You know...putting it to a ballot would be an excellent thing. Win or lose--ALL of us would know our voices have been heard. If DW wins and keeps his mandate--we shut up and color. And we know that we have a voice...

I obviously am on the "other" side of this age 60 issue, but I am more concerned about the ivory tower effect that so many junior guys are picking up on. I'm not trying to draw a line between 42GO, Redeye, and the other more senior guys here. I do hope, however, we can get through this with everyone feeling like there interests have been represented and they've had someone listening to them. THAT is the goal. The process FDX28 has outlined, while painful, will force the leadership to respond and listen. Even if after the process the results are the same, at least the junior folks will not feel so disenfranchised--which hopefully means we'll be able to stick together on the battles to come.

So...here we go...

Retro?
 

Most of the discontent over retro-activity seems to be coming from the more junior folks. Has it occured to any of you ranting that you just might be in the minority?

We all signed the same contract. You might want to take a look at section:

22.B especially item 2, although ALL of section 22 is important.

In fact, the entire contract is important for ALL of us to follow. You guys are moaning here about your discontent with DW's decision to pursue retro. Seems to me, ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACT, DW has a duty of fair representation to protect ALL members' interests. MY copy of the contract section 22.B.2 says:

"seniority shall govern all pilots in cases of vacancy posting awards, bid period schedule awards" and so on.

Advocating something that VIOLATES the contract makes you nothing more than an independant contractor. You sound like the guy who is genuinely mad when the fellow crew member (same seat 10 years your SENIOR) bids "your" line. He's senior to you, and it's not YOUR line till EVERYONE senior to you DOESN't bid it.

The seats work the same way.

Just a thought.
Flame on, I hope it helps.

Now stop right there. There is no call to be using reason and rational thought on an internet forum!! :eek:

Question:

Do the current over age 60 guys now have seniority rights to the left seat? NO!!

Do the current under age 60 guys have seniority rights to the left seat? YES!!

It has nothing to do with the contract. It has to do with regulations and law. As in, the "regulated age" as definied in our CBA. Our MEC is now pursuing a change in the upcoming new regs/law that will give the current over age 60 guys new rights, that they don't currently have.

I'm not junior. And, I'm not ranting. I just think that the real and current seniority rights of the "junior" people here are being disregarded.

Again...the anger isn't over age 60. It is over the apparent being "ambivilent" towards age 60 changing to being suddenly not only PRO change but going beyond what the current FAA adminstrator is even asking for...all without any input from the body.

Even if you agree with the decisions--the manner in which this was presented to the membership comes off as arbitrary and without any input. Even if you support the message--the way is was delivered was abrupt and insensitive. It would not have been that difficult to have done a better job of explaining the hows and whys verses just making their own mind up and announcing it to the body.

I was one of those guys who told Zman "chill--and call the union" about the whole passover issue last year. I've championed the unions's mantra on these boards many times. I'm not a rabble rouser or a malcontent. However, if you can--put yourself in some of the very junior guys shoes a second. You were denied passover pay and contract enforcement didn't go to mat for you--and told you "keep the big picture". Senioirty, while important, could be tweaked or affected by LOAs and previous precendents. As soon as senioirty issues affect the senior membership, however--WHAM--senioirty is critical.

Now--before you explain the situations were "different"--I know they were. Remember--I was one of the guys who said "Zman--shut up and color on this one". However--I can see how he feels jacked around by his MEC on this issue. A little better bedside manner and education by our own MEC would go a long way on this.

Also--with agency shop--the perception is our MEC might be feeling invunerable. I have always said we hold the union to a higher standard than we do the company...because the union is US. We have to be transparent, lilly white, and open to input. The perception--right or wrong--is that a cadre of of senior guys is selectively fighting for principals which only benefit the senior members. Guys...the union belongs to all of us...and we HAVE to find a way to make sure even these "ungreatful whippersnappers" feel like the union has their back too. If we don't--the erosion of support will hurt all of us...junior and senior alike.

And again--wherever you are on the issue--we need to stick together on the back side of this.

