Wow. Pilot's displaying their utmost professionalism. If we continue this sort of crap, it's no wonder our profession is going down the crapper. Do any of you guys think that docs or lawyers talk to each other in this fashion.

"..... Do any of you guys think that docs or lawyers talk to each other in this fashion."

In the medical profession, for sure, sometimes even worse. I know cause my significant other half who is in the medical field tells me stories about the loud arguments and shoving

Tribunal for the other 70 pilots starts this Monday [5th October Ottawa ]...Not sure of the time....possibly 9am.....So much for ACPA saying it will not go forward. Standby for new ATIS message..........

I haven't seen much on this thread on how ACPA, which is on the hook for about half of the damages, if any, that may be awarded in this litigation, is doing one single thing to mitigate the huge effect this will have on the membership should their efforts to keep the retirement age at 60 fail. It probably will. ACPA's efforts to hamstring this impending litigation is creating harm each day these pilots are kept out of the cockpit. Perhaps it is time for them to back off and leave the fight to the HRC and Air Canada.

turbo-beaver wrote:I haven't seen much on this thread on how ACPA, which is on the hook for about half of the damages, if any, that may be awarded in this litigation, is doing one single thing to mitigate the huge effect this will have on the membership should their efforts to keep the retirement age at 60 fail. It probably will. ACPA's efforts to hamstring this impending litigation is creating harm each day these pilots are kept out of the cockpit. Perhaps it is time for them to back off and leave the fight to the HRC and Air Canada.

Why make plans for something that may not even happen ? Often in life what you think may happen never does and you have to deal with something you never even thought of. I am sure ACPA will deal with any final ruling in the best way for all members. But, first they are going to try the appeal process to undue an unfair ruling. If they do have a plan that is between the AC pilots and ACPA and should not be discussed here. The ACPA forum will be the avenue to find this information not this forum. I do not agree with your statement " It probably will " - recent info says that the ruling will probably be reversed. There are 3 supreme court rulings that support our cause. Let's wait and see - maybe retirement will be 55 or 60 or 65 or 70 or 75 or even 100. Maybe no limit - maybe we can work until we die of old age while sitting in the plane. Hey Rockie did I do good - Daddy Rockie are you proud of me ?

Slipstream wrote: Why make plans for something that may not even happen ?

This is against my better judgement, but here goes. Why train for aircraft emergencies? Why have house and car insurance? Why save for a holiday or to buy a TV? Why send your kids to school? Why save for retirement? Afterall, these things may not ever happen.

It's called risk assessment and preparing yourself for what may or is likely to happen, which requires an ability to think beyond tomorrow. Someday with a lot of hard work you may aquire that ability. Our union certainly doesn't have it.

Slipstream wrote:It probably will " - recent info says that the ruling will probably be reversed.

Wishful thinking and evidence of the "false hope" created by the union's refusal to deal with this intelligently.

Slipstream wrote:If they do have a plan that is between the AC pilots and ACPA and should not be discussed here.

A plan to mitigate the cost to the members if they lose? Start paying attention slipstream, there is no plan and it hasn't even been considered.

Slipstream wrote:Hey Rockie did I do good - Daddy Rockie are you proud of me ?

No.



The thing I find amazing is that the company is going along with the union on this. Every month more pilots are shoved out the door who will have every right to come back if this ruling stands. Every month this remains unsettled increases the difficulty and financial burden of complying with the ruling. It really doesn't matter one whit to the company if pilots stay to 60 or 65, so it makes no sense to continue to fight it when the cost will become so large by doing so. They could agree to the ruling pending the end of the union's legal challenges thereby shifting total responsibility for delaying it onto the union, and could even sue the union for reimbursement of training costs. But now they are just as culpable. Not a very good decision from a business standpoint.

If the union and the company win they will have dodged the first big guided missile tracking straight for their foreheads, and at last count there are about 70 more on the way. If they lose it will cost them and us a lot of money.

"I am sure ACPA will deal with any final ruling in the best way for all members."

I am sure that all the ex Canadian Airlines pilots will agree with that statement wholeheartedly. For me, I think I'll nominate it as the statement of the year.

I am sure that all the ex Canadian Airlines pilots will agree with that statement wholeheartedly.

...and so will the ex AO pilots.

Rockie wrote:

Slipstream wrote: Why make plans for something that may not even happen ?

This is against my better judgement, but here goes. Why train for aircraft emergencies? Why have house and car insurance? Why save for a holiday or to buy a TV? Why send your kids to school? Why save for retirement? Afterall, these things may not ever happen.

