Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
ALPA Turnaround Now Official >

ALPA Turnaround Now Official

Search

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

ALPA Turnaround Now Official

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-24-2007 | 10:37 AM
  #1  
newKnow's Avatar
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
From: 765-A
Angry ALPA Turnaround Now Official

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.
Reply
Old 05-24-2007 | 10:43 AM
  #2  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,488
Likes: 0
From: tri current
Default

Originally Posted by newKnow
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.

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
Reply
Old 05-24-2007 | 11:26 AM
  #3  
tomgoodman's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,248
Likes: 0
From: 767A (Ret)
Default "Politics ain't Beanbag"

Originally Posted by newKnow
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.
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.
Reply
Old 05-24-2007 | 11:47 AM
  #4  
N2rotation's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
From: XJT furloughed due to non-ALPA undercutting
Default

Originally Posted by tomgoodman
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.
Reply
Old 05-24-2007 | 11:55 AM
  #5  
AV8ER's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
From: ERJ 145
Default

Originally Posted by N2rotation
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.
I feel a flamefest coming...
Reply
Old 05-24-2007 | 12:04 PM
  #6  
Shrek's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
25M+ Airline Miles
15 Years
Gets Weekends Off
50 Countries Visited
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,025
Likes: 100
Default

Originally Posted by newKnow
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.
Wonder if this an appeasment about the de-certification drive rumor going on at USAirways.
Reply
Old 05-24-2007 | 12:33 PM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
From: DFW A320 FO
Default

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.
Reply
Old 05-24-2007 | 02:02 PM
  #8  
Ottopilot's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,576
Likes: 0
From: 737 CA
Default

What vote? I never got to vote. The ALPA execs voted and it passed by 80%. Did the membership vote? I didn't.
Reply
Old 05-24-2007 | 02:16 PM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
From: DFW A320 FO
Default

The was a poll recently.
Reply
Old 05-24-2007 | 02:27 PM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by newKnow
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.
Maybe it would be better to have that opinion and work with the FAA -vs- voting it down and being dealt a crap sandwich..I don't want age 65.....I hope it never happens, but it will eventually.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
pdo bump
Cargo
70
05-30-2007 06:01 PM
RedBaron007
Regional
30
04-04-2007 09:16 AM
rjlavender
Major
26
10-19-2006 08:48 PM
RockBottom
Major
0
09-14-2005 09:52 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices