The last I looked I would be #3 727 S/O or #30 DC10 S/O using my S/O seniority number. I'm not sure one would consider either very junior.:D ;)

If this is passed by the Congress the new rule, age 65, becomes effective 30 days later. ALPA national seems to think it will come effective this September or October. It may be sooner since some expect a vote on S.1300 in early June.

Do you really believe that removing ALPA and returning to FPA is a logical response to this issue?? Is this about lack of trust in DW and company, or is this issue of retroactively so important that is worth risking the unforeseen, potentially damaging aspect of going back to an in house union?? Maybe you weren't here, pre contract or pre ALPA two or One. Do you remember FPA and the travisty it became?? Clearly the issues involved in the age 60 debate has created a major fissure in the way it has been dealt with by FDX ALPA. Is it about the leadership or the issue?? If you believe the fact of retroactively (pilots returning from SO to Capt) will really adversely affect your career progression, I think your way off base. There are a lot of negative issues related to increasing the retirement age, impeded seat progression at FedEx is minor relative to the legacy pax carriers. Growth has always been the major driver to upgrades at FedEx, retirements, while increasing (or did until recently) will for the foreseeable future play a smaller part in seat movement than at slower growing (or contracting) pax carriers.
Again regarding the issue of age 60 legislation or FAA action. ALPA has not been at the forefront of this impending change. Thank the Europeans and your fellow pilots (outside of the ALPA structure and within at SWA) for helping bring this issue to our door steps. The solution is political, ALPA has determined that change is going to happen and is trying to mitigate damage to it members while respecting the rights of all members regardless of age.
This is not an issue where seniority triumphs over the less senior. I voted with the majority because I see this as a loss to all pilots. Assuming the change happens, we all will have the opportunity to shorten our retirement by five years. Thats the real loss.

Or, it could fail to be passed, and like an overwhelming majority of the funding bills for 2007 that still haven't been passed, and the FAA funding would go to a continuing resolution while the NPRM process turns its wheels.

Bottom line: You have no idea what will happen, and there are still many different ways this thing can play out. You've already had your hopes dashed twice, I wouldn't put away that 727 FE study guide away yet there big fella.

For me, there are several issues. The first, primarily, is the lack of respect for the wishes of the majority by the union "leadership", both local and national. You say that pilots outside of the ALPA structure have been gunning for this and that is true, but so have pilots within ALPA national despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of ALPA members oppose a change. Plus our entire MEC and LEC "leaders" have just told the membership to pound sand on both issues. If they refuse to represent the will of the majority that is their right but is also ours to demand representation and recall them if we feel they aren't providing it.

Believe it or not, I don't really have a problem with our backseat guys coming back if the law changes and allows for it. I would prefer that the law not change at all. I don't believe we (ALPA National) should have ever backed off our stance that it is a safety issue. If, however, the law changes and it specifically denies FEs the chance to go back up front, then I feel that our MEC and National should support that feature. The FEs would have no basis for seniority in that case. It sucks to be them, just like it sucks to be me because either way I lose if the law changes (as do most of us).

Finally, if you don't think that even one FE going back to the Captain/FOs seat won't slow down advancement for those of us still waiting our turn you are on crack. You can try to minimize it by saying it won't be that many (that is what DW said the other night) but that doesn't change the fact that even one of them will delay a significant number of other folks junior to them.

If the law changes I think ALPA ought to be fighting to have the pilot under 60 be the Captain, and thus allow over 60 guys the RIGHT SEAT ONLY. I don't care what you pay them, but the guy who has to be there to babysit the old guy should be the PIC.

RIGHT SEAT ONLY!

I think the MEC has already set the precident that seniority doesn't apply for training!!!!!!:eek: :mad:

How important do you feel about that little fiasco/opinion now. Our union will really have a tough time explaining how it can support lack or seniority with the "junior varsity", and support seniority with the "varsity" team! Sounds like they have really set themselves up to look bad in this case! Makes me want puke when I here about principles, and "right thing to do". Sounds like our MEC has Situational ethics.

Also, please explain the ethical clarity you feel in supporting retroactivity, our unions stance, whithout supporting it for retirees! It is/will be the same law change!


So accordingly they (maybe you) are SOL!

That's easy. If it becomes a law or regulation...Then the "regulated age" as defined in our CBA would change. And, of course you would have to honor that change. The contract didn't change, the law did.

But, that is much different than actively pursuing the change! Against the will of the majority of your constituents.

The below is some background information on why the MEC feels as it does. I know most of you are very emotional on this issue, and that you may not be willing to accept this information at face value. That is up to you, my intent is to merely provide some background information on how this decision was made and show that there is no secret agenda.

1. ALPA has successfully defended the existing age 60 repeatedly since 1980.

2. Two seismic events have taken place in the last several months which are leading your union’s leadership to decide on a change in our position: (1) the President allowed foreign pilots over 60 to operate in U.S. airspace pursuant to ICAO policy, and (2) the announcement by the FAA of its intention to mirror ICAO policy and allow pilots to fly to 65. These two events essentially nullified ALPA’s position arguably based on safety concerns.

3. Senators Inouye, Salazar, Lieberman, Feingold, and Representative Rangel who have traditionally supported ALPA’s opposition to changing the age 60 rule now support a change. Senate Bill S. 65, which would change the law, now has 25 sponsors, and House Resolution H.R. 1125, which would do the same thing, has over 70 House sponsors. Additionally, senators and House representatives who now support changing the law have come to view it as an age discrimination issue.

4. If ALPA is to minimize the impact of a change to age 60, a change we feel is imminent, we have to be players in the political environment in Washington. We currently are not; Congress and the FAA are telling us they will not discuss the issue with us until we change our position. The potential currently exists for contractual changes to become legislated, not negotiated.

5. We feel changing the venue of this issue to the NPRM process and away from the legislative process will afford the best opportunity for us to minimize downside implications of a change.



With regard to the prospective nature of pilots currently flying past age 60, a read of our contract may be in order. Specifically, under Section 2, the definition of Regulate Age states:



The age at which FARs do not permit a pilot to continue flying as a Captain or First Officer.



When you look at Section 22 you will find under paragraph B. Seniority Accrual and Application:

1. A pilot who has established seniority shall not lose his seniority except that a pilot shall forfeit all employment and seniority rights and his name shall be removed from the Master Seniority List under the following conditions:

a. Retirement.



If the regulated age changes to age 65, this MEC believes that under no circumstances should those pilots currently working past 60 be denied the right on any subsequent bid to exercise their seniority in accordance with their contract . To do otherwise compromises our integrity at its foundation and as such should not be a part of any resolution coming from our union.



This issue has the potential to undermine the unity of our membership ALPA-wide. We did not initiate this change; ICAO and the President’s decision to allow foreign pilots over age 60 to fly in the US did.

ALPA President Captain John Prater will be in Memphis on May 14 and May 15. This is a great opportunity for all pilots in the Memphis area to come out and ask questions. Refreshments will be served during both of these events. Please make plans to attend one of these road shows.

Monday, May 14
10 a.m. - 2 p.m.
MEM Airport
* Conference Room A
* Security Checkpoint A
* Terminal A

Tuesday, May 15
11 a.m. - 2 p.m.
Germantown Centre
1801 Exeter Road
Germantown, TN




When you objectively evaluate these arguments, I trust you will agree that your MEC is doing the right thing. If you do not, please feel free to call your rep.



See you on the line.

..........

Sleepy,

I've heard all that. Some of it verbatim from my rep.

We have many things in our contract that limit people's rights/benefits based on age at a certain date. Our retirement section is filled with things that keep certain age groups from benefiting. Like, the multipliers, the VEBA funds, etc,.

Does having to be age 50 at date of signing, having a seniority number on June 1, 1999 or having to be age 53 on Jan 1, 2007 ring a bell? Those are all age limits that WE negotiated in our own CBA.