Actually, they are acknowledging that the change is inevitable and going to happen no matter what, and as such is pursuing protection for all of those people's rights that they are required, by the CBA, to look out for - anyone on the seniority list! Its been a long week, but I have come from where most on this board are, to my current position. I don't like it, but it's reality!:(

Albie,

No arugment here. Had a long talk with my rep on the phone last night. I was told that this was not a unilateral DW decision, but the result of a number meetings/tele-conference calls, some times very contensious! Even he agrees that the way it came out sucks, and he wasn't happy with how that happen. But it is where we are, and regardless of how it appeared as DW telling us all to "shut up and color", it simply wasn't that, at least according my rep.

I just want the best opportunity for ALPA to be able to infuence the inevitable change in the "regulatory age", and if that means protecting the seniority rights of all those on the seniority list, so be it. I'm saving my energy for the real fight, when/if ALPA officially changes its postion and then the real work (letters to Congressman?) to look after our retirements, and tax issues!

:flame retardent shield up: ;)

MD11Fr8Dog,

Unlike you, I am not convinced that age 65 is a done deal. Hell, getting George W. and Congess to agree to anything is next to impossible these days. I wouldn't say any legislation is "imminent."

And for the NPRM, as you know, this process is expected to take 18-24 months. If ALPA pushed hard on this and actually spent some of our money, this could be a difficult sell. Just think of ads stating that 65% (or whatever the number is) of our nation's airline pilots think that flying over 60 is unsafe and we wouldn't want our children flying with these guys. We certainly have more spending power than the APAAD or whatever they call themselves.

And just what is ALPA going to do to shape this legislation? Let over 60 engineers come back as captains? Gee thanks.

Prater has wanted this all along, and when survey results don't come out the way he wanted them, they are using false logic to sell us some bad stuff.

"If the change was imminent, would you want ALPA to help shape legislation to help all of us?"

Sounds kind of like, "if I was having a heart attack, would I want a doctor to help me?" Or maybe, "if my house was on fire, would I want the fire department to come to my house?" First of all, you have to believe the assumption that the rule IS going to change. I think it is a long way from changing and that using our union to really fight this would certainly help. Our very weak, fragmented stance sure hasn't sold anyone that we think the rule is unsafe.

The bottom line is this: The overwhelming majority of Fedex pilots are NOT in favor of changing the age 60 rule. I want them to listen to the membership and for DW to vote his membership's position. Why in the hell did they ask for our opinion if he isn't going to listen?

As far as ALPA national goes, I am not overly concerned about their position. If the executive board votes their membership's position and we lose, then so be it. Also when the Group A members (the ones that pay 80% of the dues) are 64% against changing the rule, well maybe that is telling you something. It looks as if NWA is openly against the rule, what are the other carriers positions?

Again, I am really pi$$ed about our own union leadership going against the wishes of the "overwhelming majority." This is the real problem.

Albie,

This is no different than the nature of politics in the country today. Either you're for X or you're for for Y. It matters not if you are a rabble rouser or a malcontent-If you're for Y when X is the rule of the day, they will find a way to put you in a box to discredit your opinions. The box you(we) are being put in is juniority. Inherently this has a natural hint of lack of respect for those senior to us which is offensive to even those who might disagree with what is going or are neutral. The ultimate effect is that our voice is lessened because it is deemed not credible by reason of the source being suspect. Give APAAD credit, they got their issue on the table and are now successfully exploiting our natural tendencies and views on the seniority system to great effect.

The easiest way to put all questions aside on how the senior vs junior vs old vs young feel on the retroactivity issue is to put it to a democratic vote. If you disagree with me, what are you afraid of?....coming out in the minority and not getting your way? If the majority comes out in favor of supporting retroactivity...I'll be a loyal member and this issue will quickly become a thing of the past. It's the blatant disregard for what could be an overwhelming majority opinion that I find most distasteful and causes me to lose faith that OUR Union speaks for the pilot group as a whole.
I've been a junior guy fed to the wolves as fodder during contract negotiations in a previous airline life.....coincidentally also a closed shop...so please spare me the junior varsity and whippersnapper diatribe as you rebut my opinion.

Whoa, go easy on Don. He probably forgot to wear his toupee (and an almost realistic one it is) and got a little too much sun on the old chrome dome.

hamfist,

Why take a democratic vote? Even if the overwhelming majority of us vote a certain way, why would you think that DW would decide to take that position?

["seniority shall govern all pilots in cases of vacancy posting awards, bid period schedule awards" and so on.