It's called risk assessment and preparing yourself for what may or is likely to happen, which requires an ability to think beyond tomorrow. Someday with a lot of hard work you may aquire that ability. Our union certainly doesn't have it.


Rockie,

You do have some very good points and I would probably be more receptive if you had not been rude. Edited for personal attack and foul language. Slipstream has received his/her only warning.

Rockie wrote:

The thing I find amazing is that the company is going along with the union on this. Every month more pilots are shoved out the door who will have every right to come back if this ruling stands. Every month this remains unsettled increases the difficulty and financial burden of complying with the ruling. It really doesn't matter one whit to the company if pilots stay to 60 or 65, so it makes no sense to continue to fight it when the cost will become so large by doing so. They could agree to the ruling pending the end of the union's legal challenges thereby shifting total responsibility for delaying it onto the union, and could even sue the union for reimbursement of training costs. But now they are just as culpable. Not a very good decision from a business standpoint.

Rockie,

Think about it. It is tactical. The union and AC were prevented from entering into evidence anything during this last round of hearings that was not entered in the very first hearing. In that hearing very little was dealt with WRT impact except in very general terms. So both AC and ACPA want to enter that evidence now. Ask yourself why?

What does graphically demonstrating negative impact do to the Tribunals ability to force a solution that restricts a unions/employers right to negotiate contractual changes addressing that impact?

Is there an increases risk that not going further into the issue of impact that the Tribunal may implement something they otherwise wouldn't? Shouldn't. Actually can't. That would be a mess.

Since it is the employers/unions sole right to collectively bargain. Since they have not done so yet. How do you know there is any harm to anyone? What salary are you mathematically deriving the liability from? Subtract from that number their pension and their own responsibility to mitigate loss? How much liability?


Would it be smart tactically to reveal, while still before the tribunal, what ACPA/AC may or may not have planned to deal with the ruling through the process of collective bargaining?

So what are they left with? They have only one strategic option for now. Aggressively oppose over the issue of harm, both collectively and operationally, all the while generating the evidence base that demonstrates the impact that they both want to address during the collective bargaining process.

Both have common ground in their desire to ensure the CHRT does not exceed its jurisdiction. Surely you can see the concern from both ACPA and AC? All complainants have thus far been asking to be returned to the position/seniority/pay they left.

Brick Head wrote:In that hearing very little was dealt with WRT impact except in very general terms.

Actually the impact of the ruling was extensively dealt with I thought, and both the company and unions positions were either rejected or substantially reduce in the boards opinion. I don't see what else can be said.

Also you have to ask what the company has to gain over what it has to lose. To me they gain nothing because whether or not a pilot goes to 65 has no effect on them except that they don't have to train a replacement for a little while longer. On the other hand they will bear a heavy cost if they lose and have to bring all those pilots back post-ruling. That's why I was convinced they would accept it and seek a settlement with the pre-ruling pilots. Also to protect themselves from future cases I thought they would seek a ruling from the board that 65 constitutes BFOR given the ICAO position. But I guess I was wrong.

Rockie,

Just throwing something at you to think about.

The evidence issue is important because often nothing else can be added as the issue progresses through the courts. During the last hearing AC for example could have been much better prepared on the BFOR front had they been able to introduce any and all evidence they desired. That wasn't possible. Now it is.

I wouldn't be surprised to see AC do an about face on fighting the issue once they feel comfortable that they will be able to fully protect their interest during any subsequent proceedings.

Rockie wrote:Also to protect themselves from future cases I thought they would seek a ruling from the board that 65 constitutes BFOR given the ICAO position. But I guess I was wrong.

Rockie,

IMO that is not possible with the present ruling. The board has clearly said if a pilot can not be accommodated due to international rules move him/her somewhere they can be. Under this ruling as long as there is the ability to accommodate. AC/ACPA must do so.

To be honest I don't think that is even an issue for the company. The issue is the operational/cost liability if the individuals remain in place on international equipment beyond 60. Yes the Tribunal didn't accept the arguments that were put forward by the company in this regard. However remember the burden is on the respondent within the Tribunal. And proof is defined as unequivocal. Here we have a respondent, AC, not being permitted to provided any and all evidence to defend their position. Moving forward they will. Looks to me like AC is looking for a mulligan.

Slipstream wrote:

Rockie wrote:

Slipstream wrote: Why make plans for something that may not even happen ?