So, how is it that if we are opposed to our MEC trying to steer language that benefits a few, and not the majority, we don't understand? If the law changes to include retroactivity...then so be it. The FDX ALAP membership doesn't want it, and our leaders should not be pushing for it as, "the right thing to do". I see no difference in declaring an age for VEBA funds and allowing the FAA/congress to set a proactive date for over age 60 guys.

Minimize How?
 

Sleepy, Could you please elaborate on #5? Minimize downside implications? How and what does Dave plan to do to minimize downside implications?

Sleepy,

We have heard the union's drivel about why the environment has changed. Blah, blah, blah. If you haven't noticed, our government can't agree anything right now, so why do you assume this legislation is a slam dunk?

And what is so wrong about the Age 65 coming through legislative means? Why is a NPRM any better? The only thing I can think of is that it might take longer. A change is a change. And what if Congress allows retired members the right to come back? As you guys say, "we want to what is right."

Maybe if ALPA gets to shape the rule in the NPRM process we can have retroactivity! Great! Our retirement, both A and B fund are protected. We will have to give up some contract improvements next time just to allow for a normal retirement at 60, but what is the NPRM process going to do about that?

I can't see ALPA doing squat to "shape" the process. And, for me, the beef really isn't with ALPA national. I have a problem with FDX ALPA choosing to vote against our wishes. We know we are overwhelmingly against a change to the rule, so DW should vote his membership's desires. I still see the ALPA Executive Board approving a change to their stance (as if it wasn't Prater's wish all along), but that isn't the point.

I hope a recall is started, I will certainly vote to recall DW......

Sorry, I just posted this on another thread.

Foxhunter? Can you please tell us the answer.

I just thought of something...I think the French didn't go along with ICAO on the age 65 thing. And, who says they don't have a backbone? But, does that mean our, soon to be, over age 60 F/O's and Capts will not be allowed to operate from a CDG domicile? Or even into their country?

See:

http://www.jaa.nl/licensing/pilots.html

You took that part about the FPA out context. I AM NOT SAYING I WANT FPA TO RETURN. I think we are far better off with a national force - ALPA than a FDX pilot only force. That was in response to George's question about if OUR MEC and MEMBERSHIP voted 99% for a contract yet Prater said he knew better and wouldn't sign it.
My main goal is to have a MEC that listens to you, me and the other 4800+ pilots they represent. That is a logical response. If our MEC would do that, I would completely shut up. I might disagree with them but if a disagreement is the minority, that's the way it is.

Read my post prior to the one you quoted. True this issue could create a fissure. The real issue is how is it handled and it has touched enough people that is has created this debate.

1. Potential IRS and tax law complications on our retirement plans? Does the IRS take a dimmer view of our retirement plans and the tax benefits that it affords FedEx or does it not care?

2. Medicals for those over age 60 or possibly even earlier. Many foreign carriers impose executive-style physicals on their pilots to ensure that their cognitive and physical issues are fully up to snuff. Biking during an EKG, mental testing, etc.

3. Insurance rates are certainly a concern. If you have looked at a chart on insurance rates, you can see that they increase rather steeply as you reach an age closer to 60. At what point does insurance become cost-prohibitive.

These are just a few concerns of ours that we feel that Congress does not have a full grip on and/or doesn't care about, as long as they get their goal of changing the age in order to "protect" their older constituents.

The MEC feels that without having a say in these issues, that these concerns won't be adequately addressed. So the plan is to trust the legislative affairs guys who tell them/us that, if we want to have any input in these issues, that our policy has to change first. They (Congress) are only taking the input of those that are for the change at this point. That is what we are being told.

Hope that answered your question.

Answer added down a few posts.

Should this even be a concern if the age change is soley based on age discrimination and not safety?

