FreightDawgyDog:

You make some points here that ought to be addressed. Please note that I have written about all these points many, many times in past articles but I understand that you might not have seen them:

1. "So the answer is to make the junior pilot pay for what has happened to you, Bob and all pilots who have lost their pensions?"

Ans: First, nothing "happened to me," or to Jim Sullivan, Dan Murphy, Chuck Henry or other FedEx pilots who fought the war at CAL and EAL. We chose to go on strike on behalf of our families and fellow pilots. The fact that many people have chosen this path at the proper moment is what enables you to have a good salary at FedEx.

Second, it is important to focus on the principles of the matter and not the personalities. You really have no idea of what my financial condition is and it does not matter. I can tell you that Jim Sullivan is a wealthy guy and a very successful businessman. He is a FedEx pilot and he wishes to scrap the Age 60 rule. The ethical principle is that the Age 60 rule is a blatant and unjustifiable act of age discrimination. I have been writing about it for more than 10 years at FedEx. This has nothing to do with "me." It has a lot to do with the integrity of our profession.

2. Regarding your comment: "...I didn't even consider airlines that were not solid financially."

Ans: I guess you are smarter than me. Continental was the FedEx of its time and it seemed like a good choice.

3. "There is really no excuse for not being prepared for the worst and they had the opportunity to do it under those contracts."

Ans: There may not be any excuses that satisfy you, but there are very good reasons. For instance, if you go on strike to fight the battle, you may well expend all of your excellent savings on behalf of the profession, including your retirement fund. That is exactly what many pilots did in order to help secure your future. My friend, Chuck Henry, recently said that the pilots at FedEx really need to go on strike so that they can learn the lessons first hand. I am in somewhat agreement. If you are not going to listen to those who have fought the battle, then you need to learn it for yourself. I will not be joining you on the picket line this time, nor will some of the others whom I have mentioned.

You cannot have it both ways: You cannot reasonably expect pilots to go on strike again at the end of their careers to support your interests and at the same time deny them the right to recover financially by flying past 60. Especially, after telling them it is their fault that they were not financially prepared the last time around. I trust that you can see the silliness of this.

4. "Why should pilots on the street be kept there an extra 5 years, or junior pilots be kept out of seats they have waited patiently for...?"

Ans: Let's examine this question: You claim to have a genuine concern for those who are currently "furloughed," but you indicate no real concern for those who voluntarily went on strike and/or were furloughed earlier in their professional careers. What in the world is the difference? Five years is five years, is it not? Are you suggesting that two years of strike and no income does not constitute "waiting patiently?" I would think that you would especially honor the voluntary sacrifice of those who went on strike well above those who were merely furloughed. After all, according to your earlier statement, the furloughees were at fault for choosing to work for companies that "were not solid financially." Please correct me if that is not how you see it.

5. "Remember, these are the same pilots that benefited from the B fund days at junior pilots expense. They had the resources to be ready for this, even if no one could have predicted how it would come about."

Ans: Although your statement is not technically accurate (many strikers had been at Continental for less than five years when we went on strike, and were not vested in the B Plan. How could they have possibly been "ready for this?"), I actually agree with you in principle. The senior pilots have always trampled on the junior pilots and taken care of themselves at their expense. This was totally the case with the A, B, and C pay scales. I have argued against this as well as the Age 60 rule for nearly 25 years. We are killing each other at both ends of the seniority spectrum. We have eaten our young for years and now we are eating our old, and the company knows it.

You are correct in your frustration at this behavior. This needs to end now and a fair and thoughtful system needs to be employed. Lack of leadership in solving such ethical dilemmas is contributing to the destruction of our profession. In fact, ALPA opposes any attempts to change. I have made many proposals to them and they have been totally ignored. There is no time better than the present than to focus on the ethical principles required to create "natural" unity and to stop relying on the "crisis" version that no longer works in the competitive marketplace. See my article, "Learning to Compete Wisely..." at www.pilotunity.com.

Best wishes,

Bob