Quote:
What I find most amusing is how the APA put out public press releases opposing the repeal of Age 60...and their own district's congressional delegation still voted for Age 65! As they frequently do, the APA made a "feel-good" statement that did nothing for the real world in which we live, but did tell the same crowd what they wanted to hear--even though no tangible results ensued.
So you probably think that I like Age 65. I do not. I do, however, acknowledge the real world, warts and all. In this instance, so too did ALPA. Neither ALPA nor any other entity could have stopped Age 65, any more than the poor 8-year-old kid you see in the video of the Indonesian tsunami could have stood against the mammoth wall of water overtaking him.
But, by acknowledging the real world, and where ALPA could show some influence, we helped insure that the legislation crafted prevented already retired pilots from coming back to their old seniority, among other things.
Blame ALPA for much, I agree. Age 65, however, is not part of that.
I got the following information from one of MY union representatives. I do not have proof of what he said to me. I have to take him at his word as he is one of the ALPA insiders. If you can unequivocally PROVE that ALPA membership supported "age 65", then I will gladly reevaluate my opinion on this specific subject.Originally Posted by Herkflyr
Blaming ALPA again? It was Congress, not the FAA, and certainly not ALPA, that passed the legislation. You do remember that it passed unanimously? Hell, even the declaration of war against Japan right after Pearl Harbor didn't pass unanimously! (thanks Jean Rankin!).What I find most amusing is how the APA put out public press releases opposing the repeal of Age 60...and their own district's congressional delegation still voted for Age 65! As they frequently do, the APA made a "feel-good" statement that did nothing for the real world in which we live, but did tell the same crowd what they wanted to hear--even though no tangible results ensued.
So you probably think that I like Age 65. I do not. I do, however, acknowledge the real world, warts and all. In this instance, so too did ALPA. Neither ALPA nor any other entity could have stopped Age 65, any more than the poor 8-year-old kid you see in the video of the Indonesian tsunami could have stood against the mammoth wall of water overtaking him.
But, by acknowledging the real world, and where ALPA could show some influence, we helped insure that the legislation crafted prevented already retired pilots from coming back to their old seniority, among other things.
Blame ALPA for much, I agree. Age 65, however, is not part of that.
ALPA spent a boatload of money polling it's members to see if they wanted "age 65" or not. SOME carriers wanted it but, MOST did not. That would mean that the MAJORITY of ALPA members, even if it was by ONE vote, did NOT WANT "age 65". However, CAPT Prater WANTED "age 65" and they rolled over on the membership and supported "age 65".
Was "age 65" inevitable? Absolutely! What counts is that ALPA ignored it's membership. We are just now beginning to see how "age 65" will negatively effect it's membership.
You and I can agree that we can blame ALPA for much.
It's just that I blame them for not fighting this till the end.
Quote:
Anderson and the Management at DAL originally stated that they would not move ahead with the merger until the new, merged company had the support of its' pilots.
Originally Posted by DeadHead
At this point I don't see the merger going through,Anderson and the Management at DAL originally stated that they would not move ahead with the merger until the new, merged company had the support of its' pilots.
Just wanted to take this opportunity to eat my own words.
