Welcome to the Airline Pilot Central Forums forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. If you're a working pilot, please join our free community and you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you don't want to register (or not a working pilot), you can still use the Google search box in the upper left of this screen to search all forum posts!
I attended the Wednesday, April 18 Joint Council Meeting of FedEx ALPA in Memphis. The first item on the agenda was Age 60/Blue Ribbon Panel/R&I. Capt Scott Stratton was scheduled to present, but was unable due to his recent involvement in a DonorCycle accident. The PowerPoint slides looked very similar to those used in his presentation to the February Joint Council Meeting.
Naturally, there were a number of questions, and MEC Chairman Captain Dave Webb spoke at length about the Age 60 issue.
I will try to recap those issues which he covered accurately. Any misrepresentation of his position or his remarks is not intentional. With that caveat, I proceed.
Captain Webb recognizes that ALPA policy is to oppose any change to the regulated age. There is no compromise or equivocation on that point. He also recognizes that the change to Age 60 as the regulated age is inevitable. When the FAA began allowing ICAO pilots to operate in our skies over age 60, it effectively guaranteed the rule will change. The only questions are who will change it and how will it be changed. Will the FAA complete the change through the normal NPRM process, or will the change be imposed by Congress? Will the rule be prospective, as Administrator Blakey has indicated, or will it allow all pilots to exercise their seniority rights?
Having said that, Captain Webb is committed to vote against any change to the ALPA Age 60 Policy at the upcoming Executive Board Meeting. While that is possible, he feels that it would be unwise for such a decision to be made at that level, especially given the widespread opposition to change. If the policy is to change, he feels it would be more appropriate for the Board of Directors to make that decision. The Executive Board consists of Chairmen of the Master Executive Council for each airline -- Capt Webb would vote the membership of the entire FedEx pilot membership. The Board of Directors consists of Captain, First Officer, and Second Officer Representatives, and (in the case of FedEx) Seniority Block Status Representatives and the Instructor Status Representative of each Local Council -- each "Block Rep" would vote the membership of their individual Status Block. The next Executive Board Meeting is scheduled for May 22-23, 2007. The Board of Directors meets "regularly" every 2 years, between October 1st and November 10th (not scheduled for this year). However, Special Meetings can be called at any time by the Executive Council, the Executive Board, or the President.
So, with that groundwork laid (ALPA policy is ALPA policy until ALPA policy is changed, and this is how it would be changed if it were changed), he discussed what he apparently feels are political realities. Every indication is that the rule will change. It's not a matter of if, but when. With that in mind, does ALPA want to continue to oppose the rule change until the change occurs, or do we change ALPA policy so we can have a "say" in how the change occurs? He is of the opinion that we should change our policy and become participants in the implementation of the rule.
One such aspect of the implementation of the rule is the Prospective aspect. If the rule change results in having Seniority Number holders in a situation where they are not allowed to bid on Captain and First Officer positions, that would amount to an abrogation of their seniority rights. If we want to oppose that policy, we need to participate in the process of change.
Another issue is whether we want the change to come from the FAA or from Congress. If we are participants, we could express our preference that the rule change come from the FAA.
When pressed to tell us other issues about which we want to "have a say," he discussed things that might happen that we don't even anticipate -- the fallout of the "Law of Unintended Consequences." If we (ALPA) are perceived as having fought this to the bitter end, our credibility might be damaged to the point that our influence in resolving these unintended consequence issues would be compromised.
One opinion offered of the above philosophy is that we would be "rolling over" on the Age 60 issue, and if we're going to roll over on that, we might as well "roll over" on the Scheduling Committee and not even bother to participate in the SIG, and just "roll over" on other issues so we won't be on the losing side.
Another opinion of the above philosophy takes issue with the "rolling over" characterization. ALPA's policy has been to oppose changing Age 60. It's still to oppose any change. As ALPA has stood guard at the gate of change, it has met challenges. A young woman pushing a baby carriage was turned away -- we supported the policy. A young man approached the gate on a bicycle, and we turned him away. A motorcycle approached, and was denied entry. A pickup truck tried to breech the gate, but ALPA upheld the policy to oppose change, and the pickup truck was rejected. Now we stand guard at the gate, and we look down the long, straight steel tracks of the railroad, and we see the locomotive headed our way. The policy is still to oppose the change. We can maintain that policy and be flattened by the Engine when it crosses through the gate, or we can, out of respect for the Laws of Physics, change the policy, stand aside, and jump on the train. We can become a casualty, or become a participant.
While I believe I have done a fair job of representing Captain Webb's position, but I may have fallen short on some aspect. If so, my apology is offered in advance.
NOW, with all the above in mind, I'd like to begin a "What if? discussion. I'd like to invite your participation in a focused conversation about a narrow topic, a single issue related to this debate. Assume for the sake of this discussion that the Regulated Age will change to 65. If you want to debate that assumption, please do it in another thread.
