Prepare yourselves… 2023 AEs
12-05-2023, 05:07 PM
#6051
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,326
You miss the point. There are no dice being rolled. It is a fundamental question as to how alpa would then react to the new law. Would they try to leverage it for the benefit of all pilots or would they cut off the proboscus in order to get rid of the current crop of old guys? THAT would seem to be a pretty good case for a DFR as it would also affect the younger guys as well. How could it be anything but DFR at that point? alpa would be denying an extra two years of income to ALL pilots at that point.
And I an glad for you regarding the last paragraph. It is completely irrelevant to the discussion though.
And I an glad for you regarding the last paragraph. It is completely irrelevant to the discussion though.
12-05-2023, 05:08 PM
#6052
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2023
Posts: 1,400
....Additionally, you wouldn't have grounds for a DFR if the majority of the pilot group rejected a LOA that unfairly benefited senior pilots. Same way that you didn't have grounds for a DFR when you didn't get your way in C19. You can throw around the threat of a DFR but I don't even think you know what it means.
You miss the point. There are no dice being rolled. It is a fundamental question as to how alpa would then react to the new law. Would they try to leverage it for the benefit of all pilots or would they cut off the proboscus in order to get rid of the current crop of old guys? THAT would seem to be a pretty good case for a DFR as it would also affect the younger guys as well. How could it be anything but DFR at that point? alpa would be denying an extra two years of income to ALL pilots at that point.
And I an glad for you regarding the last paragraph. It is completely irrelevant to the discussion though.
And I an glad for you regarding the last paragraph. It is completely irrelevant to the discussion though.
I guess we'll all find out soon enough won't we.
12-05-2023, 05:15 PM
#6053
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
There can be made a point that under the rules, you know you are no longer allowed to fly in said category. So if you choose to stay there that’s on you.
I am a firm believer that if 67 happens there has to be some more rule changes to follow or delayed until ICAO. Or else it’s going to be a disaster.
I am a firm believer that if 67 happens there has to be some more rule changes to follow or delayed until ICAO. Or else it’s going to be a disaster.
12-05-2023, 05:25 PM
#6055
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
I didn't miss the point James. ALPA is against age 67. However, IF its passed as law, then they will have to come to some solution, that is where lines will be drawn. I agree with CBreezy here on this one. to include his post above.
I guess we'll all find out soon enough won't we.
I guess we'll all find out soon enough won't we.
It is unbelievable to me that I am reading posts that are actually advocating against negotiating to maximize pilot income to the very last day on the property. One goes so far to say that 737NA is "enough". "Enough" is not for anyone here to say, but to get the "most" possible should be the goal of the association. The sense I am getting is that since "I am planning on leaving at 60 or 65 or 37, that fighting for anyone else is not at all on my agenda." I guess we really don't have a union anymore. Maybe we never did. I find some of these statements very telling.
And why is alpa against age 67? Because the membership is? That's fine I guess, but what happens when that is not within their control? At that point does anyone having a 65th birthday become persona non grata as far as the association is concerned? THAT absolutely does sound like a DFR. While there might not be a case at the moment, if it is law, there certainly would be.
12-05-2023, 05:27 PM
#6056
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
Not our problem.... and I fail to see how it suddenly becomoes a staffing issue. They weren't planned on up to that moment so there is no loss. Ed has to pony up to pay guys to stay at home. Isn't that what most of ya'll are striving to do anyway?
12-05-2023, 05:28 PM
#6057
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 2,165
How do you figure that this would ONLY affect those approaching 65 at this time? Because that is EXACTLY what you are saying. That is nowhere near correct. It affects EVERY SINGLE PILOT.
It is unbelievable to me that I am reading posts that are actually advocating against negotiating to maximize pilot income to the very last day on the property. One goes so far to say that 737NA is "enough". "Enough" is not for anyone here to say, but to get the "most" possible should be the goal of the association. The sense I am getting is that since "I am planning on leaving at 60 or 65 or 37, that fighting for anyone else is not at all on my agenda." I guess we really don't have a union anymore. Maybe we never did. I find some of these statements very telling.
And why is alpa against age 67? Because the membership is? That's fine I guess, but what happens when that is not within their control? At that point does anyone having a 65th birthday become persona non grata as far as the association is concerned? THAT absolutely does sound like a DFR. While there might not be a case at the moment, if it is law, there certainly would be.
It is unbelievable to me that I am reading posts that are actually advocating against negotiating to maximize pilot income to the very last day on the property. One goes so far to say that 737NA is "enough". "Enough" is not for anyone here to say, but to get the "most" possible should be the goal of the association. The sense I am getting is that since "I am planning on leaving at 60 or 65 or 37, that fighting for anyone else is not at all on my agenda." I guess we really don't have a union anymore. Maybe we never did. I find some of these statements very telling.
And why is alpa against age 67? Because the membership is? That's fine I guess, but what happens when that is not within their control? At that point does anyone having a 65th birthday become persona non grata as far as the association is concerned? THAT absolutely does sound like a DFR. While there might not be a case at the moment, if it is law, there certainly would be.
Fine, the company/ALPA/universe wronged you. You’re entitled to an opinion.
How about DPMA? Is bleeding the fund, designated for those that actually need it, morally defensible for you?
I suggest cultivating some hobbies. Sooner or later we’re all done flying planes. Best of luck.
12-05-2023, 05:29 PM
#6058
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,077
So??? About those AEs?
moderators?
moderators?
12-05-2023, 05:33 PM
#6060
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
The big question will be what will happen if there are no caveats in the law to align with ICAO. ALPA will certainly fight for all of 67 if the law passes because they will then be their mandate. Where it gets muddy is what to do if it requires mass displacements. There is precedent in the company not paying pilots for not being eligible to do some flying. For instance, if your passport renewal is held up, you are dropped without pay except reserves. Same with Canada flying and a DUI. I'm sure ALPA will come to an agreement to allow pilots to choose between drops without pay or early termination of any seat lock to allow them to bid down to an aircraft they can hold. Or something of the like. I don't see any DFR grounds in an agreement like this.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
