So things that ALPA lobbies for are voted up through the system to national. You’ve had multiple opportunities to voice your opinion on this. You may have done so but are in the minority. THAT’S HOW VOTING WORKS!

 

They are welcome to introduce a resolution & prove me wrong. We had a couple very recently in Houston but they were withdrawn at the last minute.

 

Even the supporters of age 67 admit that a poll would almost certainly show, as it did last time, that the majority of pilots oppose the age change. You will be glad to know that the UAL MEC passed a resolution at the last MEC meeting to poll/survey the United pilots on the issue. The Senate recessed today for five weeks so it is a great time for it. Then the MEC can share the results with the pilots and we can communicate our wishes to our Senators.

 

Hence why the 67 lobbyists should be brought up on A8. They’re actively lobbying against the membership at large. They won’t call for a vote because they know damn well it won’t go in their favor.

Lee Moak was recently A8 for the exact same thing.

If they hold a vote and it goes in their favor I’ll withdraw my opinion.

 

This is a political based decision and our input really doesn’t carry much weight. Most politicians probably don’t care politically either way that age 67 is in the bill. For those who do, they get to be seen “solving a problem” with no political fallout. They can show that they are doing something to reduce flight delays while not getting the blame for potential negative side affects such as increased LTD cost, scheduling challenges, or increased medical/sick leave expenses that airlines will pass on to the consumer.

 

This is spot on for the political reality. Being against it could hurt them with senior citizens in general. I still like democracy, but this is one of its weaknesses.

 

I flew with pilots that turned 60 and moved to the flight engineer seat, and when the age moved to 65, they returned to the left seat until retiring back to the FE seat again. In fact, I represented a grievance for an operator who allowed the captain to keep his seniority when moving to the FE seat, but had no language to address a second move (in which the decision was to move the re-retiree to the bottom of the FE list).

When a contract is amid ships and the unprecedented occurs due to a regulatory change, in limited case it might be settled out that way, or by an MOU. Without a FE seat to go to, one has to look closely at any language surrounding retirement; few contracts will have addressed returning from retirement, and none, from age-based retirement.

(I realize that one who moves to the FE seat, in the former case, has not "left 121," but the shift is notable, none the less. What of the captain who retired at 65 to the training department, but who wishes to return to the line for another year?)

 

Darn. I knew TWA should have kept their 727s!

 

that may be the case at Mesa where you work but not here .

 

Yeah, it's going to be complicated if congress doesn't address these issues. If they do, they'll probably screw it up and make it even more complicated.