FDX: Don't make the same mistake video... :)
08-10-2008, 09:28 AM
#61
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 88
Originally Posted by Falconjet
Doesn't really matter what the poll results were, our illustrious leader and ALPA national (in the form of the Executive Board) made their decision before the poll was concluded anyway.
That chafed my bag almost as much as their cowardly 180, the fact that they had their mind up before the poll was even finished. Don't bother asking if you don't want to know the answer or are going to ignore it anyway.
FJ
That chafed my bag almost as much as their cowardly 180, the fact that they had their mind up before the poll was even finished. Don't bother asking if you don't want to know the answer or are going to ignore it anyway.
FJ
08-13-2008, 11:08 AM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
Would have been nice if you were posting in 2007 to point out the errors of the Age 60 poll?
It's been a long time since I took a statistics class. So, it's hard to disagree with your assertion that the Age 60 poll was invalid since the responses weren't as clearly delineated as you would have liked. Makes sense for a scientific poll, whether that still holds true for an opinion poll I just don't know. Facts are clear cut and undeniable, opinions are much more variable.
However, you are completely wrong in your argument that the results should have included a plus or minus factor for accuracy. This was a poll that was open to every ALPA member. The percentages are simply a tabulation of their responses, and as such, are reported as straight numbers. You would have been correct if the poll had been a sample of opinions scattered across the various demographics of ALPA membership and extrapolated out as the likely results.
It is hard to argue on the rationale behind the wording of question 2. I don't know who wrote/approved the verbiage of the poll. And, I am certainly willing to admit that it is possible that the process was subverted by a unnamed ALPA national guy who was staunchly pro Age 60 change. (And contrary to popular opinion-there were segments of ALPA who were hugely in favor of changing the retirement age. Some of them even prior to Blakely announcing the proposed rule change. In fact, the Southwest guys were in favor of changing the rule……w/out ALPA national's input). Again, I don't know what process ALPA followed for this particular poll. In the past, I have heard from MEC members that the MEC decides the subject and the polling company comes up with the questions.
But, I prefer to think my fellow pilots are smart enough to see through any leading the witness type questions, consider the arguments, and make their own decisions.
The following was the question and the results for FedEx.
ALPAs policy has been to oppose any change in the Age 60 Rule. Suppose it is evident that the FAA or Congress is determined to change the age 60 rule and that the rule will, in fact, change. Under these circumstances, 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?
FedEx only
Maintain opposition 36.4%
Drop opposition 14.5%
Modify its policy 47.4%
I also agree with your assertion that the majority of pilots would have voted to "maintain opposition to age 60 while lobbying to oppose any adverse changes" if that had been one of the options. But, it wasn't. Would have been nice to spend more time figuring out what the exact group consensus was, but, IMHO I don't think there was a lot of time available to decide whether ALPA should change the official policy or not.
You have to think back to the compressed timing of this. ALPA had managed to shoot it down in committee in 2006. But, it reared its ugly head again as Blakely proposed a rule change in January. (You weren't posting here then, but, many of the Age 60 proponents were spreading the rumor that the rule was going to change by Memorial Day). ALPA National formed a committee in March of 07. The Age 60 poll started a month later (I received the newsflash email announcing it on Apr 12th) and closed May 10th (And yes, people were able to go back and change their votes)
During that time, the numbers of Senators and Representatives pushing for legislative action changed from the handful of traditional guys to hundreds. And, throughout 2007, it went from being a standalone bill to one being included as an amendment to several bills.
On Retroactivity. The vast majority of ALPA MECs received pure retroactivity protection. I agree with AerisArmis that the issue of what to do with existing crewmembers over 60 might not have been raised but for DW. But, there is no way of knowing that the law wouldn't have been passed with the exact same exception to retroactivity for existing active crewmembers who were already 60.
ALPA was not the only group lobbying on the Age 60 issue. The ATA was also involved. I will admit that I haven't been able to find their exact lobbying positions. But, given the perception by various individuals on this web board that the bid cancellations and excess buffoonery we have lived through this year was a result of PCs desire to aid his Age 60 buds back into a window seat, is it really that big of a stretch to imagine the ATA lobbying for the same exemption DW proposed? Can you imagine PC introducing JL to one of our fine Senators in the luxury suite at FedEx stadium and lobbying for this exemption?