Advocating something that VIOLATES the contract makes you nothing more than an independant contractor. You sound like the guy who is genuinely mad when the fellow crew member (same seat 10 years your SENIOR) bids "your" line. He's senior to you, and it's not YOUR line till EVERYONE senior to you DOESN't bid it.]

Marion Blakey has publicly stated that the over 60 group will not be covered by this FAR change. If it turns out that way will she be violating our contract? What Webb wants to do, and will do, is to spend union resources to try and change the FAAs stated position. So..our 64 year old engineer goes back to #1 on his A/C of choice, and a Southwest Captain who is 60 years and a week with no pension is SOL. Sounds fair.

I am convinced that DW will not let this come to a vote because he's in the lead car driving the train that left this station long before we knew they were boarding. Odd how even most of the over-60 guys I have flown with really didn't believe they had a chance of getting back to the front seat and then wham....out of the blue....DW says HE has decided WE will support retroactivity. Now the guys who said they stayed around because they loved to play racketball on the road, travel, visit old friends and get out of the house are proclaiming the front seats again as their birthright....due to seniority. Poor b@stard at Delta, United etc etc who is 60+ one day doesn't have DW representing them to retain their rightful position again in the front seat.......but hey......it's all about seniority, right??

Yeah ... what he said!

Mark

MD11FR8Dog,

"I just want the best opportunity for ALPA to be able to infuence the inevitable change in the "regulatory age", and if that means protecting the seniority rights of all those on the seniority list, so be it. I'm saving my energy for the real fight, when/if ALPA officially changes its postion and then the real work (letters to Congressman?) to look after our retirements, and tax issues!"


What influence do you want? Our defined benefit is set by the CBA not by the IRS or other. Furthermore we're one of the last carriers in ALPA to have a pension, you really think ALPA National is going to spend any time or money on defined benefits?

I'm with Hamfisted - have a vote and then go with the vote. I'll stand in line like a loyal member if I'm truly in the minority here but I get a chance to voice my opinion in a democratic process. Anything less than that - where we are now - marks of tyranny.

So how is it, that protecting the current over age 60 guy's rights, under the CBA, the "right thing to do"...But, abusing the under age 60 guy's rights not the wrong thing to do?

I agree, the age 60 thing is most probably a done deal. But, actively trying to influence the new reg to include retroactivity, is wrong. That is not protecting the over 60 guys seniority rights. That is attempting to give them new rights.

[quote=AerisArmis;Marion Blakey has publicly stated that the over 60 group will not be covered by this FAR change. [/quote]

The problem with a lot of things said here is that a lot of them are not accurate. What Blakey said was:

…would you consider making age 65 retirement age retroactive?

…no, we do not plan to do that… people who are already out of the system, who have already gone on, the questions of trying to bring people back in, and at that point would be for a very brief period of time, the training, the skills, are they up on the specific equipment, et cetera? I think that this would be a very disruptive thing to do, and at the end of the day, I do not expect that this would be a part of the final rule.

Really?

This is from her Nat'l Press Club speech:

The rule we intend to propose will be parallel to the ICAO standard — either pilot or co-pilot may fly up to age 65 as long as the other crewmember is under 60. It is our intent that this new rule will apply to pilots who have not yet reached 60 by the time the rule goes into effect.

Sounds reasonable to me.

1st, do you think DW, and I don't believe he made a unilateral decision, just a horrible presentation of the MEC's decision, is going to turn the tide and get ALPA NAtional to support Age 60+ ropes retroactivity.

2nd, most everyone, including most on the MEC, according to my rep, don't believe that retroactivity for anyone will happen - read Blaekey and the ARC's position/suggestion.

3rd, right now ALPA's position hasn't changed, yet, and it might be too late, even if it does. But it probably should, IF we want to infuence the NPRM in ANY way - you chose the way, or would you rather Congress, in the words of the famous philosopher Frank Zappa, ram it, ram it, ram it, ram it up your poop chute?:rolleyes:

4th, I'm just a bit more pragmatic than others on this issue! I'm still going at 58 and 7 months! :cool:

Ohhhh...Now I get it.

Our MEC is only supporting retroactivity because they don't actually think it's going to happen. BRILLIANT!!

Now, it all makes sense.

