Originally Posted by
nightfreight
Sleepy,
We have heard the union's drivel about why the environment has changed. Blah, blah, blah. If you haven't noticed, our government can't agree anything right now, so why do you assume this legislation is a slam dunk?
And what is so wrong about the Age 65 coming through legislative means? Why is a NPRM any better? The only thing I can think of is that it might take longer. A change is a change. And what if Congress allows retired members the right to come back? As you guys say, "we want to what is right."
Maybe if ALPA gets to shape the rule in the NPRM process we can have retroactivity! Great! Our retirement, both A and B fund are protected. We will have to give up some contract improvements next time just to allow for a normal retirement at 60, but what is the NPRM process going to do about that?
I can't see ALPA doing squat to "shape" the process. And, for me, the beef really isn't with ALPA national. I have a problem with FDX ALPA choosing to vote against our wishes. We know we are overwhelmingly against a change to the rule, so DW should vote his membership's desires. I still see the ALPA Executive Board approving a change to their stance (as if it wasn't Prater's wish all along), but that isn't the point.
I hope a recall is started, I will certainly vote to recall DW......
The view is that the legislation certainly isn't a slamdunk, but it is pretty damn close. Senate seems to be the strongest part of the legislature on this subject, the House is a little bit weaker. I'd have to get the latest update from Legislative Affairs on exactly where the bills sit in the House and Senate currently, but as of last update, the Senate Commerce Committee had approved S.65 and incorporated it into the FAA Reathorization Act. It still has to be approved by the Senate as a whole, sometime in June/July timeframe it seems. The House has yet to vote on the Age 65 bill inside it's own committee, but the feeling is that they will do this sometime late May/June timeframe and will incorporate it into the FAA Reauthorization Act as well. From there, it goes to the full House for a vote when there is an opening. After that, if both parts of Congress approve it (which the feeling is that it will happen), then we are looking at a Conference Committee between the two branches to work out the differences. Then the bill goes to the President to sign and 30 days later it becomes effective.
Now as I said, there is never anything that is slam dunk, but this seems to be a fairly accurate view from our biggest backers on Capitol Hill. If you doubt the veracity of it, please try to get it firsthand from our legislative affairs guys.
We feel that it is very important that the FAA be the one to implement this change. The FAA is the place where the aviation experts reside, not in any of the thousands of offices on Capitol Hill that are manned by Congressmen and their staffers. It would be like having Major League Baseball investigate an aircraft accident vice the NTSB. MLB may have some players that are pilots, and may know some pilots, and they may have some lawyers who took a course in Aviation Law in college, but they aren't the experts on accidents. Whether the FAA always makes the best decisions vice ones that have political ramifications, you can debate. But, they are the aviation experts.
Whether or not the FAA or Congress changes their language from being prospective is unknown, but the overwhelming sense is that they won't change their minds on this. The FAA doesn't want it, Congress doesn't seem to want it, and the ATA doesn't seem to want it. They don't want to risk the possible liabilities of bringing back pilots to companies years after they have retired. As a whole, ALPA seems to be against making it retroactive, but they lack members on the other properties that are over 60. Age Discrimination charges have already been filed with EEOC units. FDX ALPA is the representative for all members of the class and craft at FDX, and even though those affected by passover pay issues feel otherwise, we do defend seniority as a cornerstone.
Your last concern about not being represented is a valid one. I would ask you though, do you feel that a leadership group should follow their memberships' majority if they feel it is wrong? Do we elect leaders to blindly follow us over a perceived cliff or do we elect them to make the hard, sometimes unpopular, decisions?