This is against my better judgement, but here goes. Why train for aircraft emergencies? Why have house and car insurance? Why save for a holiday or to buy a TV? Why send your kids to school? Why save for retirement? Afterall, these things may not ever happen.

It's called risk assessment and preparing yourself for what may or is likely to happen, which requires an ability to think beyond tomorrow. Someday with a lot of hard work you may aquire that ability. Our union certainly doesn't have it.


Rockie,

You do have some very good points and I would probably be more receptive if you had not been rude. Edited for personal attack and foul language. Slipstream has received his/her only warning.

EDITED

In an actual verbal conversation this is about the time there would be a really uncomfortable silence.

Rockie wrote:In an actual verbal conversation this is about the time there would be a really uncomfortable silence.

Not from over here! Too funny, and thanks STL and Widow for your contribution to this thread. Much appreciated.

It is sad that this topic has degraded, just as it had on the ACPA forum to the type of verbal abuse that we witness here.Is this indicative of what our industry has become, or to the depths we have allowed it to fall?

Start with ACPA......by representing some members (those against age 65) and not representing the others( those for age 65) is where they made their first mistake. They are hiding behind the thin veil of a vote of 50% plus one, to justify their actions, and the officers of the Association has placed their union and its members in serious financial jeopardy. They have already had to pay out some pretty serious money in court fees, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. The union leaders should have also struck a committee to explore both sides of this issue, and to find ways to mitigate the effects of what any normal person can see is coming down the pipe. The union is suppose to represent all the membership, not just the ones it chooses to represent. They should have learned this years ago when CALPA lost a huge award in a section 37 hearing brought against the Association for breaching its duty to one member. In this instance they are breaching their duty to over a hundred, and it is not going to be a free ride.

This is not going to be a windfall for the age 65 group either, should the courts find for them in the end. These guys are going to have to show they are trying to mitigate damages by getting off their butts, finding work, keeping up their medicals and licenses.

Our Association has made a lot of mistakes over the last few years. This is a huge one, that has the possibility of dwarfing the costs they spent on a merger that with a little compassion could have been concluded successfully years ago.

turbo-beaver wrote:It is sad that this topic has degraded, just as it had on the ACPA forum to the type of verbal abuse that we witness here.Is this indicative of what our industry has become, or to the depths we have allowed it to fall?

Start with ACPA......by representing some members (those against age 65) and not representing the others( those for age 65) is where they made their first mistake. They are hiding behind the thin veil of a vote of 50% plus one, to justify their actions, and the officers of the Association has placed their union and its members in serious financial jeopardy. They have already had to pay out some pretty serious money in court fees, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. The union leaders should have also struck a committee to explore both sides of this issue, and to find ways to mitigate the effects of what any normal person can see is coming down the pipe. The union is suppose to represent all the membership, not just the ones it chooses to represent. They should have learned this years ago when CALPA lost a huge award in a section 37 hearing brought against the Association for breaching its duty to one member. In this instance they are breaching their duty to over a hundred, and it is not going to be a free ride.

This is not going to be a windfall for the age 65 group either, should the courts find for them in the end. These guys are going to have to show they are trying to mitigate damages by getting off their butts, finding work, keeping up their medicals and licenses.

Our Association has made a lot of mistakes over the last few years. This is a huge one, that has the possibility of dwarfing the costs they spent on a merger that with a little compassion could have been concluded successfully years ago.

Turbo Beaver,

Without a doubt the most intelligent post in this entire 14 page thread.

Well Done

JayDee

Last I heard the 60+ gang totalled just over 100. Last time I checked we have a membership of over 3000. ACPA is not a one person body. It is a multi person association with a constitution made by the membership for the membership to work in the interest of the majority of the membership and when it can be accomplished they also take care of the minority ie. the grievance committee. If the over 60 gang had any respect for the will of the majority, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Self interest and greed of a very small proportion has changed the rules of the game.

Without a question one of the best, if not the best posts I have read on this forum. Bravo. (Turbo Beaver)

You guys have bigger fish to fry than your colleagues. These big fish are called airline management. Take the advice of turbo beaver and look where the real threat to your careers is coming from. It ain’t the old boys.

Before Tony gets his panties in a twist, my airline has seen its retirment age go from 50, thats right 50 to 55 then to 65 in less than 15 years. IT'S THE LAW. I can assure you the union did not spend a dime trying to fight it and we are much better off because of that.

The old saying. I fought the law and the law won.

Get on with it.