I'm not saying that at all. But, being pragmatic, I'm not get that ruffled about it. The point being, I don't like how we got to where we are - DW's presentation of an MEC decision. But it is where we are, and I'm okay with the decision. Read my other posts so I don't have to repeat myself.

I don't like what's happening to us any more than the next guy. But whining and b!tching won't help.

Also, I just don't see anyone getting recalled, do you, honestly? I'm not interested in trying to sell out guys on our seniority list and giving the company a crack to try to work later in our contract negotiation lives.

When you, or anyone gets someone recalled, I hope you guys are there to fill the shoes, will you be?

As far as DW, I think he made a horrible presentation of an MEC decision. Talk to your rep - have you yet? I spent 45 mins on the phone with mine last night, plus emails with my LEC chair, my rep and the comm chair. Either they are all on board and part of the decision, or DW has dirt on them and they are all good liars. I'm as cynical as the next guy, but even I'm not that cynical to believe that.

So what good do you feel has come about because you spoke to your reps? Did they change their mind? Did they promise to represent you next time?

What is the point of talking to folks who are too arrogant to listen?

Tell me again why I should talk to these guys who have just told me that the rape is inevitable just lie back and enjoy it? And oh, by the way, we're going to petition Congress to let the rapists out of prison because after all they were disadvantaged and lost their pensions?

Yeah, I want to waste my time talking to these guys.

Yup. My rep has most definitely heard from me, and I have have heard from him. We disagree.

Retroactivity must be for all (everyone forced from the seat - pouring coffee or retired), or none at all. It'll be intelecually dishoneset to do it any other way. For our leadership to advocate another position is just a political dodge.

We are.;).....

PAC dumped today.... now I need to find another PAC to contribute to....

The contract cannot "usurp" FAA regs or US Law. What is causing the beef is that the proposed Senate bill and the speech given by the FAA administrator, and vast amounts of other reporting indicates that the "powers that be" are saying that the max age is moving from 60 to 65 in multiplace aircraft where one of the pilots have to be under 60... also they say that they don't favor retroactivity... if you hit 60 before implementation, then you don't return. The gray area is in companies that have engineers, we are one of the few..... so we as a group must define how this plays out on a NATIONAL stage, not just within our contract (because the national "rules" regs or law hasn't actually been written yet).
Our union is comprised of members and we'd like our leaders to represent the majority of the members. This all came to a boil when DW said he is going to aggressively fight for seniority on the national level. This may or may not be in conflict with the wishes of HIS union---ie us. We THINK the majority differs from this position---rightly or wrongly ... but he is RULING much like the head of the Politburo. And THAT's what the beef is about.
Our "leaders" are taking a position that may be in conflict with the majority of the membership and they are saying publicly that "they know best" or "it's just the right thing to do".

You provide a good argument in your post, but THAT's precisely what we want as members... to debate, to get the good and bad of each position out there and to make a call as a UNION --- one in which the leadership responds to... not just goes about it on their own and everyone else be damned.

By the way, the union leadership did not use the contract to help the guys get their passover pay when JUNIOR members were trained out of seniority order---another seemingly back room deal and a slap in the face to some of the membership. No response from the union to an admitted company screw up and violation of the seniority sections of our contract.

This was published in the 8 May 07 Memphis Business Journal:

NWA to Senate: Don't delay pilots' retirement
Memphis Business Journal - 4:41 PM CDT Tuesday, May 8, 2007

In a rare partnership, Northwest Airlines Corp. and the Air Line Pilots Association are lobbying to stop legislation that will alter the age restriction on active pilots.

In a letter to Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), NWA CEO Doug Steenland and ALPA's David Stevens write that they're strongly opposed to the legislative proposal to replace the Age 60 Rule for pilots. The proposed Age 65 Rule will replace one arbitrary age limit with another with no criterion-based process for determining pilot fitness, the two state in the letter. In addition, the new age restriction may jeopardize safety.

NWA (Pink Sheets: NWACQ) and ALPA claim there's no medical evidence to support later retirement for pilots.

If passed, the rule will delay the retirement of numerous pilots, they say, and consequently delay the promotion of younger pilots.

Northwest employs about 1,500 in its Memphis hub.

Or you can go to:
http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/s...0400%5e1459362

or go the ALPA website and wonder through it's ALPA webboards.