1) What advantages or disadvantages attach to changing ALPA Policy to support a change to the Age 60 Rule? Would we be in better shape when the rule change occurs having fought it to the bitter end (and then changing policy to recognize the new rule), or would we be in better shape having gotten on board with the change as it was being implemented?
2) What issues related to a change in the Age 60 Rule do we want to influence? In other words, if we want "a say," what do we want "a say" in?
I attended the Wednesday, April 18 Joint Council Meeting of FedEx ALPA in Memphis. The first item on the agenda was Age 60/Blue Ribbon Panel/R&I. Capt Scott Stratton was scheduled to present, but was unable due to his recent involvement in a DonorCycle accident. The PowerPoint slides looked very similar to those used in his presentation to the February Joint Council Meeting.
Naturally, there were a number of questions, and MEC Chairman Captain Dave Webb spoke at length about the Age 60 issue.
I will try to recap those issues which he covered accurately. Any misrepresentation of his position or his remarks is not intentional. With that caveat, I proceed.
Captain Webb recognizes that ALPA policy is to oppose any change to the regulated age. There is no compromise or equivocation on that point. He also recognizes that the change to Age 60 as the regulated age is inevitable. When the FAA began allowing ICAO pilots to operate in our skies over age 60, it effectively guaranteed the rule will change. The only questions are who will change it and how will it be changed. Will the FAA complete the change through the normal NPRM process, or will the change be imposed by Congress? Will the rule be prospective, as Administrator Blakey has indicated, or will it allow all pilots to exercise their seniority rights?
Having said that, Captain Webb is committed to vote against any change to the ALPA Age 60 Policy at the upcoming Executive Board Meeting. While that is possible, he feels that it would be unwise for such a decision to be made at that level, especially given the widespread opposition to change. If the policy is to change, he feels it would be more appropriate for the Board of Directors to make that decision. The Executive Board consists of Chairmen of the Master Executive Council for each airline -- Capt Webb would vote the membership of the entire FedEx pilot membership. The Board of Directors consists of Captain, First Officer, and Second Officer Representatives, and (in the case of FedEx) Seniority Block Status Representatives and the Instructor Status Representative of each Local Council -- each "Block Rep" would vote the membership of their individual Status Block. The next Executive Board Meeting is scheduled for May 22-23, 2007. The Board of Directors meets "regularly" every 2 years, between October 1st and November 10th (not scheduled for this year). However, Special Meetings can be called at any time by the Executive Council, the Executive Board, or the President.
So, with that groundwork laid (ALPA policy is ALPA policy until ALPA policy is changed, and this is how it would be changed if it were changed), he discussed what he apparently feels are political realities. Every indication is that the rule will change. It's not a matter of if, but when. With that in mind, does ALPA want to continue to oppose the rule change until the change occurs, or do we change ALPA policy so we can have a "say" in how the change occurs? He is of the opinion that we should change our policy and become participants in the implementation of the rule.
One such aspect of the implementation of the rule is the Prospective aspect. If the rule change results in having Seniority Number holders in a situation where they are not allowed to bid on Captain and First Officer positions, that would amount to an abrogation of their seniority rights. If we want to oppose that policy, we need to participate in the process of change.
Another issue is whether we want the change to come from the FAA or from Congress. If we are participants, we could express our preference that the rule change come from the FAA.
When pressed to tell us other issues about which we want to "have a say," he discussed things that might happen that we don't even anticipate -- the fallout of the "Law of Unintended Consequences." If we (ALPA) are perceived as having fought this to the bitter end, our credibility might be damaged to the point that our influence in resolving these unintended consequence issues would be compromised.
One opinion offered of the above philosophy is that we would be "rolling over" on the Age 60 issue, and if we're going to roll over on that, we might as well "roll over" on the Scheduling Committee and not even bother to participate in the SIG, and just "roll over" on other issues so we won't be on the losing side.
Another opinion of the above philosophy takes issue with the "rolling over" characterization. ALPA's policy has been to oppose changing Age 60. It's still to oppose any change. As ALPA has stood guard at the gate of change, it has met challenges. A young woman pushing a baby carriage was turned away -- we supported the policy. A young man approached the gate on a bicycle, and we turned him away. A motorcycle approached, and was denied entry. A pickup truck tried to breech the gate, but ALPA upheld the policy to oppose change, and the pickup truck was rejected. Now we stand guard at the gate, and we look down the long, straight steel tracks of the railroad, and we see the locomotive headed our way. The policy is still to oppose the change. We can maintain that policy and be flattened by the Engine when it crosses through the gate, or we can, out of respect for the Laws of Physics, change the policy, stand aside, and jump on the train. We can become a casualty, or become a participant.
While I believe I have done a fair job of representing Captain Webb's position, but I may have fallen short on some aspect. If so, my apology is offered in advance.
NOW, with all the above in mind, I'd like to begin a "What if? discussion. I'd like to invite your participation in a focused conversation about a narrow topic, a single issue related to this debate. Assume for the sake of this discussion that the Regulated Age will change to 65. If you want to debate that assumption, please do it in another thread.
