FDX: Don't make the same mistake video... :)
08-07-2008, 07:40 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: 11 Capt
Posts: 509
With AWA buying US Air how is it that the two lists should be merged date of hire? Seems logical that it would be more of a one for one merge less the furloughed guys.
Can't see the number one guy at AWA being junior to all of the US Air guys because he happened to be hired in the early 90's when the airline was formed and the last guy on the US Air active list was hired in 88 or so.
Tough spot for all on the new merged list.... How ever it comes out.
Can't see the number one guy at AWA being junior to all of the US Air guys because he happened to be hired in the early 90's when the airline was formed and the last guy on the US Air active list was hired in 88 or so.
Tough spot for all on the new merged list.... How ever it comes out.
08-07-2008, 07:52 PM
#42
Slainge Var'
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Zeppelin Tail Gunner
Posts: 1,530
Originally Posted by LivingInMEM
Aeris, et al
There is no way to merge two seniority lists that is "fair" to all unless; both airlines are approximately the same size, the resultant airline is twice the original size of either of the two original airlines, and both airlines have seniority lists that have near the same depth of longevity. That way, everyone maintains a near par relative seniority.
There is no way to merge two seniority lists that is "fair" to all unless; both airlines are approximately the same size, the resultant airline is twice the original size of either of the two original airlines, and both airlines have seniority lists that have near the same depth of longevity. That way, everyone maintains a near par relative seniority.
08-07-2008, 08:10 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
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.
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.
Last edited by LivingInMEM; 08-07-2008 at 08:28 PM.
08-08-2008, 04:31 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 356
Spot on LivingInMEM. I knew we got hosed but couldn't put it as eloquently. Hey ALPA, thanks again for the FDA LOA, retroactivity and going against the vast majority. Once again proving we get our money's worth with our dues.
08-08-2008, 07:16 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
I'm impressed, actually read the report. Don't agree with all of your conclusions, but, still impressed.
And I agree, would have been better to never even ask question 1. Would have been much better to go straight to the heart of the matter.
Perhaps a lead in statement like, Age 60+ pilots from foreign carriers have been flying into the US for several months now. Both the Senate and House have stand alone bills, along with riders to various bills mandating the Age 60 retirement age be changed. The numbers of Senators and Representatives pushing these changes has gone from a handful to about 40% of the membership co-sponsoring these bills.
In this environment do you
A. Maintain opposition (which is ALPAs current policy)
B. Drop opposition
C. Modify ALPAs position to address efforts to change (change ALPAs policy to mitigate any adverse impacts)
And, yes, Drop opposition is a subset of modifying ALPAs policy. So, I think Drop+Modify 62% wins the day.
But, even getting rid of those who were confused by the drop/modify questions...going absolutely by the numbers. 37.6% said modify the policy, while 36.3 wanted to maintain current policy.
And ALPA did get retroactivity language into the bills. The original bills had no mention of retroactivity whatsoever, and given that there are lawsuits going on right now to set the date back to the ICAO adoption date wouldn't that have been a nice can of worms for Congress to have dropped in our laps.
I'll also agree that it would have been nice if the poll had included the no retroactivity except for those still active on a seniority list as a FE. But, it didn't.
But, I'd be willing to bet that it would have been a vast majority of ALPA members voting for the retroactivity clause as written. Not as if there was a huge number of ALPA engineers out there working for Delta, UAL, NWA, etc. Haven't looked at the numbers but I'd bet FedEx had the majority of over 60 FEs in ALPA and they amount to what, 4% of our crew force
And I agree, would have been better to never even ask question 1. Would have been much better to go straight to the heart of the matter.
Perhaps a lead in statement like, Age 60+ pilots from foreign carriers have been flying into the US for several months now. Both the Senate and House have stand alone bills, along with riders to various bills mandating the Age 60 retirement age be changed. The numbers of Senators and Representatives pushing these changes has gone from a handful to about 40% of the membership co-sponsoring these bills.
In this environment do you
A. Maintain opposition (which is ALPAs current policy)
B. Drop opposition
C. Modify ALPAs position to address efforts to change (change ALPAs policy to mitigate any adverse impacts)
And, yes, Drop opposition is a subset of modifying ALPAs policy. So, I think Drop+Modify 62% wins the day.
But, even getting rid of those who were confused by the drop/modify questions...going absolutely by the numbers. 37.6% said modify the policy, while 36.3 wanted to maintain current policy.
And ALPA did get retroactivity language into the bills. The original bills had no mention of retroactivity whatsoever, and given that there are lawsuits going on right now to set the date back to the ICAO adoption date wouldn't that have been a nice can of worms for Congress to have dropped in our laps.
I'll also agree that it would have been nice if the poll had included the no retroactivity except for those still active on a seniority list as a FE. But, it didn't.
But, I'd be willing to bet that it would have been a vast majority of ALPA members voting for the retroactivity clause as written. Not as if there was a huge number of ALPA engineers out there working for Delta, UAL, NWA, etc. Haven't looked at the numbers but I'd bet FedEx had the majority of over 60 FEs in ALPA and they amount to what, 4% of our crew force
08-08-2008, 07:45 AM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
Has anybody read the Nicolau award?
http://www.awappa.org/Uploads/Nicolau%20Award.pdf
The 3 panel decision is probably about the best this merger could have been handled. 1691 on the street, most senior of which had been hired in 1988. AWs most junior pilot had been hired in 2005 (shortly before the merger)
Post merger, recalls started which complicated the issue for the seniority list.