You know there could be some dissent when the ALPA Executive Board meets later this month. If that's the case, maybe, its just speculation on my part, just maybe our MEC Chair promised to bring FDX ALPA in on the "right" side of this issue, thereby insuring a change to ALPA's Age 60 Regulated retirement age position.

Could also explain why the Alpa President is visiting the MEM airport to talk with the troops tomorrow and Tuesday.

Could be why everybody on the FDX MEC is in lockstep on this issue.

Always bothers me when everybody agrees on the same solution or takes the same side of a difficult issue. Leads to group think.

I hope enough of us responded to the poll by disagreeing with the "ALPA should change position to have a say in the legislation" question. That mind trick seems to have worked on a lot folks. DW will send another e-mail out claiming we support his plan if we didn't. In the last e-mail he was proud it was only 52% against change. He saw that in his favor and a "statistical dead heat".

Then he'll charge up Capitol Hill with his "mandate" to affect change the way he wants it to happen.

I am not “shooting from the hip” in this post. I have attempted to make clear, non-name calling, non-threatening, etc.. post about thoughts of a recall.

If ALPA must flip it’s position to have any influence in the change than so be it, as 66% said we want ALPA have some influence. I’m fine with this, that’s the majority. I have to trust our MEC and ALPA National in their statement that we must change our position to have some influence.

The main question right now is retroactivity. This is NOT a seniority issue at this point. If the law states that any pilot over 60 at the implementation of the rule cannot return, it is not a seniority issue. That is just the way it is. Why is some seniority not as important as others? I’m referring to the MD11 activation out of order mentioned in early posts and threads. Why was protecting seniority not “the right thing to do” in this case?

Before a recall is ultimately petitioned, I believe one question should be answered – what percentage of FDX pilots think Age 60 should be retroactive? It should not be phrased in any other way. The answer to that question should be our MEC’s as well. If the majority, says yes then all’s well. It’s a crap sandwich, but that’s just the way it is. If the MEC still says they know better, regardless of what the majority says, we enter dangerous ground. What if in future negotiations, the majority membership said no/yes to a job action, but the MEC took a different position, what would you do? Would you walk if the membership said no to a strike, but the MEC said to strike? Would you continue to work if the membership said yes to a strike and the MEC said no? What if 70% of the membership wanted a particular contract, but the MEC thought otherwise, saying “it’s the right thing to do…” (I understand contracts go to the MEC first, then to the membership, but I’m making a point). If blatant disregard for a majority is par for our MEC, then what voice do you and I have? None. To me that is a scary situation to be in. At that point our only voice is a recall.

In my opinion, a recall petition is our version of a job action to our MEC. No one really wants it to happen. UPS took a strike vote, but ultimately did not strike. But it made a statement, a contract was signed and everybody went home happy. I have nothing personal against Capt Webb or any of our other volunteers who have sacrificed so much of their time to accomplish something for the good of our pilot force. Lastly I hope that it does not come to a recall vote. Our MEC must listen to the voice of it's union not just the voice of themselves, and I feel like the membership must be prepared to have it’s voice heard.

Retroactivity is returning seniority rights to a pilot that has lost his seniority position because he/she has retired.

The new law makes it clear that a pilot cannot use the law as a basis to reclaim the lost seniority rights. The Senators that wrote the law made it clear that labor agreements will govern in a letter to Ms. Blakey. In the case of FedEx the S/Os never lost any seniority rights that would have to be reclaimed.

On your question about a future contract I haved a question. What if 95% of the membership and the MEC agrees to the contract? Are you aware that the President of ALPA can refuse to sign that contract? Yes, if the Presient determines that our new great contract is a detriment to ALPA and other pilot goups he can choose not to sign it.

So... maybe Albie's numbers ain't BS after all....

There are Bills in the House and Senate. No law yet.

Have you even read them? They talk about retractive rights (as in not allowing) in terms of exercising the right to return to a pilot position based on one's age at signing when they become laws. Not seniority, retired or otherwise. You can even see the word "promotion" after signing as one of the options EXCLUDED. That means from the SO seat or the training department.

The "lawmakers" sent a letter to a civil servant in reference to the rule making process. When you refer to a bill the lawmakers wrote they don't need to reference said letter.