Sleepy...appreciate your feedback and standing by your decision. Since ALPA has for years been opposed to the Age 60 increase for "safety reasons", how can they oppose more stringent physical testing for those over 65 if this legislation comes to be allowing Age 65 becoming the standard? That makes no sense at all. Also; how and why can ALPA FDX justify not only going against what would probably be an overwhelming majority of their own pilots but ALPA National as well?
It is not practical to cite previous agreements that use the possibly soon outdated age of 60 to justify retroactivity. Age 60 was the Law of the Land when pilots understood it was their time to either retire or go to the back seat; with no expectation of possibly moving back to the front seat. As such our bylaws reflected the lack of difference between Age 60, seniority and moving to the back seat. They moved to the back seat, lost their "front seat seniority" and began using an FE seniority number. It is disingenuine for FDX ALPA to fight this fight for those in the back seat who are over 60 and not for those who retired upon reaching 60 who now may want to come back to the front seat.
The only way to get the membership to not feel completely left out of this process is to put the whole retroactivity question to a polling of the entire membership. If that doesn't happen, our union leaders will have permanently lost not just the support of a large numbers of their members but; many careers will be damaged without pilots having been given the opportunity to address the issue which caused the damage.
The generated sense of panic that ALPA may have lost control of this issue is not valid. The NPRM vs Congressional Law process has always and always will take longer than ALPA FDX is perpetuating right now. What makes them think this one issue will move to the front of the line that includes funding the war in Iraq et al that continues to drag on?
Retroactivity should be put to a vote..period.

"how can they oppose more stringent physical testing for those over 65"

what a had meant to say wuz .....60.

So far, anytime our MEC has an input on an issue the only winners are the very senior guys. VEBA and the support for retroactivity are two examples. On the other hand, when our junior guys asked for help on passover pay they were sold out.

A lot of our training guys were upset with being "sold out" in the last contract too. Again--I supported the MEC, but do you think any of those guys feel DW is supporting them?

If the answer is "if you don't like it--go fly the line", then I think the same principle applies to the MEC leadership.

Explain to us again slowly why supporting our current MEC's vision is a good thing for anyone on the bottom half of the seniority list or who isn't a wide-body captain already.


Specifically...

WHAT does DW want for physicals? More or less stringent? Don't tell me--let me guess....

WHAT does DW want to do to protect pensions? I have a vision of a sliding scale...ie....protect those guys NOW but in the future the tax man will have a bigger hit on those pensions. Guess who that cuts? Again--the same guys.

Sleepy--the junior guys have lost faith that DW cares about anyone but the very top crowd. "No free passes, nobody left behind" is a good mantra, but right now folks aren't seeing it.

I'll be at a surgeon when Prater and the show are in town, so I'll have to get some of the message second hand. I'll reserve judgement until some more info rolls in. However--if its more of the same--I wouldn't be surprised to see a recall effort begin next week. I'm not sure DW returning to the line and putting someone else in there with a clean slate wouldn't be a good thing for everyone. He's been a solid soldier. He's done great work. But you cannot tell me he's our only Savior on the hill right now, and we could find someone willing to do the job that might appear to be a little more interested in protecting everyone's best interests.

So is that where the VEBA will remain in place under a different name so insurance can be paid for?

Why does insurance go up near 60 if there is no safety issue?

The view is that the legislation certainly isn't a slamdunk, but it is pretty damn close. Senate seems to be the strongest part of the legislature on this subject, the House is a little bit weaker. I'd have to get the latest update from Legislative Affairs on exactly where the bills sit in the House and Senate currently, but as of last update, the Senate Commerce Committee had approved S.65 and incorporated it into the FAA Reathorization Act. It still has to be approved by the Senate as a whole, sometime in June/July timeframe it seems. The House has yet to vote on the Age 65 bill inside it's own committee, but the feeling is that they will do this sometime late May/June timeframe and will incorporate it into the FAA Reauthorization Act as well. From there, it goes to the full House for a vote when there is an opening. After that, if both parts of Congress approve it (which the feeling is that it will happen), then we are looking at a Conference Committee between the two branches to work out the differences. Then the bill goes to the President to sign and 30 days later it becomes effective.

Now as I said, there is never anything that is slam dunk, but this seems to be a fairly accurate view from our biggest backers on Capitol Hill. If you doubt the veracity of it, please try to get it firsthand from our legislative affairs guys.

