More years of Captain's pay? How so?

If you mean more will medical out and make it so, what if you are the one to medical out? Then its 5 more years of FO pay and less Captains pay.

A lot of us, when given the opportunity to stay 5 more years, will not stay the entire 5 years. That would lesson the delay to captain for those following.... it would probably be more like a 2 or 3 year push... If that following person chose to stay until 65, it would give some additional years as captain.

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is a whopper! Most won't stay all 5 years. Right. The day after the change you dumbazzes will be petitioning Congress to fly to 70.

FJ

Hey Roberto ... NEWS FLASH! Some of us don't want 5 MORE years. I planned to retire at 60 and guys like you threaten that opportunity. I've saved, invested and looked forward to many years in retirement. Those guys that are on their 3rd wives, made poor investments and bought Corvettes and vacation houses shouldn't be MY problem.

Regards,


Mark

That says the same thing that the FAA says about US airlines today. If you work for a non French airline you can fly into and out of France up to the age of 65. Now if FedEx forms a seperate French cargo airline, operatining under JAA rules, the French will not permit Captains over the age of 60. Since we are not a French company, operating under French rules it is not an issue.

There has been some pressure from French pilots to raise their age limit to 65 but that really goes against their culture that believes everyone should retire on a government guaranteed pension at age 50-55.:)

The beauty of the opportunity to go to 65 is that we all get to choose. You can retire whenever you want. It is your choice.

What kinda Crack you smokin.... That will become the new mandatory retirement age and ... walla.. We can retire before that----> With a penalty!!! :mad:

What a great choice!!! WTFO

Sleepy,
I have to say yes, I do expect you to vote the desires of the membership even if they conflict with your own beliefs. Our LEC and MEC members are elected as REPRESENTATIVES first, and are therefore expected to REPRESENT the membership. You have the right and responsibility to educate and lobby the membership regarding your opinions, but, in the end, you are morally obligated to represent your constituents desires on the ballot.


Just my views of how a representative democracy should work,

Z

That depends on how the retirement plan is written. At Flying Tigers early retirement at age 50 was pemitted with no penalty if you had completed 25 years service.:cool:

And you think our OH SO generous company is just going to let us retire at 60 without trying to impose a penalty for going "early" (prior to the new regulated age of 65)--you are dragging on your crack pipe!!!

They may--but it WILL cost us SERIOUS negotiating horsepower...READ MORE DOLLARS AND CENTS OUT OF ALL OF OUR POCKETS!

With airline economics/politics what they are now, those days are gone.. Those were the good deals of the past.. I don't see that in the future.. Sorry but like an A plan.. I see it getting changed down the road.. :(

By working to make sure that the language of the final reg, rule, law, or whatever form the 60 to 65 statue takes --- that the language includes a provision that those who attained the age of 60 PRIOR to the implementation date are not covered by the rule and cannot go back to the front seats in Part 121 aircraft.
There has to be a cutoff date. This is a compromise that increases the age limit and attempts to provide a small reduction in the economic hit that the airline companies and the people younger than 60 will have to absorb--not to mention the disruption of training schedules and the hit in the training costs to companies. All for guys who have at most 4 years to give back for the training.

Bottom line: to get around the law, the language MUST be in the new law. If it is not, then people will have at least a basis for a claim against the company.

Many if not most of us, looked forward to retiring at 60 (Maximum) --- For instance I was working to try to be done by 55. This issue puts all that in jeopardy. Worst case would be for those of us who wanted to be done by 55 now may be REQUIRED to stay 10 YEARS to 65 (depending on what shakes out of this with respect to retirements, pensions etc). In the best case, I seriously doubt if ANY option exists to retire at 55 in the future. So it's not necessarily a win for all.

But you are correct in stating that it can be an overall increase in lifetime pay -- you don't have mandatory retirement and can stay an additional 5 years. For those that want it, especially those who have already been a captain with a few numbers junior to them at their respective company, it can be a good windfall.

It appears to me that some of the LEC chairman are representing DW and not the LEC.

No, except for the pilots in their 40s and 50s who will have trouble with anything more involved than a Doc Bock quickie.

Of course, that will just advance all those young, downtrodden folks even faster.

You want to know the REAL reason DW is so hardover on the FE's coming back to the front seats?

Here is my guess. Assuming the law is written so as to prevent guys who have retired (guys who missed the cutoff date by one day) from having a claim to seniority rights at their former carrier, those guys are SOL. They will be suing everybody and their sister but the law will be what it is and the companies, the union and the government will be protected from lawsuits.

