lol, no




....

 

I was opposed to age 65 and did what I could to oppose it though I was relatively new to ALPA politics. My memory is a bit foggy, but I remember thinking the survey was designed to get the answer some wanted. That didn’t work and I don’t rule out a wink and a nod by John Prater and some others. But what I remember most is how engaged the pilots who wanted 65 were as opposed to those of us who opposed it. Also, ICAO already being at 65 minimized the operational issues so I don’t think airline managements opposed it. That might be the most important difference between then and now.

My biggest problem with the age 67 pilots is how they went about this. They went around the union before we had any contracts. Then, when ALPA’s BOD voted unanimously to accept the strategic plan that included keeping the age at 65 they began a PR campaign that undermined and vilified our union even as ALPA delivered on contracts. They also partnered with some of unions most ardent and powerful enemies. We, pilots, don’t like politics, but they are a fact of life. Too many pilots seem to look for excuses to bash our union rather than supporting it even when we don’t get our way.

For 92 years ALPA has been a preeminent advocate for airline safety while setting the standard for pilot pay, benefits and job security throughout the world. All the while carrying the dead weight of union hating pilots.

 

Well said Jerry - especially the last paragraph.

 

I was against it as well, but even I can understand once ALPA decided stopping it was no longer an option, making sure that guidelines like not allowing pilots to return at previous seniority, medical requirements, and implementation timeline were still to be hashed out.

I still think due to the abysmal state of the pilot market at that time, ALPA should have pivoted and lobbied for a phased in extension, like one year retirement age raise every two so that there weren't select winners with 5yrs of seniority all the while furloughs and stagnation for everyone else. I emailed my rep with that suggestion, but apparently it wasn't popular.

 

“We can't believe we have to say this, but...

An abrupt, temporary hiring disruption-driven entirely by an abrupt, aircraft delivery disruption— is not the same thing as fixing the pilot shortage!”

 

Is it true there’s a lawsuit against ALPA for opposing age 67? Can’t find any mention of it here.

 

Yes. “Let Experienced Pilots Fly (LEPF)”, the minority position in the Democratic-bylaws-governed organization, who is actually doing the will of the majority its members. Claiming failure of their Duty of Fair Representation (DFR).

For the record, I have no issues with anyone who wants 67, or expresses that to anyone including Congress. Litigation, however is across the line. That’s needlessly costing my dues dollars to defend. Big difference.

 

Who's "We"? Does it include the pilot food stamp proponent RAA? The anti-labor politicians? The self-seekers suing ALPA?
Sorry you missed it the pilot shortage is over!

 

it's the double standard that I abhor. ALPA is more than happy to take dues from pilots it represents over the age of 65 while citing safety as its primary reason for opposing an age increase... makes zero sense to me.

 

Theyd be getting five times the amount of dues out of Canada if there was a retirement age at 65. They’d have much more leverage to push for better contracts.