1) What advantages or disadvantages attach to changing ALPA Policy to support a change to the Age 60 Rule? Would we be in better shape when the rule change occurs having fought it to the bitter end (and then changing policy to recognize the new rule), or would we be in better shape having gotten on board with the change as it was being implemented?
2) What issues related to a change in the Age 60 Rule do we want to influence? In other words, if we want "a say," what do we want "a say" in?
.
Great recap on Dave Webb’s comments and answers to the Q&A. I want to add Wally Huggin’s words.
He mentioned that the lobbyists and aides of the operators are already in Washington presenting their concerns and suggestions. An elected representative (a name “we would recognize” if made public) has told ALPA that he is willing to talk and we should hear what is being said, but this cannot be done with our current stance against any change. To sum it up, he felt that we are missing an opportunity the longer we wait to participate.
Although I'm over 60, I "don't have a dog in this hunt" since I"ll be gone by the time any significant change occurs. That said, I think ALPA should get on board this train and shape which station it finally stops at. It's not a new idea, but allowing those who want to retire at 60 should be able to do so without penalty. Those who want to work to 65 should be able to do so also.
If we have input into the NRPM then maybe we'll get something all can live with. If we fight to the end we'll be stuck with what everyone else but a pilot thinks is the correct solution. I don't think we can turn back the clock and make ICAO change the rule back to 60. I read somewhere that there are only three countries that currently have an age 60 rule -- the US, France and Chad. Go figure.
__________________
Flying since the world was flat.
I fail to see the advantage of changing our position now. To say that we will be "Locked out" of discussions when the rule changes is disingenuous. Does anyone really think that that the largest pilot union will not have a voice because we said "NO" for an extra 6 months?
Or was Dave talking specifically about the FedEx MEC? I think that our pilots are more opposed to a change than the UAL and DAL guys might be, but once the rule drops the FedEx MEC will not be silenced.
I think that "rolling over" on this can have serious negative consequences in the future. The unintended consequences can be severe.
We are operating now under a retirement Plan Document that has 60 as the Retirement Age. If the law changes to allow flying to age 65, the company will surely come at us in Section 6 and demand that 65 become the standard retirement age. If our MEC has gone on record as supporting the change, what leverage to we have?
Do we sacrifice future negotiating leverage for a few weeks of "input" on Capitol Hill?
If the FedEx MEC endorses Age 65 the company will make us pay dearly for it the next time around. Picture longer pay scales (can you see a 20-year top pay rate instead of 15?) and lower A-fund percentages for starters.
All I've seen in favor of changing ALPA's position (against the will of the membership) is an argument of greater "participation" once the rule changes. I say again: ALPA will NOT be locked out of the discussion, regardless of our position. The largest pilot's union will be as loud as it wants to.
ALPA PAC - this is where it earns it's money. And I'd be proud if my dues dollars purchased a full-page ad in USA Today stating our opposition to the change just as it's making the news.
A rollover now could seriously weaken any future bargaining position that we have trying to maintain current retirement language, with no apparent gain.
One such aspect of the implementation of the rule is the Prospective aspect. If the rule change results in having Seniority Number holders in a situation where they are not allowed to bid on Captain and First Officer positions, that would amount to an abrogation of their seniority rights. If we want to oppose that policy, we need to participate in the process of change.
The MEC was talking about the 161 over 60 guys on the property who are eying the left seat again. In essence they are saying that we must support their return to the left seat if the rule changes, and that if we don't we won't be taken seriously.
Well, count me as someone who tells both the MEC and the over 60 guys to go POUND SAND. They want to exercise their seniority - fine. But if they want to do it past Age 60, they can do it without all the guys who retired at 60 in front of them.
You don't get two hacks at the apple - the over 60 guys had their career. It's now time to give the young guys (which they were at one time) their chance.
If the FedEx membership votes against a change, the MEC will NOT lose credibility by supporting the membership.
This is how elected representatives work - you elect them to represent your views. VOTE in the poll so the MEC knows how you feel. If you are unsure they got your message then send them an e-mail.
Thanks for the info Tony. Although I oppose any change to the age 60 rule, I agree it will change (unless the Sun goes supernova). The best take for ALPA would be to slow the locomotive down as it passes the gate. Our grandparents did not live long enough to collect social security for many years (if at all). Now there are so many living to their 80's that the social security system is changing and the minimum age to collect is rising. We are living longer.... To be consistant on the safety aspect, we would be wise to support a change to 62 and then a gradual trend to a goal of age 65 in another x years. There should be gates along the way to stop the locomotive at any point (say age 63) if there is an increase in incapacitation incidents. No restrictions should be placed on the scheduling of over 60 pilots. With all of this said, it is not a "one size fits all" and some of us are beat up enough to be happy to go by 60. Contract negotiations are the place to prevent ANY penalty for retiring at say 60 (staus quo). The train may be passing the gate but it should NOT pass at full speed!
Similar Threads
Does ALPA Get a "Say"?
Go figure.
Linear Mode