Now imagine that DW and FedEx ALPA are able to convince the lawmakers that since our FEs haven't retired, they are still on the seniority list and as such have the right to return to a front seat as their seniority allows on subsequent bids. So two guys who turned 60 the day before the rule changed, but just happen to work at different carriers (one FedEx and the other United say) have completely different outcomes under this legislation. One gets to go back to his front seat on the next bid and the other, because he didn't get the chance to fly in the back seat for one day, doesn't have any chance at getting back on his seniority list and returning to his seat.

Now imagine the lawsuits that will spring forth after that happens. And THAT, my friends and neighbors, would suit ALPA and DW just fine because they happen to agree with the age change from the beginning anyway. They see this as being an avenue to get all the guys who had to retire from carriers without a back seat back into the game at their former carriers. It would be a huge can of worms and it is precisely why the administrator and everybody else drafting the potential legislation has put in the provision preventing retroactivity.

Again, our MEC and ALPA National are simply trying to find a way to circumvent both the will of the majority of their membership and the folks who are trying to change the law in a manner that doesn't suit ALPA National.

Be very afraid folks, because they will stop at nothing (hence the need for the recall) to pursue their personal agenda.

Sleepy18: Your attempts at explanations are so weak as to barely deserve a response. They are simply excuses why you and the rest of the LEC/MEC have to go.

ALPA got outflanked and allowed its stance against Age 60 changing by a very small minority of older airline pilots. Just how effective are we to judge ALPA PAC is if it can't even outgun a bunch of retirees? I know the answer, ALPA PAC wasn't even trying to, because Capt Prater and all the other old guys at ALPA National and most MECs it appears, were actually trying to backdoor the legislation all along. Thanks for that, kiss any hope of every receiving any PAC money from this pilot goodbye.

2.Nice job of politics and blaming the impending change on President Bush. Yeah, he is the guy to blame for the US caving to ICAO idiocy. That is really rich.

3. We lost some support on the hill. Too fng bad. You still have to fight for what is right and what the majority wants. You guys just decided it is time to quit so you can continue to line your pockets with the future earnings potential of those of us unfortunate enough to not have had our chance to upgrade yet.

4. The legislation, if passed, will have nothing negotiated about it. All the details will be done after the fact and between the various MECs and the companies at contract time. You say we can only have a voice if we cave on our principles, and then you say that we must stick to our principles on as issue we can't even win (retroactivity) because all of a sudden we are worried about doing the right thing. You can't have it both ways.

What makes you think you will have any say in the legislation if you fight against the principal feature of the change (retroactivity) but not if we fight against the change itself? That makes absolutely no sense and destroys any credibility you might have had with the membership.

5. Probably true, but with the representation (er, lack there of) that you are providing for the membership I would rather take my chances with the FAA reauthorization bill. If you guys get involved with the NPRM you will only continue to cut my legs out from under me. No thanks.

You my little friend are a moron. If you knew DW first hand at all you would know how against 65 he has always been, but you've spoken so what you say must be true. Keep stirring the pot and we'll be stepping back into the stone age before you know it. :eek:

He (DW) sure has a funny way of showing it; as for stirring the pot...no one person(s) are indispensible.

NorthWest vote
 

Funny thing, was talking to a friend at NWA who said they voted to change their stance as well. They had only one MEC member vote against changing the policy! (labeled a renagade for voting the way the membership wanted)

If this is true it would seem ALPA National has already set the agenda, despite what the membership may want!

Would like a NW guy on here to confirm this.

I agree completely.

I think yes they should vote how the majority wants and if they can not due to personal convictions they should resign. They were elected to office to represent the majority of FedEx pilots, not the minority or ALPA national or their view. I have called my reps and heard the same story line. One question why no vote or education/information blitz before our elected MEC handed down their decision? Could it be because they knew what the majority of us would think and they might not get reelected? We should vote on these 2 issues and whatever the majority wants I will support, regardless of how it effects me personally, I thought that is how a respectable above board Union was run!!!:eek:

Are you a FDX pilot?
 

So , let's raise it to 100 so we can get 40 more years at captain's pay. I don't like to insult anyone. But geez, that's borderline insane. I'm glad your just worried about money, but I would like a nice long comfortable retirement. No, everyone will not get 5 more years of pay. More of of us will die before we get to 65 or 75 or 80 or whatever you want to set the limit at. How's that for a downer?

Or perhaps, based on the info they got from their legislative affairs people, they did the smart thing, despite what their members wanted. Are they leaders or mouthpieces?

