Thought I'd thumb through the archives and knock the dust off this old thing:




Fri, May 11, 2007

Dear FDX ALPA Member:

In a special MEC meeting conducted via teleconference last week your elected representatives received briefings on the Age 60 issue from Joe Fagone, FDX ALPA Executive Vice President, Scott Stratton, FDX MEC R & I Chairman and a member of the ALPA Blue Ribbon Panel, as well as Frank Voyack of ALPA Government Affairs. Based on the facts surrounding the issue, we believe an increase in the FAA regulated age is inevitable. It is just a question of whether the change will come from Congress or the FAA, and on what timeline.

The most recent poll data, with an error rate of 3%, indicates that an overwhelming majority of FDX ALPA members do not favor a change to age 60, while approximately 52% of pilots ALPA-wide want the age to remain the same. However, 66% of pilots ALPA-wide want our union to influence the change if change is imminent. Herein lies the rub. In order to achieve the most positive outcome for the membership, ALPA must be a player in the process. Currently we are not, due to our institutional opposition to changing the regulated age. In order to engage Congress and the FAA and thus influence implementation issues in our favor, we believe we must change our position as a union. In fact, many previous Congressional supporters of ALPA’s policy have communicated exactly that to our Government Affairs staff…repeatedly.

There are several moving parts in this process. Having Congress legislate change to an FAR would establish an unacceptable precedent. We believe pilots will fare significantly better if we can keep the change within the regulatory framework of the FAA NPRM process. Additionally, there is the issue of retroactivity and seniority rights. ALPA’s long-term success as a union is due in large part to the members’ understanding that pilots can only survive and prosper if we work together. Advocating prospective implementation and thus an abrogation of seniority for those over-age-60 members still employed on our properties sets a dangerous precedent. We know that retroactivity is not a popular position with some and that the FAA Administrator has stated her intent for the new regulation to be prospective, but we also know that protecting seniority is the right thing to do for the right reasons. One of the most important elements of our recent negotiations was our collective commitment that “No one gets a pass, no one gets left behind.” That position was established by the MEC long before negotiations began and it is the philosophy that continues to guide our decision making. It is the same tenet that prevented the Negotiating Committee and MEC from acquiescing to a management-proposed “B-scale” pension for new-hires during our last negotiations, among other things.

MEC Chairman Captain Dave Webb will be attending the Executive Board meeting later this month along with his fellow MEC Chairmen. Your MEC stands united in support of Captain Webb advocating for the NPRM process as the preferred vehicle for any regulatory change and for the protection of our members’ seniority rights. We urge you to do the same.

Fraternally,

Capt. --
MEC Chairman

Capt. --
MEC Vice Chairman

Capt. --
MEC Secretary-Treasurer



LEC 7

Capt.--
Chairman

First Officer --
Vice Chairman

Second Officer --
Secretary-Treasurer


LEC 22

Capt. --
Chairman

Capt. --
Vice Chairman

First Officer --
Secretary-Treasurer


LEC 26

Capt. --
Chairman

First Officer --
Vice Chairman

Capt. --
Secretary-Treasurer


LEC 79

Capt. --
Chairman


LEC 99

Capt. --
Chairman


LEC 100

Capt. --
Chairman







.