Originally Posted by
Tuck
Tony-
Not saying you ate wrong but could you post some references to Prater running on changing the age? I don't recall that at all.
I've exercised my Google-foo and cannot find anything. If the Internet Wayback machine (web.archive.org) had saved a copy of
www.johnprater2006.com, I might have something for you. I also found reference to a Chicago Tribune article from October, 2006, but can't seem to track it down.
What many people don't realize is that our MEC Chairman could have run and won that election, but he had made a commitment to not leave his MEC Chairman post until we had a contract. The final vote on our 2006 CBA closed that same week, but
after the ALPA officer elections. Technically, we didn't have our contract, so he did not run.
Originally Posted by
Tuck
So what did we really affect by joining the age 65? What FDX MEC said all along was that it would have an effect on protecting DB plans - that was just silly as they were already protected by law. It was cover to change things that were highly beneficial to one group of pilots - those over 60. There's history here and yes we have absoluteley done things that affect only one group in a contract - how about the VEBA $ for those over age 55 regardless of seniority? Regardless of excuses it was a clear give to the old guys and the company had no problem with it so yes, I can imagine one group of pilots getting something.
It's unfortunate when some people do a poor job of articulating our objectives and out successes, but that seems to happen a lot when our communications efforts are lacking. Of course we didn't do it to protect our DB plans. What we have earned cannot be taken away on a whim. What we did get was the assurance that we could still retire at Age 60 without penalty, and without having to fight The Company.
What we got by being able to participate in the formulation of the legislative language was the items listed in the bullets near the end of my post before I wrote, "All of those priorities were met."
Those are perhaps articulated more clearly in this "From the Hill" article which may have ended up lining your bird cage in the Feb 2008 ALPA magazine.
http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/mag...2008_Age65.pdf
Yes, we have always done things that benefit one group and not another, but not without doing things that benefit the other and not the one. We are a diverse group, and there is not a single benefit that will benefit us all equally. The point is to not leave any group behind. The point is to not do something that will disadvantage one group. Talk to your Flex Instructor and ask him or her how they feel about this point. Talk to the B-757 Flex Instructor teaching in the B-767 simulator at narrow-body pay. Leaving a group behind breeds resentment and fractures our unity.
I find it immensely ironic that criticism of the Pre-Medicare VEBA comes up in the same vein with criticism of the regulated age change. The same people who want pilots to retire and "get out of my seat" at age 60 don't seem to care that those pilots can't afford the health care costs, and oppose a benefit that addresses that problem and allows them to retire at age 60.
(BTW, the age was 53.)
Originally Posted by
Tuck
Concur with FamilyATM regarding the vote - you ask our opinion and you vote the way your constituents tell you to ... Or you create hate and discontent, a feeling of necessary retaliation and then you get replaced.
There was no vote on whether to change the Age 60 rule. The Age 60 rule was going to change, and it didn't matter what the poll results were, or what ALPA policy was. There was no way to stop the change.
The vote taken by ALPA's Executive Board was how to deal with the inevitable change. If change was inevitable, the Blue Ribbon Panel's poll told us that FedEx pilots wanted ALPA to drop it's opposition to the change or to support the change. Our MEC Chairman voted to drop our opposition, and that's the policy ALPA adopted.
In short, his vote was supported by the results of the poll.
I believe the mistake was not communicating that clearly to the members before it occurred.
Originally Posted by
Tuck
Pay rates for the 777 would absolutely depend on how many pilots bid it. I'm quite sure if no one bid it, regardless of excess rules, we would have a more desirable pay rate.
I know you weren't on the MEC then but you are very much an apologist for them.
It's going to sound like I'm an apologist now, too. That's not my intention. I believe that appearances are extremely important, and that's why I did not bid B-777 FO when I was excessed from ANC MD-11 Capt. I had peers who did so and were awarded training dates that never came, and who consequently never left their MD-11 left seats. My concern for appearances cost me many dollars.
But the facts are this. Once the arbitration hearing has been concluded, and the parties have submitted their briefs, the arbitrator has access to all of the information he can use to make his decision. If everybody on the property then bid the B-777, it would have no effect on the outcome. It would be unlawful for someone to whisper into his ear that however many people had bid to fly the airplane. What the departing MEC Chairman bid then created a horrible optic, but it had no effect on the outcome of the arbitration.
.