FoxHunter,
I was recently informed that my article was posted on this site. I do not normally frequent such sites but I think I owe you one for going to the trouble. Here are a few things I would like you to know:
1. The title of the article ("Is Two Years Really Long Enough?") is based on a statement made on numerous occasions by our MEC (the latest one via email on 11 May 2006) that "...it's time management clearly understood that two years is long enough."
2. When Larry Tubor and I visited with then-Senior VP of Air Operations, Don Barber, in Feb. of last year, we had only one question for him: Would FedEx management be willing to join with FedEx ALPA to conduct a financial analysis of changing the Age 60 rule to age 65? The purpose of this request was to provide solid analytical data to the pilots so that they could make a rational rather than purely emotional decision about the matter. I, personally, believe that a change to the Rule would be tremendously beneficial for all pilots. But, I want to prove it.
Don Barber's immediate response was, "Yes, we will do that. We will provide a financial analyst, the union can provide one of their own," and (paraphrasing) "we will see what the results give us." I informed union officials of Mr. Barber's response and it was ignored. Barber even asked me to have Wally Huggins contact him to get the ball rolling which I did, but, to my knowledge, Wally did not act on it.
There were several reasons that we went directly to Mr. Barber. Among them was that up to that point, the union had ignored all input that I had tried to make to them on the Age 60 matter. The MEC would like the pilots to believe that the LEC resolution process is the valid method for proposing change. It is not. The UAL pilots discovered this last year when five of six UAL LECs (representing more than 90% of the UAL pilots) passed resolutions calling for a change to the Age 60 rule. It was then summarily rejected by the MEC.
The problem is that LEC resolutions are not binding on the MEC. This coupled with the fact that very few people participate in LEC meetings ensures that only a few people receive information and make decisions about some very important issues. My attempt to publish on Age 60 and other matters at the national level had already been shot down, so I was aware of how ALPA controls the flow of information in order to stifle debate. I am a pretty good marketer so I knew that we had to do something different if we were to be heard. The MEC, of course, later obliged us by highlighting our names and our issue via emails to all ALPA pilots.
3. In all my articles, I have repeatedly stated that flying past age 60 should be optional, not mandatory. I, specifically, wrote to ALPA national requesting that the Age 60 "survey" provide a choice for those who would favor making flying past 60 optional. Almost every pilot I have asked has stated that they would favor this. Unfortunately, ALPA decided to not even touch on this in the survey, thereby leaving the impression that a change would force pilots to fly past 60.
Thus, ALPA has not only deprived pilots of objective financial data, it has intentionally misled pilots about a crucial choice: optional vs. mandatory. This is particularly egregious considering that pilots at Air Canada Jazz, an ALPA carrier, already have the option of flying to 65, per LOA #2 signed by Duane Woerth in 2002. This is, by any standard, outrageous. In addition, ALPA, without any justification, whatsoever, played the scare tactic by implying that there would be additional medical testing associated with flying past 60. FAA flight surgeon, Tilton, has stated publicly, that this is not the case.
4. The MEC has repeatedly characterized me as a "single-issue" person. Anyone who has read my articles knows that this is a complete intentional fabrication. I have always written about numerous strategic issues. However, when it is a career-stopper, such as is the Age 60 matter for some pilots, I would say that one issue is plenty.
5. Last, after years of experience in these matters, I am still amazed at the low level of response that one sees coming from pilots who call themselves "professionals." Profanity and name-calling is common and discussion of the issues is almost non-existent. This is among the reasons why Fred and the boys have no respect for the pilots. It is, frankly, an embarrassment to the crewforce. I am glad that I was born with the patience to sit down and write articles about the issues.
I am also glad that my mom and dad encouraged me to put myself "out there" and to be more interested in principles than personalities. Anyone who wishes to discuss the issues with me can simply send me an email or call. My address is on every article and my phone number is in VIPS.
As I mentioned in the article, union membership is at its lowest point ever in the United States. I consider myself to be the most ardent unionist on the FedEx property and I have the track record to support that belief. But I am the first to admit that the way we are handling things has now become destructive to the employee cause. We, pilots, had better start doing something different if we want to avoid the obvious results. Traditional unionism is not cutting it, no matter how much people would like to believe otherwise.
I think you see this.
Sincerely,
Bob