Ahh my good friend Nigel. Your union didn't seem to do much to prevent people from working for free either. Frankly your group and you in particular would be the last resource ACPA or AC should look to for advice. It's called fighting for what you believe in and having the balls stand up to anything that gets in your way. I suggest you get over whatever it is urks you about AC and "get on with it".

Food for thought for those who do think...

Age 60 and Global Unity
Robert J. Lavender ©2004

(ALPA national has declined to publish this article and its predecessor "Learning to Compete Wisely--A Primer in Creating Natural Unity")

For more than 20 years, this writer has actively engaged in working for and writing about pilot unity. These days, it seems that there is always some issue around that can either enhance or inhibit the sense of professional unity that pilots desire. The Age 60 matter is no exception. The purpose of this article is to show that ALPA pilots should seriously consider supporting a change to the Age 60 rule (the "Rule") if they intend to be in harmony with fellow pilots worldwide, the public, and with general global trends. This paper is about unity, credibility, and relevancy.

Consider this:

"Labor remains in a death spiral, and its house needs a top-to-bottom overhaul if it's going to survive."

These are the words of Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the nation's largest and fastest-growing union. Moreover, Mr. Stern charges, "The AFL-CIO [of which ALPA is a member] has become an antiquated structure that 'divides workers strength'…Change 'is so long overdue that we either transform the AFL-CIO-or build something stronger.'"

Ladies and Gentlemen: The AFL-CIO is the sum of its parts. Anyone who believes that the Air Line Pilots Association is somehow immune from the decline suffered by numerous other unions is either globally unaware or in an awful state of denial. Allegiance to obsolete concepts such as the Age 60 rule represents the mentality causing this decline. Make no mistake about it, the Age 60 rule is under monumental global pressure and change will occur for air carriers in the United States. It is hoped that after reading the following points you will agree that not only should ALPA members support a change to the Rule, they must take a leadership role in creating something new.

Influences on the Age 60 Rule

Global Airline Influence: Many other countries and air carriers (including ALPA and IFALPA) have dispensed or wish to dispense with the Age 60 limitation.

1. Air Canada Jazz (Air Canada Jazz is an ALPA carrier): Canadian pilots may legally fly as an ATP long as they can hold a medical certificate. Age restrictions are contractual, not regulatory. Consider this comment from Monty Allan, vice-chair of the Air Canada Jazz ALPA :

My airline - Air Canada Jazz - is an Age 65 airline. You can retire at 55 (with early retirement penalty), or you can retire at 60 (no penalty), or you can retire as late as age 65 if you want to accrue more years in the A Plan.

We all like the system because we all get to benefit from up to an extra 5 years if that is our personal choice.

I am 43 and have seen no tangible personal benefit from the system and will not for another 17 years. However, as a Negotiating Committee member I have defended this option for years for the benefit of those that have expressed a desire for the decision at age 60 to be a personal one, not contractual (or in your case, regulatory)…we will keep the system that we have.

[Signed]

Monty

(Mr. Allan has also stated that our Age 60 limitation complicates their monthly bidding. Jazz pilots who are over 60 are not allowed to fly into U.S. airspace.)

2. BALPA (British Air Line Pilots Association): BALPA is currently conducting a campaign to bring France, Portugal, and Italy into conformity with the other 20 country-members of the European Union all of whom allow pilots to fly past 60. Readers may visit the campaign website at: http://www.balpa.org/intranet/Media---P ... /index.htm. Here are the highlights:

The campaign for post-60 flying in Europe

The problem

A small number of EU states forbid pilots aged 60 or over from acting as commanders on international air transport flights in their airspace.

EU rules: The vast majority of EU member states…and applicant countries have adopted EU rules…which allow pilots aged over 60 but under 65 to act as commanders on international flights in their airspace. However, a small number of EU states have not - namely France, Portugal and Italy.

An absurd and unacceptable situation

easyJet and BALPA believe the current situation is anachronistic and damaging to the interests of pilots.

Age discrimination

No medical evidence to support ban: There is no medical or other objective evidence for treating pilots aged over 60 but under 65 differently because of age. Medical research in fact shows that compared to the population as a whole, airline pilots as a group suffer less medical impairment and have longer life expectancy….

What is this campaign trying to achieve?