Senator Phogbound, if you pass this legislation as written, in order for me to make use of my good friend JLs long flying experience he will have to quit and be rehired to fly.
Why should it be legal for me to hire someone over 60 to fly as an FO? But, not legal for someone already employed to fly as an FO or Capt?
It's been a long time since I took a statistics class. So, it's hard to disagree with your assertion that the Age 60 poll was invalid since the responses weren't as clearly delineated as you would have liked. Makes sense for a scientific poll, whether that still holds true for an opinion poll I just don't know. Facts are clear cut and undeniable, opinions are much more variable.
However, you are completely wrong in your argument that the results should have included a plus or minus factor for accuracy. This was a poll that was open to every ALPA member. The percentages are simply a tabulation of their responses, and as such, are reported as straight numbers. You would have been correct if the poll had been a sample of opinions scattered across the various demographics of ALPA membership and extrapolated out as the likely results.
It is hard to argue on the rationale behind the wording of question 2. I don't know who wrote/approved the verbiage of the poll. And, I am certainly willing to admit that it is possible that the process was subverted by a unnamed ALPA national guy who was staunchly pro Age 60 change. (And contrary to popular opinion-there were segments of ALPA who were hugely in favor of changing the retirement age. Some of them even prior to Blakely announcing the proposed rule change. In fact, the Southwest guys were in favor of changing the rule……w/out ALPA national's input). Again, I don't know what process ALPA followed for this particular poll. In the past, I have heard from MEC members that the MEC decides the subject and the polling company comes up with the questions.
But, I prefer to think my fellow pilots are smart enough to see through any leading the witness type questions, consider the arguments, and make their own decisions.
The following was the question and the results for FedEx.
ALPAs policy has been to oppose any change in the Age 60 Rule. Suppose it is evident that the FAA or Congress is determined to change the age 60 rule and that the rule will, in fact, change. Under these circumstances, 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?
FedEx only
Maintain opposition 36.4%
Drop opposition 14.5%
Modify its policy 47.4%
I also agree with your assertion that the majority of pilots would have voted to "maintain opposition to age 60 while lobbying to oppose any adverse changes" if that had been one of the options. But, it wasn't. Would have been nice to spend more time figuring out what the exact group consensus was, but, IMHO I don't think there was a lot of time available to decide whether ALPA should change the official policy or not.
You have to think back to the compressed timing of this. ALPA had managed to shoot it down in committee in 2006. But, it reared its ugly head again as Blakely proposed a rule change in January. (You weren't posting here then, but, many of the Age 60 proponents were spreading the rumor that the rule was going to change by Memorial Day). ALPA National formed a committee in March of 07. The Age 60 poll started a month later (I received the newsflash email announcing it on Apr 12th) and closed May 10th (And yes, people were able to go back and change their votes)
During that time, the numbers of Senators and Representatives pushing for legislative action changed from the handful of traditional guys to hundreds. And, throughout 2007, it went from being a standalone bill to one being included as an amendment to several bills.
On Retroactivity. The vast majority of ALPA MECs received pure retroactivity protection. I agree with AerisArmis that the issue of what to do with existing crewmembers over 60 might not have been raised but for DW. But, there is no way of knowing that the law wouldn't have been passed with the exact same exception to retroactivity for existing active crewmembers who were already 60.
ALPA was not the only group lobbying on the Age 60 issue. The ATA was also involved. I will admit that I haven't been able to find their exact lobbying positions. But, given the perception by various individuals on this web board that the bid cancellations and excess buffoonery we have lived through this year was a result of PCs desire to aid his Age 60 buds back into a window seat, is it really that big of a stretch to imagine the ATA lobbying for the same exemption DW proposed? Can you imagine PC introducing JL to one of our fine Senators in the luxury suite at FedEx stadium and lobbying for this exemption?
Senator Phogbound, if you pass this legislation as written, in order for me to make use of my good friend JLs long flying experience he will have to quit and be rehired to fly.
Why should it be legal for me to hire someone over 60 to fly as an FO? But, not legal for someone already employed to fly as an FO or Capt?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
