPA) was once a Major player in CAPA along with CAL. BTW druing those 1996 lobbying efforts
FPA held the 1st Cargo Air sympsoium in Memphis. FPA footed the entire Bill. CAPA and the other Cargo carriers paid nothing.

So CAPA would appear to be neutral on age 60 since it's members, like ALPA, have differing views. ibid NWA as stated by DW. and yet ALPA is "neutral" at this time.

No CAPA appears divided since the 3 major player all have diferent positions, and BTW ALPA is not Nuetral they are currently opposed at this time. (This might change this week when the Exec Board votes). NWA might vote to continue to oppose it, and maybe one other MEC will as well, but ALPA as a group will vote and the majority opinion will prevail. ALPA will have one opinion. not everyone within ALPA will agree but they will still speak with one voice.

Not everyone will be ALPA. It won't work at UPS, I didn't deem that, it comes from the membership, just like the SWAPA, APA, Teamsters etc. Other carriers resist any labor organization, JetBlue and Skywest for example. I am amused by the derogatory comments of ALPA towards others.
However, no aviator can objectively deny the many benefits all have gained by those in ALPA over the years either.

I don't recall "ALPA " making derogatory remarks towards any labor union.
If you think I have you are mistaken and you misinterpteted my point.
I (we) were once part of a Independent. We wised up and realized we would be better off under one Banner. IPA. SWA and APA would too in my opinion, but that is a choice your folks will have to make.


IPA has done OK for the UPS Pilots

All those things you sight, however, ALPA was already involved in and IPA got involved.

Name one piece of Legilsaltion, that IPA did on it's own (without ALPA also simultaneously pursuing it. You can also throw CAPA into that. That is one of the reasons FPA left CAPA and joined ALPA, because there was never any concientious from within CAPA not to mention any funds to lobby with. The SWAPA guys have been lwanting AGE 60 to go away for for years to cite yet one example.

So in summary, let me leave you with this. I harbor no ill will towards IPA and members of CAPA. We are all professional pilots and all want the same things.
A career, Safe schedules, safe equipment and fair representation.

I was simply pointing out the flaw in your logic of ALPA's stance.
You made a derogatory remark about our MEC Chair and I simply responded.
I made no such doregatory remark about IPA or Bob Miller.
I simply stated a fact, he (and IPA) is Nuetral on Age 60 and he has attained that age.

We will have to agree to disagree on some issues, ;) but in the end, we would be drinking beers together as I have with so many of my ALPA FEDEX buds, we are remarkably similiar groups.

Well, Bill Gates is a big time dem and Warren Buffet was an advisor to John Kerry's 2004 campaign. That's the Ace and King of spades my friend. The poor have been voting for the democrats for 150 years and they are still poor. The richest members of congress are dems and it's been that way for a long time. Labor has supported the dems for a century and their influence is at it's lowest ebb in history. All politicians pander to their base and it really matter who they are or from which party. Our Esteemed Leader (Tony doesn't like "His Excellency") and the MEC are, in fact, politicians. Lastly, every one of us can vote for whomever we damn well please and it's nobody else's business who or why (and for that right, we can thank a lot of folks, starting with the men who showed up at Lexington and Concord)