The object of this campaign is to persuade the authorities in France, Italy and Portugal to fall into line with other EU states and…permit pilots aged over 60 but under age 65 to operate as commanders in all EU airspace. Once age discrimination is made unlawful in 2006, the age threshold of 65 may increase. [Italics added]


2. SWAPA (Southwest Airlines Pilots Association): In April of 2003, SWAPA pilots voted by a sizeable majority (60%) to overturn the Age 60 rule. SWAPA president Ike Eichelkraut described the Rule as "regrettable" and "irrational" for "ejecting this know-how from the cockpit…merely because of a birth date." Southwest Airlines chairman, Herb Kelleher, has supported the pilot position in a letter to Mr. Eichelkraut and authorized him to use the letter as evidence in public proceedings. SWAPA retains a legislative lobbyist for the purpose of eliminating the Age 60 rule.

ALPA pilots need to determine if Southwest Airlines is going to rule the economic roost at every turn in modern times.

Global Economic Influence/Internal Pilot Competition: Retirement costs are an important factor in global competition and companies will invariably respond to global economic imbalances. A company's relative retirement burden and, therefore, competitiveness is a direct function of it workers' post-employment longevity. By flying to age 65 (or, potentially, older) pilots in the European Union (and elsewhere) provide their companies with a cost advantage over those whose pilots retire at a younger average age.

Pilot communities who fail to respond to this competition and insist on retaining the Age 60 limit invite risk. It is reasonable to expect that a disparity in average retirement age will motivate airline managers to outsource flying opportunities to pilots who are relatively more competitive. This may be accomplished through the expanded use of cabotage and/or by shifting flight hours around global airline networks. Given the current economic and political environment, it is unlikely that the U.S. government either can or will "protect" the U.S. piloting profession from such actions. ALPA pilots must act for themselves on this and other strategic economic matters.

Extending pilot working life in the United States is consistent with general trends. The longevity and health of Americans has improved dramatically in the last 50 years, and the financial losses suffered by many pilots as the result of corporate bankruptcies, furloughs, and retirement plan termination has made flying to an older age desirable.

Defined Benefit Plan Security and Negotiating Capital: A hard-to-miss reason for raising the retirement age for pilots in the United States stems from the laws governing pension plans that are terminated. When a plan is terminated and responsibility for it is assumed by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC), the PBGC pays reduced benefits to the participants. Where a plan is based on age 60, the maximum payout is $28,500 per year (according to press reports, this is what the USAir pilots will receive). However, if the retirement age is 65, the PBGC will pay up to $44,386 per year, an increase of some 54%. (It should be noted that pilots who have already retired and are receiving payments from a defined benefit plan are not immune from the above limitation should their plan be taken over by the PBGC.)

Since a higher average retirement age significantly reduces both a company's cash payment and retiree health care liability , it also reduces pressure to terminate a plan in the first place. Thus, pilots who have already retired (or who choose to retire at age 60 or younger) may view those who work longer as contributing to the financial well-being of their plan. Likewise, the enormity of the savings achieved may be leveraged into "negotiating capital" that is currently not available to pilots employed at even the "healthy" carriers in today's economic environment. A longer working life potentially frees up cash that can be spent on things other than retirement costs.

Public Perception and Professional Image: A discussion of the Age 60 rule cannot be complete without considering how the piloting profession is perceived by lawmakers and the general public. A profession that is already viewed as disconnected from the average person is ill-advised these days to distance itself any further. A public whose own working life is getting longer and whose social benefits are sliding to a later age is unlikely to sympathize with a group that insists on bucking trends considered reasonable even by other pilot unions. This is a bigger issue than it might appear. Union membership has reportedly dropped to about nine percent of the private sector, likely, in part, because unions are often seen as averse to progressive action in even the most obvious circumstances.

If ALPA pilots wish to retain the designation of "professional," they must cease burning political and public capital on issues that smack of short-term, "it's all about me" thinking. They must cease raising the "safety" flag where it is not warranted. And, they must come up with professional-type solutions to the issues with which they are confronted. Rules that were created in a highly regulated economic environment, 50 years ago, don't work. And insistence on their preservation creates not only an image of amateurism and isolationism, but appears downright bizarre to outside observers. This is the kind of thing that leads to union irrelevancy and it must be avoided.

Concluding Statement

The Age 60 matter is reminiscent of the effort in the early 1980s to keep the third pilot in the cockpit of the B-737. Southwest and other carriers were flying the aircraft with two crewmembers but ALPA pilots thought they could buck the trend. They were wrong. When the status quo is out of harmony with everything reasonable in the world, pilots who insist on preserving it will be ignored. It does not matter what "the rules were when we signed up." The rules change every day and it is the failure to sensibly respond that damages credibility and leads to irrelevancy.

