Airline Pilot Central Forums - View Single Post

05-20-2007 | 01:41 PM

#48

FlybyKnite

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Apr 2007

Posts: 564

Likes: 0

From: B777

Tread hijack—back to the original topic.

Since I’ve been in Asia for the last two weeks and missed all the hub turn meetings and other ‘live’ events, I’m left with DW’s message as his official explanation for current events. And I’ve still got a few questions.

Not to be accused of picking sound bites (hopefully), but my questions are about a few things he said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DW video

70% FedEx pilots against changing the ALPA Age 60 position and 50-50 nationally. No consensus possible. Our concerns are being ignored by the administration and congress.

OK, we know FDX folks don’t condone a change in our Age 60 position. But I believe after this brief explanation campaign, most of us would grudgingly agree that it is probably in our better interest to change for the sake of influence. So how is it we don’t really lose face or credibility?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DW video

He defines retroactivity as pilots without seniority numbers and that our over-60 pilots retain all rights under our CBA as seniority holding pilots. And that we cannot choose to selectively disenfranchise segments of our pilot group when regulatory changes affect our careers. That when we choose to do this when it’s convenient for the majority we lose the moral high ground when arguing seniority issues with management in the future.

I’m sure most every airline CBA has similar language to ours that retired, resigned and terminated pilots “shall forfeit all employment and seniority rights”. Our CBA is written with the words “regulated age”. In this case, the government will simply be redefining regulated age to include an effective date for the new provisions-- that’s all. Everyone’s seniority is still intact; the CBA doesn’t have to be amended; the regulations simply place an additional restriction on what job you can hold, just as it does now. I don’t see anything unfair in that, maybe unlucky in timing, but not unfair.

But something must have been ‘lost in translation’, because I don’t understand how we disenfranchise ourselves when “regulatory changes affect our careers”. We don’t make the regulatory changes; the government does. We are either the beneficiaries or victims of those changes. The proposals so far all say no retroactive pass for anyone over 60, active or otherwise. On a certain date, you either get a pass to 65 or you get a scarlet letter to wear (A=Age).

Seems our MEC is trying to split the retroactivity issue into two parts: active and other. But aren’t our concerns in Washington being ignored? Yet, we are being told, don’t worry because it won’t pass anyway—which part active or other retroactivity? And how do you lose the moral high ground for future company negotiations if we aren’t the ones making the rules changes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DW video

Seniority will be affected by this change but . . . our unity going into our next negotiation will have significantly larger impact than this change.

If neither part of retroactivity is going to pass, then why are we wasting time, effort, and Unity on it? If this is some type of ‘posturing’ for future negotiations, it seems to be coming at a heavy price in shaken, if not shattered, trust in the MEC and fractured unity among us.

OK, now for today’s analogy [with subtitles]: Normally when you plant a [position] flag, you normally put it firmly in the ground [of declared majority support, 70%]. In this case, the support is only 30%, which is really a small island. And when you factor in the lack of the support for retroactivity for all pilots over 60 by the FAA, congress and ALPA-wide; our MEC is really planting it’s flag in the middle of an ATOLL [A ringlike coral island and reef that nearly or entirely encloses a lagoon]. Funny thing about atolls, they are most commonly found in very isolated locations.

.

Reply

0