We feel that it is very important that the FAA be the one to implement this change. The FAA is the place where the aviation experts reside, not in any of the thousands of offices on Capitol Hill that are manned by Congressmen and their staffers. It would be like having Major League Baseball investigate an aircraft accident vice the NTSB. MLB may have some players that are pilots, and may know some pilots, and they may have some lawyers who took a course in Aviation Law in college, but they aren't the experts on accidents. Whether the FAA always makes the best decisions vice ones that have political ramifications, you can debate. But, they are the aviation experts.

Whether or not the FAA or Congress changes their language from being prospective is unknown, but the overwhelming sense is that they won't change their minds on this. The FAA doesn't want it, Congress doesn't seem to want it, and the ATA doesn't seem to want it. They don't want to risk the possible liabilities of bringing back pilots to companies years after they have retired. As a whole, ALPA seems to be against making it retroactive, but they lack members on the other properties that are over 60. Age Discrimination charges have already been filed with EEOC units. FDX ALPA is the representative for all members of the class and craft at FDX, and even though those affected by passover pay issues feel otherwise, we do defend seniority as a cornerstone.

Your last concern about not being represented is a valid one. I would ask you though, do you feel that a leadership group should follow their memberships' majority if they feel it is wrong? Do we elect leaders to blindly follow us over a perceived cliff or do we elect them to make the hard, sometimes unpopular, decisions?

I don't debate the perceived ignorance of safety in ICAO's rule about one pilot having to be less than 60 if the other one is older than 60. I don't see how they justify this. But Congress sees this as an age discrimination issue in the US now that foreign pilots are allowed to exercise some ability that US citizens aren't. There have been age discrimination charges already filed with EEOC units over this.

When that leadership is elected by the majority it should represent the majority.

If there is a disagreement in views, it is that leaderships' absolute responsiblity to educate their constituents.

Those are issues, not a plan.
 

No, it didn't. Dave is telling us to roll over on age 60 for the POSSIBILITY of mitigating damage. And he is doing it against the will of the majority.

Issue 1. IRS: I doubt the IRS is going to do 5 years of damage to my career. If they do damage it, we'll go to the negotiating table and fix it. Hasn't that been the union line until last week.

Issue 2. Medical Standards: I care about my health more than flying. If I'm sick, I want to know. So worthless physicals have little value to me.

Issue 3. Insurance Rates. As far as I know, neither the FAA nor congress sets these.

We need a brief on the battle plan. We don't need a president blindsiding us with a flip-flop in the middle of a fight. We need a plan and we need to vote on it.

The medical issue boils down to this I believe. Just as in grievances and punishment by management, we want medical testing to be based upon reasonable and valid thought. We definitely don't want such stringent medicals that become too invasive or are too far-reaching in their scope. One of the main concerns is not so much the testing for those over 60, as it is that we are concerned that if these "executive" level physicals are instituted, that they will be in effect for those under 60 as well. So, while we may have pilots that are under 60 that pass the current physical just fine, we worry that if the more indepth physicals were to be made the norm, many more of our members would lose their medicals either for physical or mental/cognitive reasons. So one day, they're perfectly safe, the next day they're not. Clear as mud??

The issue of leadership is a contentious one, I agree. I personally feel that the age should remain in place. But, I also have heard all of the input as to why/how/when it is going to change. Leaders are elected to lead by the membership, not to follow necessarily. While it always nice if the leaders are following happily along in the wake of a trail blazed by the membership, there are times where leaders have to make hard, unpopular, decisions. They only do this if they have the input that some other way is the best way by far. If this issue was still relatively undecided in Congress, there would not even be a discussion on this because we would still be fighting it tooth and nail. But the issue seems to be all but decided in Congress, with only the timeframe when it becomes enacted up in the air. We have been the little kid on Capitol Hill, screaming for, demanding that our way be the way. But Congress has decided otherwise it seems and they have told us to keep holding our breath all we want, that until we decide to breath and relax, that they want nothing to do with us and aren't going to listen to our issues. So that is why our MEC has chosen the position that they have.

