Purple F/O

I don't think this will satisfy the conspiracy theorists. The ALPA number is the hard number to get a hold of. If you can get that, then you can get their employee number. To really be secure, you need to use your unique password, not something more public. In reality, if they are going to rig the data by voting for people who don't vote, then nothing--not even a password--would stop them. That is pretty far-fetched, though.

TonyC

Well, since it's just a 7-digit number, and I know at least one 7-digit number that is valid, I could just start incrementing or decrementing from there. Or, I could just start making 7-digit numbers up. Depending on how crafty I am, I could come up with a lot of valid ALPA numbers, and I would never have to know who they belong to, or who that person works for.

I'd say that the new procedure, while not perfect, is a HUGE improvement over what was there before.



.

SNAFU

Why, don't you think those most negatively impacted by a potential change should at least get a chance to "vote" their opinion? After all, those who will reap a windfall with the change are getting to "vote" their opinion.

Not that it will matter in the long run most likely, but those who are most negatively impacted have the right to be heard.

Why so bitter?

Purple F/O

Tony

The extreemists would have you believe that it is ALPA who is stuffing the ballot box to get the results they want. In that case, this is no solution, since they know your ALPA number and employee number.

FDXLAG

So have them heard but not as part of the poll that sets ALPA policy. That should stay with the voters.

Please define bitter any vitriol on this thread obviously belongs to “your” side. If you like I’ll quote the pity remarks or the get the f out of my way remarks. For what its worth I'll retire at 60, just think its a stupid rule.

FLMD11CAPT

Posted this in response to JetJok on another thread. Some of the counters are strong....but they were in response to strong statments. The "core" remains however.

For the last several DECADES our career progression has been determined and dictated by a strict seniority system. This system has provided for the orderly and unbiased advancement of each crewforce within a given company. If you bid, could hold it and passed training, you got it. You attained these positions (and the concomitant monetary reward) because your seniority provided for it. Provided for it based on company growth and the outflow of retiring age 60 guys who had their turn before you. Now, by your own admission it’s “all about the benjamins”. All about the benjamins that you and all other 60 year olds have had their time in the sun to earn, save, invest, blow, make bad decisions about, or pay to ex-wives. Now given the prospect of “sticking around” for 5 more years you are tripping over each other to re-grab the left seats that by history as well as fairness belong to those junior to you. You have had your time, and now you want some of mine…..hmmmm…….maybe not so fast quick draw. We are NOT Johnny come latelies. We are Captains and senior F/O’s who have waited patiently, abided by the system and are ready to have our time in the sun. Good Luck in your retirement

FDXLAG

That is a great post and the position that it is unfair is true. But it is all about the money on both sides so don't blame one side for being greedy. Life is unfair and the rule is changing. Most of the guys who are attacked for being pro change wont benefit from the change. That is sweet justice to one side and unfair to the other.

The guys over 60 in the back seat right now aren't hurting anyone on the property, so as my daughter would say please no hate. It is my opinion that of the guys eligible to work to 65, only a small percentage will do it for the full five years. The impact will be less than you fear. But only time will tell.

I am accused of being bitter in this thread, I can't figure out why. That is unfair, but lifes a beach.

CaptainMark

still waiting????

TonyC

I've flown with several that anticipate a Rule Change that will allow them to return to the front seat. I believe they are priming themsleves for a huge disappointment.


Every time the FAA talks about the "retirement" age, I believe they do these guys a disservice by using improper language. The FAA does not determine "retirement" age -- they determine the "regulatory" age. In other words, when they say the anticipated rule change will not apply to those pilots who have already retired, I believe they should more accurately say it won't apply to pilots who have already reached the regulatory age. Once you're past Age 60, you can't get back in the front seat, even if the Regulated Age is raised to 65.

So, there they'll be, screaming "I haven't retired yet! I haven't retired yet!" Unfortunately, the language in the CFR won't mention anything about retirement. They'll be out of luck.

That's my opinion. Guys that are staying past 60 in hopes of getting back in a front seat should be informed.





.

fdx727pilot

Gee, airline pilots making major financial or career decisions based on incorrect or nonexistent information!! tell me it ain't so!!