ALPA Turnaround Now Official
#1
ALPA now supports flying to age 65 with no restrictions. Does anyone have anything good to say about this?
IMO, instead of "Taking it Back", ALPA is whimping out, once again.
Instead of insisting on the airlines with terminated pension plans to compensate their pilots with a suitable subsitution, ALPA's choice is to allow the pilots to make it up themselves. This comes at the expense of decreased life expectancy and diminished career expectations for the younger pilots.
I have never been a big fan of APA, but at least they have guts.
Age 65 is not safe and ALPA is being short-sighted. ALPA, as usual, is only looking as far as the widebody international flying.
Sure, age 65 might be ok when you can take a nap for half of your 12 hour flight and then go to a nice hotel for a 24 hour minimum layover.
But how does age 65 look when you are flying the DC-9 or B-737 for 13 hours a day, five and six legs, with no crew meals, to go to your 10 hour layover?
I think it looks dangerous. BIG MISTAKE ALPA. APA stay strong.
IMO, instead of "Taking it Back", ALPA is whimping out, once again.
Instead of insisting on the airlines with terminated pension plans to compensate their pilots with a suitable subsitution, ALPA's choice is to allow the pilots to make it up themselves. This comes at the expense of decreased life expectancy and diminished career expectations for the younger pilots.
I have never been a big fan of APA, but at least they have guts.
Age 65 is not safe and ALPA is being short-sighted. ALPA, as usual, is only looking as far as the widebody international flying.
Sure, age 65 might be ok when you can take a nap for half of your 12 hour flight and then go to a nice hotel for a 24 hour minimum layover.
But how does age 65 look when you are flying the DC-9 or B-737 for 13 hours a day, five and six legs, with no crew meals, to go to your 10 hour layover?
I think it looks dangerous. BIG MISTAKE ALPA. APA stay strong.
#2
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,488
Likes: 0
From: tri current
ALPA now supports flying to age 65 with no restrictions. Does anyone have anything good to say about this?
IMO, instead of "Taking it Back", ALPA is whimping out, once again.
Instead of insisting on the airlines with terminated pension plans to compensate their pilots with a suitable subsitution, ALPA's choice is to allow the pilots to make it up themselves. This comes at the expense of decreased life expectancy and diminished career expectations for the younger pilots.
I have never been a big fan of APA, but at least they have guts.
Age 65 is not safe and ALPA is being short-sighted. ALPA, as usual, is only looking as far as the widebody international flying.
Sure, age 65 might be ok when you can take a nap for half of your 12 hour flight and then go to a nice hotel for a 24 hour minimum layover.
But how does age 65 look when you are flying the DC-9 or B-737 for 13 hours a day, five and six legs, with no crew meals, to go to your 10 hour layover?
I think it looks dangerous. BIG MISTAKE ALPA. APA stay strong.
IMO, instead of "Taking it Back", ALPA is whimping out, once again.
Instead of insisting on the airlines with terminated pension plans to compensate their pilots with a suitable subsitution, ALPA's choice is to allow the pilots to make it up themselves. This comes at the expense of decreased life expectancy and diminished career expectations for the younger pilots.
I have never been a big fan of APA, but at least they have guts.
Age 65 is not safe and ALPA is being short-sighted. ALPA, as usual, is only looking as far as the widebody international flying.
Sure, age 65 might be ok when you can take a nap for half of your 12 hour flight and then go to a nice hotel for a 24 hour minimum layover.
But how does age 65 look when you are flying the DC-9 or B-737 for 13 hours a day, five and six legs, with no crew meals, to go to your 10 hour layover?
I think it looks dangerous. BIG MISTAKE ALPA. APA stay strong.
This was inevitable. ALPA has been, and will always be, a Union for the senior one-third of the senioriy list. The majority of senior pilots want this, so it is happening.
In regards to flying 13 hour 5 leg days to a min rest the best advice I can give is to negotiate for a European CAP 371 style flight and duty time limitation scheme. It has so much more science behind it than the FARs do. But again, that will only happen if the senior boys want it.
TP
#3
Makes sense from their point of view. They can't ever admit that pension-dumping was a mistake, even if airlines post huge profits. Of the above alternatives, the second one yields more dues money and doesn't cost negotiating capital at the bargaining table. The price is alienation of junior pilots, but that has apparently been deemed affordable.
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
From: XJT furloughed due to non-ALPA undercutting
Makes sense from their point of view. They can't ever admit that pension-dumping was a mistake, even if airlines post huge profits. Of the above alternatives, the second one yields more dues money and doesn't cost negotiating capital at the bargaining table. The price is alienation of junior pilots, but that has apparently been deemed affordable.
It would be nice for ALPA to think about the guys/gals that are younger than age 40.
