One word....frostbite....its cold up there in the north!!! I only live where palm trees grow now. Missing California, its hard to keep a palm alive in Georgia but its do-able.

Like I have said before Prater wanted to be on the right side of that issue. He saw where it was going and made a mistake on his position being different than that of the majority of his pilots.

On 65 it would have been OK to be on the wrong side of the issue, or to support a move to 62-63. It is all hindsight, but I place that one solely on his shoulders.

The AIT, 1500 and the NPRM are different animals entirely. To spew rhetoric for the news sound bites will result in gaining nothing for the profession, or for the safety of the passengers we fly, though it may be a few good "red meat" moment for us it will result in nothing permanent for the profession.

ALPA took the high ground on the NPRM and based off of its proposal on science, and not what we would "like." That makes it much harder to refute. Now that they are part of the ARC and to see this process though, they cannot publicly comment. It does hurt them that they opt not to comment, but only in the short term. I do not suspect that they will rubber stamp the current proposal as they have many issues that they are briefing all ALPA pilots at the LEC meeting though out the country. (Briefing is a ALPA National document)

On the 1500 hr cutout, what their stated position is, is nothing more than rumor once again. Yep, they came out with a letter trying not to give away their position so that they would not effect the outcome, but to carefully address the facts of the cutout. My personal guess is that alpa put together a decent proposal that uses tried and true aviation universities and places like Flight Safety that have proven track records, not the fly by night places that we are all aware off. The RAA probably scoffed, and leaked some half truths to undermine the ALPA position because they want a one size fits all cutout, not one that makes sense given the education and experiences of different aviators. I am sure there is a major disagreement and alpa is doing the right thing by keeping its head down, not commenting or throwing Babbitt under the bus.

On the AIT, you now see that they were not just sitting in DC drinking nice wine on your dime, but trying to get face time with members of congress that were on the other side of the country trying to save their seats.

They also know that the environment may not be quite as friendly come Jan 1st, so time is of the essences. None of these items can be done in a vacuum and all interrelate as they are all taking place at the same time with many of the same players.

Want CREWPASS give here, want 8 hrs of block in a day, give here, and the list goes on and on. If they said go pound sand, the decision would be made without a rational voice on your behalf sitting at the table and the end result would be that we would see no gains in any of these areas. Now I know which process will move the profession farther down the field and it is the one I support. I just hope many can stop for a second and see that this is exactly what is going on. Like it or not, it is the world we live in.

I actually laughed at the comment, even though it was out of the TOS bounds. :eek:

Save

Print

Distribute

http://dontscan.us/files/5a.pdf

Why do you think it's disgruntled NW pilots?

This letter is a day late and a dollar short. ALPA felt the heat. That letter is nothing but damage control because other unions were making this a priority, because it was a priority to its members (something ALPA has forgotten). Even if they want to move on a national issue, there are so many layers of bureaucracy, it takes forever and their response is limp. How long did it take APA, CAPA and Sully to comment on the proposed FT/DT. I would bet it was within 24 hours. ALPA gave the usual we have to look at it. It looked almost just like their initial proposal, except ALPA proposed 9 hours. Now they say, buried in one of their blathering letters, there is no scientific evidence that 10 flight hours is safe. How long did that take, a week or two? Guess what, there is no scientific evidence 9 hours is safe, which is what ALPA proposed. Insert camel's nose. Hard to hold the line on 8 now huh? We have some of the most important regs in front of us in a generation. ALPA is not getting the job done. If they have such connections in DC, why in the he)) have we been subjected to this BS over the past 9 years?

Sailing, sometimes a slap to the face is exactly what is needed to get someones attention. Maybe if we had a union that did a little more slapping and less kissing, more would get done. Maybe if their responses were consistently "swift and certain", more would get done. What has been coming out of ALPA these days is neither consistent, swift or certain. I have no idea what side of the argument my union is going to take on any given issue. I used to think safety, since it is in their motto, was a sure bet. Not anymore.

I do. They are going to take the side that serves the ALPA National agenda and purpose. They will not take any side that threatens their existance, revenue stream, or path to the lucrative consulting or government job.

I am having a much harder time seeing how change from within can ever happen. It might really be time for that change.

The old saying about burn the house down starts to make sense. Maybe we should and collect all the nails like they did on the frontier. Then, travel on and build again.

Am I about to agree with, what appears to be, a Dawg fan the week of a bitter game? I think I am.

:D

If DALPA said they no longer wanted to support ALPA National then I wonder what the support level of the funding class would be for DALPA? My bet is probably 95%?

Hey FTB, don't FTB