The end result was the top 423 slots went to the former US Air guys, the junior AW guy was put below the active junior US Air guy (as of the merger date), furloughed guys on the bottom of the list. The middle of the list went by ratios based on equip/pos (with ties going to the older pilot)
http://www.awappa.org/Uploads/Nicolau%20Award.pdf
The 3 panel decision is probably about the best this merger could have been handled. 1691 on the street, most senior of which had been hired in 1988. AWs most junior pilot had been hired in 2005 (shortly before the merger)
Post merger, recalls started which complicated the issue for the seniority list.
The end result was the top 423 slots went to the former US Air guys, the junior AW guy was put below the active junior US Air guy (as of the merger date), furloughed guys on the bottom of the list. The middle of the list went by ratios based on equip/pos (with ties going to the older pilot)
08-08-2008, 08:15 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,227
Alabama got its first Republican governor in 100 years back in the eighties, Guy Hunt.
Guy was a preacher and didn't click well with the machine down in Montgomery. Some "research group" started running statewide polls as to ol' Guy's performance.
The headline a few weeks later would be: "ONLY 30 % RATE GOVERNOR'S PERFORMANCE AS GOOD."
Then a few more weeks later, it would come out that the actual numbers were 20 % "poor", 50 % "fair", and 30 % "good". So only 20% rated him less than fair. But the headlines had already been run.
Age 60 cost me alot of money. It cost the majority of ALPA pilots money. The majority of us wanted ALPA to fight it to the bitter end. And ALPA ran from the sound of the guns. Spin it any way you want.
Guy was a preacher and didn't click well with the machine down in Montgomery. Some "research group" started running statewide polls as to ol' Guy's performance.
The headline a few weeks later would be: "ONLY 30 % RATE GOVERNOR'S PERFORMANCE AS GOOD."
Then a few more weeks later, it would come out that the actual numbers were 20 % "poor", 50 % "fair", and 30 % "good". So only 20% rated him less than fair. But the headlines had already been run.
Age 60 cost me alot of money. It cost the majority of ALPA pilots money. The majority of us wanted ALPA to fight it to the bitter end. And ALPA ran from the sound of the guns. Spin it any way you want.
08-08-2008, 09:42 AM
#48
Slainge Var'
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Zeppelin Tail Gunner
Posts: 1,530
Originally Posted by kronan
But, I'd be willing to bet that it would have been a vast majority of ALPA members voting for the retroactivity clause as written. Not as if there was a huge number of ALPA engineers out there working for Delta, UAL, NWA, etc. Haven't looked at the numbers but I'd bet FedEx had the majority of over 60 FEs in ALPA and they amount to what, 4% of our crew force
08-08-2008, 10:15 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
Doesn't need to be spun.
Headlines read 36% of those polled wanted to fight to the bitter end.
Somehow, that is a majority, spin that anyway you want.
Age 60 cost me money. Not really enjoying the career stagnation. But, it is what it is. Not going around revising history. Wasn't part of some vast silent majority.
The poll results didn't come out solely as a headline. Results were published for everybody to see. Wasn't just a press release put out by Prater indicating that 62% of ALPA pilots advocate changing ALPAs position on Age 60----just trust me, you don't need to see the results
Headlines read 36% of those polled wanted to fight to the bitter end.
Somehow, that is a majority, spin that anyway you want.
Age 60 cost me money. Not really enjoying the career stagnation. But, it is what it is. Not going around revising history. Wasn't part of some vast silent majority.
The poll results didn't come out solely as a headline. Results were published for everybody to see. Wasn't just a press release put out by Prater indicating that 62% of ALPA pilots advocate changing ALPAs position on Age 60----just trust me, you don't need to see the results
08-08-2008, 10:33 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
Originally Posted by Huck
Alabama got its first Republican governor in 100 years back in the eighties, Guy Hunt.
Guy was a preacher and didn't click well with the machine down in Montgomery. Some "research group" started running statewide polls as to ol' Guy's performance.
The headline a few weeks later would be: "ONLY 30 % RATE GOVERNOR'S PERFORMANCE AS GOOD."
Then a few more weeks later, it would come out that the actual numbers were 20 % "poor", 50 % "fair", and 30 % "good". So only 20% rated him less than fair. But the headlines had already been run.
Age 60 cost me alot of money. It cost the majority of ALPA pilots money. The majority of us wanted ALPA to fight it to the bitter end. And ALPA ran from the sound of the guns. Spin it any way you want.
Guy was a preacher and didn't click well with the machine down in Montgomery. Some "research group" started running statewide polls as to ol' Guy's performance.
The headline a few weeks later would be: "ONLY 30 % RATE GOVERNOR'S PERFORMANCE AS GOOD."
Then a few more weeks later, it would come out that the actual numbers were 20 % "poor", 50 % "fair", and 30 % "good". So only 20% rated him less than fair. But the headlines had already been run.
Age 60 cost me alot of money. It cost the majority of ALPA pilots money. The majority of us wanted ALPA to fight it to the bitter end. And ALPA ran from the sound of the guns. Spin it any way you want.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