Just as an aside, it seems that a lot of the trouble in this country over the last couple decades has been brought on through leadership by opinion poll, instead of by smart, informed, ethical decsion making. Hmmm. A parallel perhaps? Nawww, couldn't be.
:rolleyes:

Since I don't know DW as well as you obviously do, all I can base my opinion on is what I have seen and heard from him. By observing his actions and listening to his words lately I can come to no other conclusion that he is personally in favor of the age change and for getting the guys who have hung onto the panel back into a window seat.

What other conclusion could you make based on his words and actions over the past few weeks? He's going to go against the majority and his personal convictions because its the right thing to do? Huh? I don't think so. Evidently he is trying to keep favor with you and the rest of his inner circle.

Stone age, really? Can't wait to see that. If you think there is anything left of the FDX ALPA unity you are definitely smoking crack. Something about with friends like these (FedEx MEC) who needs enemies.

By the way, who bit you?

Called my LEC rep and asked about why no education - I got the standard talking points that Sleepy already posted in return and he went on about how the MEC received initial indication that they should change their stance from the lobbyists Apr 2. So what happened in the month before DW's email in early May? Certainly no educating.

As far as workind 5 more years - maybe I'm not reading this right but the way I see it there will be a certain amount of FOs that upgrade 5 years late (based on the CAs that stay for 5 more years). Under the current law and CBA, those FOs would have retired at age 60 and brought home the full pension (let's just assume for argument's sake it's there in its entirety). Now under this new law those FOs will stay senior FOs for 5 more years and become a CA for the same EXACT amount of years under the post 60 era. They will then (most likely as the CBA will most likely change to reflect full retirement at age 65) basically trade 5 years of full pension for 5 years of senior FO wages - let's see that comes to working 5 years for about $20k/yr - good deal. Yes I know they'll get increases in the B fund (if it's still there following legislation - another big question). Am I reading this wrong?

Leader or Pollster?
 

Leader or Pollster?


What should your MEC Chairman be?


The passion and emotion on the topic of Age 60 runs high, so it's no surprise that such should be the tenor of this thread. Given the high stakes, I'm impressed that this lenghty thread hasn't become a downright mud-slinging, name-calling, slugfest. If you want to make a comment on unity, consider how divisive this could be, and observe how we're still on speaking terms with each other. All in all, I think the participants could be commended.


Let's be honest -- we all want what's best for us. To be more specific, I want what's best for me, and you want what's best for you. We're all selfish. If we want someone to look out for Number One, it has to be ourselves. Anybody that claims to own an opinion that places the welfare of some other person or group of people above the interest of their own wallet, their own future, their own happiness, is a candidate for a psychological evaluation. Nobody gets a trump card because they're not being selfish. In that regard, each and every opinion rests on equal moral grounds. Senior, junior, young, old -- it doesn't matter. We all count.


Two issues boil to the top here. First, if the change to the regulated age is immenent (and I believe it is), should ALPA change it's policy to support the change in order to gain a voice in how the regulation is implemented?

Second, if the change occurs, should currently-employed pilots be allowed to exercise the rights of seniority to bid on vacancies?


As MEC Chairman, Captain Webb must decide which stance on the above questions would best promote the interests of ALL the pilots he represents. Clearly, the decisions are not easy ones. I heard Captain Webb speak at the April 18 Joint Council meeting, where he stated that he felt the ALPA policy needed to change, but he did not support the strategy of having the Executive Board (of which he is a member) vote to change the policy. He favored the Board of Directors (of which our LEC (Block) Reps are members) changing the policy, as they are more directly linked to the membership. That was then. Things are happening quickly, and there may not be time to wait for the Board of Directors to act.


Why did he favor changing ALPA policy? Because he feels the change is inevitable, and because it's more important to participate in the process than to to be left lying on the ground, bleeding to death by the sword with which we pierced ourselves.

Is that the right thing? Debatable.

Is that the popular thing? That's also debatable, but there is data to support a majority in favor of that course of action. While opposition to the rule change is strong, there is data that indicates we want to participate in the process if the rule changes.


But the question I want to raise is this: Do we want an MEC Chairman that leads, or one that follows polls?

How many of you voted on who would be hired as office staff in the MEC Offices? How many of you were polled to offer your opinion on what office space should be leased? Who was asked their opinion about the best place to open an SPC office? Did they ask you how many computers should be installed, or what flight tracking software should be used? After all, this is a democratic organization, right? Shouldn't we all have a voice in these matters?

As ridiculous as that sounds, some of you seem to think that's the way it works, or the way it ought to work. There's a difference between a pure democracy where each step, each breath, each motion is ruled by a popular vote, and a representative democracy where matters are considered by representatives. The former process would be extremely expensive, and incredibly crippling. I'm sorry Mr. Office Machine Representative, I can't make a decision about which office copier package to purchase or lease from you until I consult the entire membership and conduct a vote. Do you have 4500 copies of your proposal so I can mail them to everyone?