It is possible but risky to ignore the position and actions of the British Air Line Pilots Association, SWAPA, and other pilot groups regarding age discrimination in the cockpit. And, while ALPA pilots could choose to remain in a state of disunity with these pilot unions, it would make more sense for ALPA to disavow its past position on the matter, call it ancient history, and throw its weight behind shaping new rules. An alternative, of course, is to let changes be legislated into existence and delivered to the pilots as a government mandate. If pilots take control of the issue, it is easy to envision a plan akin to that at Air Canada Jazz, wherein, retirement at Age 60 without penalty is an option. If the lawmakers do it…well, you know the answer.

There has been evidence published in Air Line Pilot Magazine over the last year that some people are seriously thinking "outside the box" these days. With the Age 60 issue, ALPA pilots can demonstrate a wider view of what is going on in the world, a willingness to rise above self-centered thinking, and an ability to act strategically to manage today's challenges. By helping to rewrite the rules ALPA pilots can unify with pilots worldwide and enhance the professional stature of pilots in this country.

Some pilots have been thinking outside the box for a long time. Now, it is time to act outside the box.

Nice one Tony. You again ignore the facts and head straight to the fiction section. You should be working for FOX News. Our carrier simply asked ANY employee to take a week or two off through the winter (you know this one in the middle of the biggest downturn post war). The key word here is asked. They also asked senior guys if they wanted buy outs, many of our pilots are part time (Moms and other people it suits) and wind down towards retirment. Of course Air Canada is in such great financial shape, this never even crossed their minds.

You guys have blue fighting red fighting green now fighting the old farts. Perfect, a Technicolor food fight with 3000 guests. Management are selling the tickets.

I think you should take your my way or the highway attitude and put your money where your massive mouth is and stand for election within your representation. ACPA clearly needs a single minded table thumper like you. Get of your electronic soap box and do something about it.

Of course being over 50 you must be comfortably in the left seat of a wide body with not a worry in the world. I am all right Jack as we say!

Air Canada pilots along with all other pilots in the WORLD will be flying to 65 at some point. Consolidation is coming as well (You know the German White Knight you keep dreaming about) meaning possible job losses. Stop trying to prevent the inevitable and put your energy in to mitigating the effects of younger members. See first paragraph.

Again, great post Beaver and now Doc. My hope is many more intelligent people like yourselves are feeling the same way.

tonysoprano wrote:Last I heard the 60+ gang totalled just over 100.

This is a total falsehood. The last time there was a vote on this there were 500 fewer pilots. The ACPA MEC took the position they were going to fight 60+ and then put it to the membership to vote on whether or not they were going to support them on it. There was no examination of the issue and no one put forth any balanced rationale for why 60+ might actually be timely and good for us. The vote (such as it was) was no different than an election in Libya. The outcome was pre-determined.

Aside from the fact a vote on this issue is irrelevant since law is what's driving it, not our own wishes, I would love to see another vote just to see how the members really feel. Only this time the pros and cons of each option must be properly presented to the membership so they could make an informed choice, not the farce vote like the last one.

The MEC is comprised of individuals who like you have no desire to see their advancement into a higher seat delayed in any way. That is what drove their decision making on this without even looking at the issue, and then they obtained a kangaroo court mandate to pursue it by sneaking it past the membership. In other words they represented themselves in taking the union in this direction, not the membership.

ACPA will not win this fight. There are several very very compelling reasons why we should go to 60+ totally aside from the fact we will be forced to anyway. Fighting it will not work and will cost us a lot of more money than just legal fees when the pilots who have been damaged by it seek compensation.

-maybe ACPA should behave more like ALPA- and REPRESENT- EACH of its members- providing fair representation to each and every one for the good of the whole. If they think that representing some of its junior members against others who have paid dues their whole carriers is appropriate, I submit that it is not the OLD Guys who are putting the Union at risk of destruction.

ALPA’s Vision Statement, Strategic Goals & Initiatives

Vision Statement

The Air Line Pilots Association, International, will spare no effort to aggressively fight for the rights and needs of airline pilots. We will work together—across all segments and corporate brands—to restore our proud profession. We are committed to the principle that our profession is best served by unifying all pilots within our union and organizing all pilots within our profession.

ALPA pilots must embody the values of solidarity, integrity, and tenacity as we work to accomplish the goals of the union. Leaders commit to identifying and aggressively addressing the concerns, aspirations, and ideas of our members, and leaders will act decisively to move the pilots’ agenda forward.

When one ALPA pilot has a problem, all ALPA pilots have a problem.