ALPA Poll
04-14-2007, 01:43 PM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: 777 CAP
Posts: 494
Two items:
1. Did you turn off your pop up blockers, like the note says?
2. Since this poll uses a common password this poll is useless. One person can put in a whole bunch of alpa numbers and use the common password to skew the results. Devious you call me?, but don't think it won't happen by a fanatic for one side or the other. The poll needs to be behind your individual password to be legit.
1. Did you turn off your pop up blockers, like the note says?
2. Since this poll uses a common password this poll is useless. One person can put in a whole bunch of alpa numbers and use the common password to skew the results. Devious you call me?, but don't think it won't happen by a fanatic for one side or the other. The poll needs to be behind your individual password to be legit.
Using Windows VISTA and IE7 also with no issues.
04-14-2007, 06:04 PM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
Posted by Bitme: "Two items:
1. Did you turn off your pop up blockers, like the note says?
2. Since this poll uses a common password this poll is useless. One person can put in a whole bunch of alpa numbers and use the common password to skew the results. Devious you call me?, but don't think it won't happen by a fanatic for one side or the other. The poll needs to be behind your individual password to be legit."
That's an interesting thought. It did say, and you appear to be encouraged to go in and enter as much opinion as you see fit, as often as you'd like, but that at the end date of the survey, only your last set of comments will be looked at. This, they say, will be done by ALPA member number. So I guess you're right, in that someone could enter lots of guys' member numbers and their own comments. Personally, I have many better things to do than to go and spend upwards of an hour, many times, just to tell ALPA National what they already know.
1. Did you turn off your pop up blockers, like the note says?
2. Since this poll uses a common password this poll is useless. One person can put in a whole bunch of alpa numbers and use the common password to skew the results. Devious you call me?, but don't think it won't happen by a fanatic for one side or the other. The poll needs to be behind your individual password to be legit."
That's an interesting thought. It did say, and you appear to be encouraged to go in and enter as much opinion as you see fit, as often as you'd like, but that at the end date of the survey, only your last set of comments will be looked at. This, they say, will be done by ALPA member number. So I guess you're right, in that someone could enter lots of guys' member numbers and their own comments. Personally, I have many better things to do than to go and spend upwards of an hour, many times, just to tell ALPA National what they already know.
Or maybe not ...
ALPA has been notified that the following survey has been cast by ALPA Number XXXXXXX:
Survey Title: ALPA Age 60 Survey 2007
Confirmation Number: 271683813
Participated on: 4/13/2007 09:42:25 Pacific Time
If you did not participate in this survey, please contact either
Robert Novak Tel: 703 689 4212 E-Mail [email protected]
Sandra Titcomb Tel: 703 689 4173 E-Mail [email protected]
04-15-2007, 08:01 AM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD-11 F/O
Posts: 319
Let's dispel this mis-information. We don't have to change our position to be involved in the inevitable change. ALPA has plenty of resources to fight both. If we change our position solely for the purpose of being involved with the details, we lose the ability to claim that we were wronged after the fact. When it comes to the next round of negotiations, when we claim that 60 should remain the 'normal retirement age' we won't have a leg to stand on if the union's position was pro-change. That applies to every 'control' that we want post change.
If our leadership really wanted leverage to affect the best change to our benefit, they would take a hard stance against change, giving us the best shot of minimizing the pain for the vast majority of the crew force which stand to bear the brunt of the damage from the change.
If our leadership really wanted leverage to affect the best change to our benefit, they would take a hard stance against change, giving us the best shot of minimizing the pain for the vast majority of the crew force which stand to bear the brunt of the damage from the change.
Last edited by Purple F/O; 04-15-2007 at 08:06 AM.
04-15-2007, 09:16 AM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
Purple f/o ...
Although I generally agree with you, there are a bunch of ALPA members (UAL, US, NW, DL, others) that have lost their retirement and want (need!) to fly past age 60. I have mixed feeling about how to handle those guys ... They didn't give a sh*t when my former legacy carrier shut down but now they need help? What has happened to them is truly a huge injustice.