I think we elect representatives that share our mindsets and values, and ask them to take the time to study the issues and make informed decisions that will best support our goals and aspirations. Many times, they involve decisions on matters that I know nothing about, and care little about, but that directly affect my lifestyle and career expectations. Given the breadth and depth of misinformation I've seen posted in this thread alone, I'm grateful that we don't put everything to a popular vote, where even the most ignorant voice counts. Wally recalled? Stickers on Dave's bag? Even the quotes posted from the ALPA Constitution concerning recall come from the wrong part of the document. Our MEC Chairman is elected by the MEC, and he can be recalled by the MEC. (And the MEC Chairman wouldn't have a vote, so the post that correctly identified that process fouled up the math on voting members.) It's for our own good that we have representatives that are dedicated to becoming informed and making sound decisions based on the values that we share and the information they have taken the time to collect and study.

An MEC Chairman that based his actions solely on the popular vote of the constituents would be nothing more than a pollster. Anybody could do that, and he wouldn't deserve the salary he's paid. It would be in our best interest to apppoint the most junior pilot in the company to fill that position, because it would require no expertise, no judgment, no loyalty, no knowledge, and certainly no leadership. (He could even come from your block, Albie. ;))

I think we need an MEC Chairman that is a leader. Certainly he should be sensitive to the opinions of the members, but he should be more concerned about their needs and their best interests. Just like my kids aren't always thrilled when I make decisions that aren't popular with them, they come to recognize they were decisions that had their best interests in mind. A father who let his toddler play in the middle of a freeway because she "wanted to" would not be considered a good and loving father.

Leadership means sometimes doing what is not popular, but doing what is right. Even on this contentious issue of Age 60, I think we can all make the intellectual journey to agree that if it's in our best interest, we need to do it, regardless of how little we like it.


When we take that principle a step further, the bitter pill becomes almost nauseating. What about the pilots that have reached age 60, but have not retired? To read Administrator Blakey's material, one would think it's not possible to reach age 60 and still be employed. She uses "retirement Age" when she should be using "Regulated Age" because she doesn't appreciate the difference. Or does she? What about the language in the proposed bills? What does it mean? Does anybody involved in the rule-making even understand the difference? Does it make a difference?

Well, we know the difference, but nobody will listen to us at the moment, because we are so deeply entrenched in our position of opposing any change. We're the experts, but we're locked out.

If the rule change permits our over-60 Second Officers to exercise their seniority rights on any subsequent vacancy postings, it would be a windfall for a few, and a bitter pill for many. Even as one that would be swallowing the bitter pill, I have to admit it's the right thing to do. Seniority rights is a cornerstone of our very existance in this profession, and it's a principle that was fought for at no small expense. To abandon a couple hundred or so folks at our airline (I don't know how many at others) on this issue would be abandoning a principle that we all value dearly. So, on the issue of retroactivity, I ask the same questions:

Is that the right thing? Debatable.

Is that the popular thing? Clearly not.

My opinion is that it is the right thing to do, and I commend Capt Webb for taking the right position, even when it is so unpopular.




I fly with a lot of Over-60 Second Officers, and I've given the issue a great deal of thought. Even though I haven't posted much lately, I've been reading along and trying to hear the different points of view. I might have missed an important aspect of the debate, but I don't think so. I've tried to consider what the worst case scenario could be for me, and every other pilot that hasn't reached Age 60 yet. Here's what I've come up with.

First, make some assumptions. None are true, but using them will simplify the scenario. After considering the scenario, a discussion of how the exceptions to the assumptions will affect the overall picture can give a more accurate picture. I think the assumptions all favor the worst-case scenario, so each exception will only make the picture more favorable.

1) Age 60 Rule changes tonight -- the rule becomes effective tomorrow morning that the "Regulated Age" is 65.

2) Everyone currently on the seniority list will work until they reach Age 65. Nobody will retire early. Nobody will die early. Nobody will leave on medical disability,

3) Every Over-60 Second Officer will bid to the left seat of a widebody at the first vacancy posting, and will keep that seat until they reach Age 65.

4) Zero-growth at FedEx. No new airplanes. No hull losses. The few remaining DC-10s will still be converted to MD-10s.

Under the above conditions, the music will stop (in the proverbial game of musical chairs) for 5 years for everyone under 60 now. Nobody will move up until the guys start reaching 65. For those under 15 years of service, pay raises will continue annually until reaching the top tier in their current seat, and then pay raises will halt.

Five years -- that's the worst it can get, and that's if everybody works until 65.