Only ALPA wants rights at signing (signing plus 30 days or whatever) to be retroactive. The bills mention prospective rule making. A compromise to prevent disruption and balance issues in the interest of "fairness".

Or maybe it's just the MEC Chairman, MECs that want to keep their positions and the top 5% "king of the hill" club that want retroactive rights and would even vote down a contract with 95% member support because they don't like it....just like you mentioned. I know that's not what you meant but that is exactly how it would play out.

Are you really a Captain? Because you sound like you can't read this stuff.



Side note--

I had no idea this is what Prater meant when he said "We're taking it back"

He and his cronies are taking back flying over 60 from the pro-safety crowd. Good for him.

Yes sir, I'm aware that the president doesn't HAVE to sign a contract, even if an overwhelming majority support it And that is dangerous ground. I'm no genius, but my idea of a good contract is good for the pilots and good for the company. I want both to live long and prosper. But do you want a president that doesn't support the majority? It's not collective bargaining if only one person makes a decision. So in that instance I don't believe we would have our voice heard in the form of a recall of the ALPA President, I think we would have a petition for another FPA. And I doubt ALPA would want to loose a Group A income. That's a slightly different situation. But back to our company level.

Retroactivity :in law is the application of a given norm to events that took place or began to produce legal effects, before the law was approved

Retroactive:
• adjective (especially of legislation) taking effect from a date in the past.
— retroaction noun retroactively adverb.

These are not my definitions, these are the legal definitions from a Supreme Court case and the OED. Placing a person back into a seat is retroactive. But that's why I think that should be answered by the majority.

Also George, thanks for not adding the rolleyes and other quips. It makes for a good discussion and that is never a bad thing :)

SO the NPRM, or whatever route this new legislation travels to fruition, could take 12-24 months huh? Wonder how many of those who now support retroactivity("because it's the right thing to do") are 60+ ......or within 12-24 months of reaching 60+. Only a 100% polling of the membership on retroactivity would answer this question.

That's your definition!

What's your point?




You never answered me...How much seniority will you lose when you go to the back seat with your new seniority number? I figure you'll go from around 150 something to 650 something. Close? No wonder you're so intent on gaining retroactivity. You don't want to be junior in the S/O seat.


Again, it has nothing to do with protecting seniority rights in our CBA. They don't exist for over age 60 guys wanting to go back to the left seat.

From our CBA:

Section 26.C. General - Applicable Laws and Government Regulations

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is understood and agreed that the provisions of this Agreement are subject to all applicable laws and governmental regulations now or hereafter in effect and all lawful rulings and orders of all regulatory agencies now or hereafter having jurisdiction.

I've made no secret that I'm AGAINST changing the current age limit, I'm against any sort of retro language "if" (OK, maybe when) the law gets changed, and that the later any change might happen, the better ...

I've wondered for some time why ALPA national's position has changed so quickly in apparent contradiction to what the majority of the ALPA membership says they support.

I've decided that this sudden change in leadership direction (perhaps including DW?) is being orchestrated by the ALPA staff (and consulting) attorneys in order to protect the organization from future legal suits? This way they can honestly say, "We did everything we could to protect the interests the interest of the "old" pilots." If that's the case, I wonder what legal liabilities they might incur my not representing the interest of the majority of the membership?

Maybe ... just maybe, this getting on the train before it leaves the station mantra is the "middle ground" to save their own arses? At least that would made some sense of this latest lunacy.

Regards,


Mark

Don't forget that 52% with the 3% margin of error could be as low as 49% (the number our MEC and it's Chair fixate on) OR it could be as high as 55%. Margins of error are plus or minus firgures creating a range, in this case 55% to 49%.

Our leadership has chosen to look only at the lower end.

Why?

I'm very aware of the language in the Bill. It is muddy enough for each side to make their argument. The fact is that the Senators involved clarified their position with the Administrator appears to bolster the position that the S/Os can return to the front seat. My information is that the company intends to return the S/Os to the front seat if they have been S/Os for less than 24 months. The contract says that they can be restricted if they are within 24 months of the regulated age. That is a 12 month difference between the reported company position and the contract.

I'm curious to how you would like the MEC to handle the situation if they remained opposed to the age 60 change and it happened anyway? How would you as a MEC member handle it if the company said they were returning the S/Os under age 62 to the front seats?