As I posted earlier, the only time that you give up your seniority number as a member is when you elect to retire (or are fired, but that isn't your choice). The over 60 S/Os still have seniority numbers, not just FE seniority numbers. There are a few with FE seniority numbers but that relates to the Seaboard/Tigers merger I believe. Bottom line is that if the age changes, and if prospectivity isn't the decision, then those S/Os seniority number is just as valid as yours and mine. How they choose to exercise it is up to them. Any other way, and we have moved from a seniority based system to one where a new hire can be given superseniority over you, me, foxhunter, anyone. I know that no one wants that kind of system. And just so this is clear. There is no push to allow these over 60 S/Os to exercise their seniority outside of a standing bid situation. So until there is a bid, after and when and if the law changes, then they will keep exercising thier seniority rights in their current seat.

So unless people want a system not based upon seniority, one that supports age discrimination, one that violates our Duty of Fair Representation responsibilities under the RLA, then keep on trucking.

The panic from our Legislative Affairs guys seems real. If you don't think that they are accurate, then I suggest that you offer your services as one of our legislative affairs members. We have committees that cover certain areas of our lives because we need experts in those areas. We trust those members and their opinions unless we have been given past information that shows them to be untrustworty. Unless you are willing to suggest that our Legislative Affairs members are untrustworthy, then we have to believe them and accept their input in their area of expertise.

Last sentence, finally. You and everyone on here doesn't have to agree with the MEC or myself, and you can be emotional on this issue as much as you want to be, that is your right as a member. But how would you address the issue of a vote on Retroactivity? How would you propose the question be phrased to our membership? By ignoring legal liabilities and seniority rights responsibilities of the class and craft? Or by protecting all of your fellow members, and following discrimination laws?

VEBA is for those pilots that are older then 65. The HRA is 60-65.

I'm not an accountant/actuary/insurance expert, I was just stating a concern. How it is handled is not my bailywick. I'm sorry that I don't have an answer on this subject that is better.

They are working and trying to educate. It's why there has been a couple of letters come out this week and why I spend so much time on this board and talking to some of you on the phone. We are trying, I will assure you of that.

Someone asked for issues and I gave them. The Blue Ribbon Panel is working on the issues and some plans, and that should be out shortly.

So, I should file a lawsuit against ALPA because I missed the age 53 VEBA fund payout by 16 months? Dates with discriminatory age limits are all over our contract.

Besides, I thought the whole idea of congress enacting legislation, including proactivity, was supposed to protect ALPA, ATA and everyone else from lawsuits concerning retroactivity.

Happy Mother's Day!

Player's Championship is on. I may have an easier time trying to talk some reasonableness into my wife. I think we should sit, watch it and drink beer. She thinks...WHO CARES!!!

Sleepy,

DW is just the FDX MEC chairman, not the president of the United States. His "tough decisions" aren't about national defense. We don't want our MEC chairman blatantly going against our wishes. He isn't that smart and we aren't that dumb, so give me a break on the "he knows better" routine. Again, why does the change to age 65 need to come from aviation experts? It really is pretty simple if you ask me.... If Congress wants to change the rule, so what? Do we need an expert to change this rule? Sorry, I can't follow the logic again...

I hope for a recall. I know he won't get booted from office, but at least that would give him a little wake up call.

Sleepy,

First of all, thanks for volunteering for a sometimes thankless job.

It takes guts to take a stand on a position and then to defend that position. I'm not sure I agree with your position on this but I do appreciate that you have the guts to stick your head into this beehive and duke it out with us.

Regards,


Mark

Very well said Mark....

I did not elect my leaders to stick it in my rear after the FAA punched me in the nose!!! And I definitely think fighting for retroactivity is going to be very divisive not just unpopular...

So, we have no plans now. That's what I thought.

Ditto
 

Well said.

How do you intend to get around the ADEA?

It is unlawful for a labor organization to discriminate against any individual because of his age; to limit, segregate, or classify its membership, or to classify or fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual, in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or would limit such employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee because of such individual's age; or cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an individual.

I'm not buying it. We can oppose the change yet still have input on most of the details. With one exception.

I believe the pro-retroactive leaders need ALPA national to reverse policy to push for retroactive vs. prospective rights.