So, what if some of the over-60's decide to retire before they reach 65, or if they become medically disabled, or maybe they die? At some point, FedEx would need to have a Post a Vacancy, and everyone, over-60 Second Officers included, would get to bid on the vacancies. For the junior folks, there would still be no movement. How long the existence of over-60 Second Officers would stall the movement of junior pilots would depend on how often vacancies occur, and how many over-60 Second Officers are still under 65. (Many are over 65 now.)

So, what if some people decide to retire before 65? My impression is that most of us don't want to work past 60. For every pilot that decides to retire before 65, the Five Year stagnation gets shorter.

What if the Over-60 Second Officers don't bid on the wide-body left seats? If they don't they don't contribute to the stagnation. Most that I fly with have no desire to go back to the left seat -- they're only there to work on their A-Plan multiplier.

There are other assumptions that could be discussed, but the important one for the retroactivity issue is the one that deals with Over-60 Second Officers bidding back to the front seat. They cannot make the "stagnation" any longer than five years, no matter how you slice it. Using the same assumptions at an airline that has no second officers, the stagnation is five years. Plowbacks can't make it any worse.

In one manner of speaking, the issue only affects a small number of Over-60 Second Officers. In another manner of speaking, it affects every one of us, and every pilot that follows us, as seniority is a cornerstone of our profession. The downside just doesn't justify abandoning such an important principle.


Like I said, it's a bitter pill to swallow, and the smug look on FoxHunter's face as he reads this doesn't warm my insides. As much as it pains me to please him, I believe in his seniority rights. That's not how I would have voted in a poll a month ago, but I'm glad that Dave Webb showed the leadership to do the right thing.




.

Well, you base your assumption on everyone working till 65. Unless the company changes it's corporate retirement age to 65 (it's currently 60, just like ours) and manages to get FDX ALPA to change it to 65 in the next CBA, I don't think that's the case. We already have guys retiring early, taking a penalty. Unless the CBA changes, I still see guys retiring in their late 50s. I'm considering staying over 60, but only to get the 3 1/2 years I need for a full retirement, so I'll be out of here at 63 1/2, so you FOs can only blame me for that much extra seat time. Of course, that assumes this old senile pilot can still get a Class 1, or I'll have to spend my last years in an FO seat.

BTW - Tony, excellent post!

Tony,

So....Why do we need to have membership ratification for our contracts, then? In the old days, the MEC would ratify it for us. That didn't work too well. There are certain subjects that need to have membership input. And, I think many here at FDX think this is one of those areas.

I understand what you're saying about the difference between leaders and poll followers. But, in a subject of this importance. I think more credence should be put on the member's wishes. Why did they poll us in the 1st place? If they weren't going to care? That's a waste of my dues dollars!

Tony,

A good post, yet I disagree with much of it.

1. The masses don't want to deal with the office staff or copier machines. You don't hear us bitching about that, do you? These are small potatoes. However, the change to Age 60 may be one of the most important events of our careers. I don't make that comment lightly, but it effects our ability to bid up to captain, bid a better line, have a better commute, etc. On this important issue, where the "overwhelmingly majority" have been polled and have stated their position, our MEC decides that they know better and will go against our wishes. Again, we aren't talking about copiers or the office staff's choice in coffee. Why do we vote on a TA? It is because it is vitally important to our welfare.

2. Is a change imminent? I am not convinced that anything in our dysfunctional political system is imminent or a slam dunk. And, does it really matter if Congress decides this matter for us? I have read the proposed legislation, why do you think it would be better to go through a NPRM process? The only advantage I see is a slower process, and is "that doing the right thing?"

3. Strong leadership. Tony, let's be for real, we are talking about FDX ALPA, not the CENTCOM commander. We want our representatives to back our position, particularly on such large issues. If we were polled and 51% was pro-change, most of us would shut up and color. And, if it wasn't such a big issue, why did they poll us anyway? Did they need a 100% to decide what the membership wanted?

4. It has been obvious for quite some time that ALPA has wanted to change it's stance on the issue. Did you take the ALPA survey? Did you, maybe even just a little, think that the questions were geared to a change? I know I did...

5. Retroactivity. You know, I can honestly say that if the legislation (or NPRM) gave these guys the right to come back (and I seriously doubt it), I wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't know that I want ALPA shaping the process, because they might actually fight to get this language added. Put it this way, I don't support ALPA going out of their way to give these guys the right to come back. If Congress or the FAA say they can come back, so be it. Bottom line is that I really think retroactivity will be a nonissue. I think if you are 60 at the date of enactment then you are done.

6. What do I want? I want the union to vote their membership's position. Will it matter? I doubt it, I see this is an easy pass through the Executive Board anyhow. This is principle....

