Delta Pilots Association
10-14-2010, 06:03 AM
#1101
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Originally Posted by Amish Pilot
Valid points PG.
I have been wanting to ask, is that a Honda Fury or custom build in your Pic?
I'm a motorcycle guy, current stable: BMW K1300S, Duc GT1000, KTM 990 Adv, and 25 Anv. Yamaha R1.
I have been wanting to ask, is that a Honda Fury or custom build in your Pic?
I'm a motorcycle guy, current stable: BMW K1300S, Duc GT1000, KTM 990 Adv, and 25 Anv. Yamaha R1.
10-14-2010, 06:05 AM
#1102
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by Herkflyr
The rest of your post was good...until I got to this sentence. Are you kidding me? Let's check two of the most "admired" in-house unions, SWAPA and APA.
SWAPA always was a forceful and blatant advocate of Age 65, long before ALPA reluctantly got on board. What a "great" in-house union that was! In fact, you can thank SWAPA for all their efforts that helped put ALPA in a no-win situation regarding Age 65.
Now the APA came out publicly against Age 65, and I applaud them for their honesty and forthrightness...but then not one congressman--not one!--even from the APA's own district, voted against Age 65. Boy, that's an effective in-house union.
So ALPA had to accept and live in the real world (something not advocated often in the bizarre alternate reality of these aviation message boards) and reluctantly switched positions so as to at least have a little influence in the legislation. I think that if left to SWAPA to be the sole voice in Congress, you would have had thousands of age 60-65 retirees coming right back to "their" left seats: "got mine, want yours" and all that.
So, I understand coming back from years of furlough just to see the union support a further stagnation in your career causing a lot of anger. I just don't see how changing representation, when the obvious examples are WORSE than what ALPA represented (at least in this example) helps anything.
SWAPA always was a forceful and blatant advocate of Age 65, long before ALPA reluctantly got on board. What a "great" in-house union that was! In fact, you can thank SWAPA for all their efforts that helped put ALPA in a no-win situation regarding Age 65.
Now the APA came out publicly against Age 65, and I applaud them for their honesty and forthrightness...but then not one congressman--not one!--even from the APA's own district, voted against Age 65. Boy, that's an effective in-house union.
So ALPA had to accept and live in the real world (something not advocated often in the bizarre alternate reality of these aviation message boards) and reluctantly switched positions so as to at least have a little influence in the legislation. I think that if left to SWAPA to be the sole voice in Congress, you would have had thousands of age 60-65 retirees coming right back to "their" left seats: "got mine, want yours" and all that.
So, I understand coming back from years of furlough just to see the union support a further stagnation in your career causing a lot of anger. I just don't see how changing representation, when the obvious examples are WORSE than what ALPA represented (at least in this example) helps anything.
I think most people here act as if ALPA wrote laws. They forget we are only lobbying one side of an argument, and the deep pockets lobby for the industry. Instead of marveling at the fact we've been able to have our a$$ handed to us in terms of critical issues like cabotage and foreign ownership, and that we're in the room when rules are written, people decry every rule that doesn't go exactly our way as a giant cave-in.
When it comes to Age 65, however, Prater campaigned on it, and he got it delivered. Woerth got his instruction when on the ARC, and abstained. Actually f'n abstained! And so the rule passed. Prater/Woerth betrayed the wishes of the pilot group in this regard. There is nothing good about that example, and I stopped backing the PAC as Prater got elected. I can resume contributions now.
10-14-2010, 06:09 AM
#1103
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
Words cannot describe my anger at ALPA right now.
Carl
10-14-2010, 06:13 AM
#1104
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Like I said early on in this thread, ALPA sees its growth in members and in dues at the regionals. ALPA's growth is what's critical to its survival...not your growth or my growth.
Carl
Carl
Is that some of that new math I've been hearing about?
10-14-2010, 06:20 AM
#1105
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Herkflyr
So ALPA had to accept and live in the real world (something not advocated often in the bizarre alternate reality of these aviation message boards) and reluctantly switched positions so as to at least have a little influence in the legislation.
ALPA should have maintained a strong stance against 65 and made that very clear to every legislator. But you can also say to them: "If you decide to vote against our position, we will absolutely need (fill in the blank) or you may not count on our continued support." That's how you do it.
To say that ALPA had to cave in so that they could influence the legislation is to excuse their duplicitous behavior.
Carl
10-14-2010, 06:21 AM
#1106
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
Words cannot describe my anger at ALPA right now.
So maybe, just maybe, we focus on trying to send a message to our reps about the direction we want from National on the 500/1,500 hour discussion, and the 10-hour block limit on FTDT regs, and the commuting language in that NPRM. I know it might detract from our APC duties, but maybe we're supposed to, you know, give guidance to our reps, and give a chance to work to this representational system we're not even intelligent nough... to use because we're too busy whining about the fact it doesn't work.
10-14-2010, 06:24 AM
#1108
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
You're giving ALPA a pass on this and you shouldn't. You can have plenty of influence on legislation even if you oppose it. That's what all this lobby money and our "top notch" lawyers are supposed to provide!
ALPA should have maintained a strong stance against 65 and made that very clear to every legislator. But you can also say to them: "If you decide to vote against our position, we will absolutely need (fill in the blank) or you may not count on our continued support." That's how you do it.
To say that ALPA had to cave in so that they could influence the legislation is to excuse their duplicitous behavior.
Carl
ALPA should have maintained a strong stance against 65 and made that very clear to every legislator. But you can also say to them: "If you decide to vote against our position, we will absolutely need (fill in the blank) or you may not count on our continued support." That's how you do it.
To say that ALPA had to cave in so that they could influence the legislation is to excuse their duplicitous behavior.
Carl
10-14-2010, 06:27 AM
#1110
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
You're giving ALPA a pass on this and you shouldn't. You can have plenty of influence on legislation even if you oppose it. That's what all this lobby money and our "top notch" lawyers are supposed to provide!
ALPA should have maintained a strong stance against 65 and made that very clear to every legislator. But you can also say to them: "If you decide to vote against our position, we will absolutely need (fill in the blank) or you may not count on our continued support." That's how you do it.
To say that ALPA had to cave in so that they could influence the legislation is to excuse their duplicitous behavior.
Carl
ALPA should have maintained a strong stance against 65 and made that very clear to every legislator. But you can also say to them: "If you decide to vote against our position, we will absolutely need (fill in the blank) or you may not count on our continued support." That's how you do it.
To say that ALPA had to cave in so that they could influence the legislation is to excuse their duplicitous behavior.
Carl
I agree. ALPA does not need to be on the winning side of an issue all of the time. Age 65 and these new lower limits are proof positive of that. Fight it, back it up with the facts you have, and if you lose, then so be it.
Lee better take note of that. I would hope/bet that he changes our position.
Prater's positions on a variety of issues always amazes me.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