How about some consideration for the regional pilots? I agree with typhoonpilot more and more every day- ALPA supports the older guys more and more with each one of these decisions.
What a coincidence that suddenly older pilots have better life health after the pensions are slashed. It may be rough making $150k instead of $225k... but it looks like $20k at the regionals for even MORE time now. Fun.
#5
It would be nice for ALPA to think about the guys/gals that are younger than age 40.
How about some consideration for the regional pilots? I agree with typhoonpilot more and more every day- ALPA supports the older guys more and more with each one of these decisions.
What a coincidence that suddenly older pilots have better life health after the pensions are slashed. It may be rough making $150k instead of $225k... but it looks like $20k at the regionals for even MORE time now. Fun.
How about some consideration for the regional pilots? I agree with typhoonpilot more and more every day- ALPA supports the older guys more and more with each one of these decisions.
What a coincidence that suddenly older pilots have better life health after the pensions are slashed. It may be rough making $150k instead of $225k... but it looks like $20k at the regionals for even MORE time now. Fun.

#6
ALPA now supports flying to age 65 with no restrictions. Does anyone have anything good to say about this?
IMO, instead of "Taking it Back", ALPA is whimping out, once again.
Instead of insisting on the airlines with terminated pension plans to compensate their pilots with a suitable subsitution, ALPA's choice is to allow the pilots to make it up themselves. This comes at the expense of decreased life expectancy and diminished career expectations for the younger pilots.
I have never been a big fan of APA, but at least they have guts.
Age 65 is not safe and ALPA is being short-sighted. ALPA, as usual, is only looking as far as the widebody international flying.
Sure, age 65 might be ok when you can take a nap for half of your 12 hour flight and then go to a nice hotel for a 24 hour minimum layover.
But how does age 65 look when you are flying the DC-9 or B-737 for 13 hours a day, five and six legs, with no crew meals, to go to your 10 hour layover?
I think it looks dangerous. BIG MISTAKE ALPA. APA stay strong.
IMO, instead of "Taking it Back", ALPA is whimping out, once again.
Instead of insisting on the airlines with terminated pension plans to compensate their pilots with a suitable subsitution, ALPA's choice is to allow the pilots to make it up themselves. This comes at the expense of decreased life expectancy and diminished career expectations for the younger pilots.
I have never been a big fan of APA, but at least they have guts.
Age 65 is not safe and ALPA is being short-sighted. ALPA, as usual, is only looking as far as the widebody international flying.
Sure, age 65 might be ok when you can take a nap for half of your 12 hour flight and then go to a nice hotel for a 24 hour minimum layover.
But how does age 65 look when you are flying the DC-9 or B-737 for 13 hours a day, five and six legs, with no crew meals, to go to your 10 hour layover?
I think it looks dangerous. BIG MISTAKE ALPA. APA stay strong.
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
From: DFW A320 FO
Regardless of "right or wrong" they've now gone against the majority vote of their membership. Very bad. USAirways pilots have a foot out the door and now the backlash from this will not be pleasant.
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
ALPA now supports flying to age 65 with no restrictions. Does anyone have anything good to say about this?
IMO, instead of "Taking it Back", ALPA is whimping out, once again.
Instead of insisting on the airlines with terminated pension plans to compensate their pilots with a suitable subsitution, ALPA's choice is to allow the pilots to make it up themselves. This comes at the expense of decreased life expectancy and diminished career expectations for the younger pilots.
I have never been a big fan of APA, but at least they have guts.
Age 65 is not safe and ALPA is being short-sighted. ALPA, as usual, is only looking as far as the widebody international flying.
Sure, age 65 might be ok when you can take a nap for half of your 12 hour flight and then go to a nice hotel for a 24 hour minimum layover.
But how does age 65 look when you are flying the DC-9 or B-737 for 13 hours a day, five and six legs, with no crew meals, to go to your 10 hour layover?
I think it looks dangerous. BIG MISTAKE ALPA. APA stay strong.
IMO, instead of "Taking it Back", ALPA is whimping out, once again.
Instead of insisting on the airlines with terminated pension plans to compensate their pilots with a suitable subsitution, ALPA's choice is to allow the pilots to make it up themselves. This comes at the expense of decreased life expectancy and diminished career expectations for the younger pilots.
I have never been a big fan of APA, but at least they have guts.
Age 65 is not safe and ALPA is being short-sighted. ALPA, as usual, is only looking as far as the widebody international flying.
Sure, age 65 might be ok when you can take a nap for half of your 12 hour flight and then go to a nice hotel for a 24 hour minimum layover.
But how does age 65 look when you are flying the DC-9 or B-737 for 13 hours a day, five and six legs, with no crew meals, to go to your 10 hour layover?
I think it looks dangerous. BIG MISTAKE ALPA. APA stay strong.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