Tony,

As usual--a thoughtful and articulate argument. Just a couple thoughts...


Why is DW's position some how more noble and right that the leader of IPA, who chose to say "we remain officially neutral"?

What some see as nobility others see as an indifferent steamroller.

Personally--I'd like to see YOU get involved. Bad news from you is usually at least covered with thoughtful discussion, some wit, and a sense of perspective. That beats the "because we say so..." the firm keeps spewing on any correspondence they send out.

Second--your math is wrong. Bringing back over 60 SOs doesn't roll the train forward 5 years, its probably more like 6. With retro, pilots who would otherwise have moved on to retirement will bid and hold captain, which adds a few more (TBD how many) pilots to the mix. There will be some pilots who cannot hold captain at implentation + 5 years because the guys in front of them will JUST be getting those spots.

Again--big picture--the disenfranchised won't quit FedEx. Most won't quit ALPA. They'll accept the modified career expectations like folks have done after fuloughs, mergers, or other airline setbacks. But going against the wishes of the majority of on the subject of retro doesn't smell to many like fairness, but rather like the protection of a senior elite. By ignoring the majority the leadership has squandered the next 10-15 years of goodwill and alienated 2000+ pilots in some vain attempt to placate a few hundred folks--many of whom could retire immediately with something close to full benefits. ( I know there are some cases where that is NOT the case too) That's a Phyrric victory for the leadership. The unilateral movement of scope penalites to fund VEBA, the apparent lack of a fight against age 60, the apparent lack of a fight for passover pay for some MD-11 FOs, and now the move to proactively pursue a policy of retroactive age 60 implementation all have painted a picture of an MEC concerned only with matters which protect the most senior. The erosion of trust caused by the "perception" coupled with the lack of any real aggressive communication from anyone (except Sleepy...God Bless him...) has the potential to weaken the credibility and future support of our MEC. I dont' expect DW to call me and ask if the printers in the office need new ink or not. On the other hand, we've got over 4800 pilots with college degrees and some solid life experiences. I think we can trust the union membership to have some sound input on matters which have such serious career ramifications.

Snafu,

I'm sorry that you think my comments are weak. Personally, I don't recall telling any of you guys that your arguments were weak, but thanks for pointing out my shortcomings to me. This is one of the problems with internet message boards.

I thought if I merely tried to explain my insights into the process that it might help things out some. I guess it doesn't help you, but maybe it will help some on here.

If you have more input for me, please feel free to call, my cell number is on page 2,3, or 4, not sure now. Or you can catch me at the town hall meeting on Tuesday at some point. Have a good one.

Hey Sleepy,

You're a good man. Don't take it personally. I think SNAFU may have missed a few days at charm school. His delivery has a bit to be desired. I'm sure he'll make a fine capt. some day.:rolleyes: And, I know you will.

I especially liked the "so you can continue to line your pockets" part.

Anyway, thanks for all your SPC work and mixing it up here.

By the way SNAFU...I don't think we can recall Sleepy until he takes his new office on July 01.

"In one manner of speaking, the issue only affects a small number of Over-60 Second Officers. In another manner of speaking, it affects every one of us, and every pilot that follows us, as seniority is a cornerstone of our profession. The downside just doesn't justify abandoning such an important principle."

Very eloquent Tony. You make some good points. You seem to be OK, and even enamored with Dave Webb's leadership and decision making style. I would disagree that allowing a vote or poll where the membership had a chance to be heard by their leadership before making decisions is a bad thing. You used 2 or 3 posts out of over 500 to make your point about voter ignorance. How about the other 497 or so that made excellent and factual points to support their side? I think, although it was likely not your intention, this is being disingenuous to those that feel differently than you do about this issue. There have been good points made by both sides of the aisle on this issue, and as you said, it has been rather civilized considering the huge implications to everyone here.

I also see you are agreeing with the MEC by saying that there are not enough of those who will return from the panel to really make a difference. It's funny, but neither my block rep, other MEC members, or you make me feel any better here. How many come back or where they go is not the main issue. It is an MEC Chairman that continues to lead MEC's to take these tough stands you talk about , (without allowing input from his members), for only one group of pilots. How do you answer the pilots here who have raised the question of their seniority rights, and contractual rights, being ignored when they were not allowed pass over pay? It sure looks to me like they were due some. If seniority is the cornerstone, then why was it apparently ignored here?

