"In one manner of speaking, the issue only affects a small number of Over-60 Second Officers. In another manner of speaking, it affects every one of us, and every pilot that follows us, as seniority is a cornerstone of our profession. The downside just doesn't justify abandoning such an important principle."

Very eloquent Tony. You make some good points. You seem to be OK, and even enamored with Dave Webb's leadership and decision making style. I would disagree that allowing a vote or poll where the membership had a chance to be heard by their leadership before making decisions is a bad thing. You used 2 or 3 posts out of over 500 to make your point about voter ignorance. How about the other 497 or so that made excellent and factual points to support their side? I think, although it was likely not your intention, this is being disingenuous to those that feel differently than you do about this issue. There have been good points made by both sides of the aisle on this issue, and as you said, it has been rather civilized considering the huge implications to everyone here.

I also see you are agreeing with the MEC by saying that there are not enough of those who will return from the panel to really make a difference. It's funny, but neither my block rep, other MEC members, or you make me feel any better here. How many come back or where they go is not the main issue. It is an MEC Chairman that continues to lead MEC's to take these tough stands you talk about , (without allowing input from his members), for only one group of pilots. How do you answer the pilots here who have raised the question of their seniority rights, and contractual rights, being ignored when they were not allowed pass over pay? It sure looks to me like they were due some. If seniority is the cornerstone, then why was it apparently ignored here?

My bigger question is if Dave Webb and this MEC think they know what is right here, then why don't they take the time to educate us, give us a chance to ask some questions, and then allow us our right for a say. If they are so convinced they are doing the right thing, for the right reasons, it should be easy to convince enough of us of this to win any vote they put out. Your comparison of taking an issue this big to this pilot group, and comparing it with the ridiculous idea of everyone having a say on who we buy copiers from, is insulting to me. I am disappointed and surprised you would make such a false analogy. I know fully well there are everyday issues to be solved without my democratic vote. Allowing me to have a say on an issue as big as this, one that will have a huge effect on my career and quality of life, isn't one of them. I think you know that.

I know there is little time here for a vote on Age 60 stances. My questions are:

How did we get so far behind the power curve that we were pushed into a corner and not allowed a vote?

Why hasn't the MEC been discussing these issues, especially about retroactivity, with the membership much earlier?

Why do we (or the MEC) have to decide on retroactivity right now?

I disagree wholeheartedly with those that try and make this a contractual issue. If the law is passed, and has retroactivity in it, and FDX refuses to follow it, then it becomes a contractual issue and I will be the first one to fight for those over 60 who want to get back. But that's not what we are talking about here.

Let me ask you this Tony. Let's say FDX sees this coming and doesn't want to deal with it. They then put out and close a bid that has training dates 5 years into the future. 6 months later, the regulated age changes with retroactivity. Would you support another MEC edict, again without allowing the members to have a say, that resolves to try and force FDX to make the bid retroactive as well so those pilots previously over 60 can hold what their seniority now allows? Of course, this would send those at the bottom of the award back to their previous seat. What if they were willing to sacrifice another part of our contract via an LOA to achieve this, again, without our say? Would you support that? Think it can't happen? I don't anymore. They have lost my trust for now. So just where does this "support for seniority rights" begin and end and at whose ultimate cost? If everyone concerned is not asking these questions of their MEC and LEC Reps right now, you are just setting yourself up for the next big "we didn't have time to educate the members here and allow their input before forming a policy " moment. Some may say that when Dave Webb and the MEC unilaterally decide issues for us, and lock out membership participation, they look heroic. I'd say refusing to allow a vote on issues you do not take the time to educate the members on, and one you are not sure will go the way "you" think it should is hardly heroic at all.

I respect you Tony, I really do. Honestly though, I am disappointed in your response . It has too many faulty comparisons to back up your points. I do look forward to your answers to the questions I posed though. Just where are we headed with this retroactive policy if Dave Webb and the MEC get what they want? Sleepy, feel free to chime in with your answers as well. I do appreciate your input here, even if I still disagree with some of your rationalizations.