So ... I'm sure I don't want to fly past age 60 and anyone at FedEx who does slows down my seniority and limits my career earnings (before I get flamed ... yes I realize there are a lot of MY's in there).
I don't know what the right answer is and I'm not convinced that just because ICAO has changed the age that I should care about that in any way.
Here's my suggestion ... if you are 60 years old and have had a successful career at a carrier that is in a position to pay you a pension, then PLEASE GO AWAY. If you are truly in a financial bind due to no fault of your own (3rd wife? pork belly futures?), then I suppose I'll accept your desire to work till you drop.
I suppose all of this was a long winded way of saying that I suppose ALPA (national) has a vested interested in re-examining their position on age 60 even if it isn't in my personal best interest.
Regards,
Mark
Although I generally agree with you, there are a bunch of ALPA members (UAL, US, NW, DL, others) that have lost their retirement and want (need!) to fly past age 60. I have mixed feeling about how to handle those guys ... They didn't give a sh*t when my former legacy carrier shut down but now they need help? What has happened to them is truly a huge injustice.
So ... I'm sure I don't want to fly past age 60 and anyone at FedEx who does slows down my seniority and limits my career earnings (before I get flamed ... yes I realize there are a lot of MY's in there).
I don't know what the right answer is and I'm not convinced that just because ICAO has changed the age that I should care about that in any way.
Here's my suggestion ... if you are 60 years old and have had a successful career at a carrier that is in a position to pay you a pension, then PLEASE GO AWAY. If you are truly in a financial bind due to no fault of your own (3rd wife? pork belly futures?), then I suppose I'll accept your desire to work till you drop.
I suppose all of this was a long winded way of saying that I suppose ALPA (national) has a vested interested in re-examining their position on age 60 even if it isn't in my personal best interest.
Regards,
Mark
Last edited by MaydayMark; 04-15-2007 at 09:27 AM. Reason: spelling police
04-15-2007, 09:38 AM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD-11 F/O
Posts: 319
Mark, I admire your perspective. It is very selfless and permissive...not many have such ability to take this in stride. However, I must offer this. Your graciousness is not shared by many, if any, of the pro-change crowd. They will take your goodwill and run with it; all the way to the bank.
Consider this. I think we'd all agree that banking on an A fund isn't prudent in today's environment. Heck, this isn't the first time that retirements have gone away, so why is this a surprise(Braniff, PanAm, etc) Therefore, I/we must rely on our B-fund, 401k and personal savings for retirement. This means that I can't afford the airplane that I thought I would be able to, the big house on a lake, plus a ski cabin in the mountains. Heck, thanks to the housing boom that they have all benefitted from, I can't even afford the house that previous generations lived in, even if that house is 100 miles from the lake. Now, after all of this, they want to take 300k dollars out of my career earnings and stick it in their pockets. I say NO!!
You can work past 60, you can even fly past 60, but not to the detriment of the rest of the crew force. Poor planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part. And it certainly doesn't warrant a check for 5 years difference of captain's and f/o's pay. Think about the 5 years of suppressed hiring that will follow this change, it's a much bigger hit to someone on the street than it is even to those of us already on the property.
Consider this. I think we'd all agree that banking on an A fund isn't prudent in today's environment. Heck, this isn't the first time that retirements have gone away, so why is this a surprise(Braniff, PanAm, etc) Therefore, I/we must rely on our B-fund, 401k and personal savings for retirement. This means that I can't afford the airplane that I thought I would be able to, the big house on a lake, plus a ski cabin in the mountains. Heck, thanks to the housing boom that they have all benefitted from, I can't even afford the house that previous generations lived in, even if that house is 100 miles from the lake. Now, after all of this, they want to take 300k dollars out of my career earnings and stick it in their pockets. I say NO!!
You can work past 60, you can even fly past 60, but not to the detriment of the rest of the crew force. Poor planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part. And it certainly doesn't warrant a check for 5 years difference of captain's and f/o's pay. Think about the 5 years of suppressed hiring that will follow this change, it's a much bigger hit to someone on the street than it is even to those of us already on the property.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