My bigger question is if Dave Webb and this MEC think they know what is right here, then why don't they take the time to educate us, give us a chance to ask some questions, and then allow us our right for a say. If they are so convinced they are doing the right thing, for the right reasons, it should be easy to convince enough of us of this to win any vote they put out. Your comparison of taking an issue this big to this pilot group, and comparing it with the ridiculous idea of everyone having a say on who we buy copiers from, is insulting to me. I am disappointed and surprised you would make such a false analogy. I know fully well there are everyday issues to be solved without my democratic vote. Allowing me to have a say on an issue as big as this, one that will have a huge effect on my career and quality of life, isn't one of them. I think you know that.

I know there is little time here for a vote on Age 60 stances. My questions are:

How did we get so far behind the power curve that we were pushed into a corner and not allowed a vote?

Why hasn't the MEC been discussing these issues, especially about retroactivity, with the membership much earlier?

Why do we (or the MEC) have to decide on retroactivity right now?

I disagree wholeheartedly with those that try and make this a contractual issue. If the law is passed, and has retroactivity in it, and FDX refuses to follow it, then it becomes a contractual issue and I will be the first one to fight for those over 60 who want to get back. But that's not what we are talking about here.

Let me ask you this Tony. Let's say FDX sees this coming and doesn't want to deal with it. They then put out and close a bid that has training dates 5 years into the future. 6 months later, the regulated age changes with retroactivity. Would you support another MEC edict, again without allowing the members to have a say, that resolves to try and force FDX to make the bid retroactive as well so those pilots previously over 60 can hold what their seniority now allows? Of course, this would send those at the bottom of the award back to their previous seat. What if they were willing to sacrifice another part of our contract via an LOA to achieve this, again, without our say? Would you support that? Think it can't happen? I don't anymore. They have lost my trust for now. So just where does this "support for seniority rights" begin and end and at whose ultimate cost? If everyone concerned is not asking these questions of their MEC and LEC Reps right now, you are just setting yourself up for the next big "we didn't have time to educate the members here and allow their input before forming a policy " moment. Some may say that when Dave Webb and the MEC unilaterally decide issues for us, and lock out membership participation, they look heroic. I'd say refusing to allow a vote on issues you do not take the time to educate the members on, and one you are not sure will go the way "you" think it should is hardly heroic at all.

I respect you Tony, I really do. Honestly though, I am disappointed in your response . It has too many faulty comparisons to back up your points. I do look forward to your answers to the questions I posed though. Just where are we headed with this retroactive policy if Dave Webb and the MEC get what they want? Sleepy, feel free to chime in with your answers as well. I do appreciate your input here, even if I still disagree with some of your rationalizations.

You lost me with the we're-kids-playing-in-traffic analogy (and our MEC is what - our benevolent father?)

Most f/o's I know are in their 40's with a little more life experience than you intimate (I don't, for example, need the lecture on representative democracy).

This costs us money, Tony. Either Dave finds a way to decrease that a little, or this becomes the Parking Lot Deal for our generation.

Even an empty gesture would be something at this point. "Hey guys, I know this sucks for you but I'll try and make it up somehow...."

Thanks Tony for putting in the time and effort to share.

I use your input to help me form opinions.

You have some good points. I see there are reasons why no poll was taken. DW knew the answer he would get and wanted to do the right thing, as he saw it, regardless of the uproar. It does take leadership to do that.

But there are things I don't like about this process of chairing a union that you call leadersip. Moving scope money into VEBA without input. Claiming the reason not to increase newhire training pay was that effort was better spent working HARD to get better retirement bennies and GRID penalties. All I ever got was the "peripheral" issues just weren't going to be solved at the expense of the most important ones. BS.

I really don't think it's mostly about leadership. That was the military. This is a union of supposedly equal members. An association if you will. There are going to be big fights amongst the members that need to be solved to one side's or no side's satisfaction. We are now experiencing the older members trying to throw the junior folks under the bus before they get thrown under the bus. It's about trying to get one over on the other guy. If you aren't savvy enough, you may buy into some pretty good stories about why things are why they are. Sadly, that is often how union politics is run. We shouldn't be fooled by claims of leadership and plausible other reasons for the decisions. They are what they are....using union power to the benefit of one group over another in the association.


I would support a pollster. After the polls decisions still have to be made. And they will be made.

I support your junior candidate idea. I think they would bring some fresh blood to the process. I thought agency shop was a good idea. Now I'm not so sure. How do the junior guys (anyone?) exercise their rights when the "leaders" identify (finally reveal?) their most important ideas and decisions after an election and not before? Why choose to surprise us all with this info and claim an emergency? I don't just trust, I would like a full explanation before I offer that. We aren't in negotiations and we certainly aren't charging up the hill to take it from the enemy.

With all due respect, maybe DW just made a mistake in how he approached us. But now it looks like damage control. He could have come accross a little more apologetic to the junior folks and explained why no poll before there was a demand for one. Maybe that's not his style? I don't know.

What I do know---This was no emergency until DW waited long enough to try to make it so. That makes us all suspicious.

Tony,

Good post glad to see we think alike. http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/sh...265#post155265

I commend you for wanting to do the right thing.

But I don't agree with your assumptions. For years the "right thing" has been to support age 60 as the end of a 121 career. Not much talk about how it hurt anyone's seniority rights until just recently. It was just the rule and we worked seniority in accordance with the Government rule.

Now it's a big issue at companies with lost pensions and benefits. We are not one one of those and actually find ourselves to be the premier carrier to work for (and retire from) in terms of pay and benefits. Suddenly when the age is being raised the way in which it is being raised, prospective vs. retroactive, it has turned into a very important seniority issue. What if the government chose not to raise it for another 2 years? Would that be a seniority issue? Of course not.

The issue, instead, is one of how best to implement this important change. It has been hard for many to retire at 60 for DECADES. It is no more difficult for those retiring now at FDX that a prospective change to the retirement age may occur. It's actually easier since we have a better contract now. Just because you miss the cutoff by 2 years, 6 months or even 15 days is not important. Your proximity to the cutoff does not elevate the importance of your side of the issue above how it affects junior folks, the guy who retired last year or the folks at SWA, CAL and AA who had no choice and retired one day too early. We have a good pension, the old guys are not getting the shaft. In fact, I'm very happy that over 60 is coming before we lose the 3 man cockpit.



So we have an issue where less than 300 guys/gals can just stay SO or retire or greatly impact over 2500 other pilots. I am very glad folks have been able to stay past 60 here. I'm sure all are thankful as well. As an association of pilots I think the choice is an easy one. The impact is minimal on the 300 (probably 150 or less) and huge on 2500+.





The right thing to do (for everyone) is prospective implementation.

Tony and all retroactive supporters,

I'm sorry if you are bored by my reposting from another thread, but I really want to know your take on the NWA's MEC and UPS' IPA positions that are different than DW's. They claim to be doing the right thing too. It's just not a bunch of selfish, out of control, foaming at the mouth, low I.Q. junior guys at FDX that disagrees with DW and the FDX MEC.

It appears folks in the same position as our MEC came up with different conclusions. I call them peers who had every opportunity and pressure to assume the FDX ALPA position.




The IPA is officially "neutral". The letter below, to a crewmember who filed an EEOC complaint against the IPA, outlines our leadership's position.
----------------------------

April 10, 2007

Dear Captain XXXXXXXXX:

I am in receipt of your correspondence dated March 20, 2007, concerning the pilot age 65 retirement issue. As you are aware, the Association has not taken a position on either extending the pilot retirement age or on keeping the current rule. I do not believe you will find any Association minutes in which we have taken a position on this issue. The Association’s neutrality does not mean, however, that the issue lacks importance. On the contrary, all pilots have a stake in the current debate. Our failure to take sides is a reflection of the fact that the issue is divisive and works to serve the interests of competing demographic groups within the membership.

Because our members hold strong views on both sides of the question, the Executive Board has not made an endorsement nor have we expended Association funds for lobbying efforts. Because we represent the entire pilot group and collect dues money from all members, the Executive Board has to date not thought it appropriate to choose sides. I have personally reviewed the issue of our neutrality on this issue with Association legal counsel. The Association is not in violation of either the IPA Constitution and By-Laws nor any applicable statue by virtue of our neutral position. We have created a committee to deal with implementation issues should the rule change.

Having said the above, a couple of addition points are in order: 1) The current age 60 rule was a product of the carriers and government working hand in glove. I believe energy spent blaming IPA (formed in 1990 after the rule had been in place for decades) is misdirected. To allow controversy over this rule to weaken and divide the very organization that speaks for and represents all UPS pilots would be absolutely wrong. 2) Individual IPA members have the capacity and are encouraged to become as active as they wish in supporting or opposing the rule change. Advocacy organizations have sprung up that are focused on lobbying efforts supporting each respective point of view—individual IPA members are free to participate.

As a 60 year old pilot, I have personal experience with the rule, and, not surprisingly, have strong personal views on the subject. As the president of the entire organization, however, I have a responsibility to the group as a whole—not to one demographic group. Thank you for sharing your views on this subject.

Fraternally,
Robert M. Miller,
President, IPA
cc: Executive Board

You did get an input, you got to vote for or against the contract. I do agree with Tony, if a bid opens and a 60+ guy can hold the seat, then he should get it. I don't think that all 60+ guys should be put back into the left seat automatically, only if there is an opening and they can hold it.