Is ALPA ever wrong in your eyes?
 

Tony and Pinseeker,

Just curious, but do you guys think ALPA is ever wrong? I'm glad that we are keeping this civil and discussing this like adults. That's a good thing. I think we are all entitled to our respective opinions, but at the end of the day the Union should represent us and look out for our collective good. You will never make everyone happy, I understand that. This is a giant s--t storm brewing, and I think it's safe to say the majority are not happy with the position our Union is taking on retroactively bringing guys back to the left seat. All those over 60 pilots got to upgrade to the left seat and have some quality time in that seat because people retired and made that seat available. Bottom line, all you over 60 dudes----go enjoy your retirement and pass the torch!

Jolly

Let's see....we oppose changing the Age 60 until Rule we(no wait...the insiders of FDX ALPA leadership) are told that we need to get on the train or get left behind. So, despite an "overwhelming majority" of our pilots opposing Age 65 legislation, we(no wait, the insiders of the FDX ALPA leadership)decide they need to get on that train before it leaves the station. Thank God they have so much more faith in the legislation process being accelerated than has ever been possible before or we might have missed that train.
Then, although ALPA National was instrumental in our FDX ALPA getting on the Age 65 train because we(no wait, the insiders of FDX ALPA leadership) trusted their guidance and direction; ALPA National continues to oppose retroactivity for those over 60. But thank God again, we(no wait, the insiders of FDX ALPA leadership) decide they not only know what is best for us(without input they probably know would be an overwhelming majority disagreeing) and they oppose ALPA National AND their own pilots to support Age 65 retroactivity.
I just want to say I really appreciate OUR Union knowing that in my mid-40's, with one Union sponsored furlough behind me, they know so much more than I know about what is best for my career and when to selectively support and oppose ALPA National....without taking the time to ask the opinion of myself or the other 4800+ pilots I proudly work alongside. Again...thank you FDX ALPA from the bottom of my heart.

Well said Mr. Ham

The thing that chaps my hide is that some 60+ year old French guy can fly to the good ole USA, but, a 60+ year old American can't fly to France.

When this FAR changes, there will be an impact on my career.....but so what. She!t happens. I've got too many buds still furloughed out there for me to moan woe is me too loudly for stagnating as an FO.

Shoot, one of the bro's at AA was just demoted from 777 FO to 767 FO and he was a Capt 7 years ago......and given all the exec $$ and discussion at his airline, his wife has more of a beak about the paycut than he does.

Yes, DW could have communicated better.

Yes, it would be nice if Marion would let us vote on whether we want to change the FAR. But, being the hard core administrator that she is, she just totally ignored ALPA and announced a NPRM to change the regulated age.....even though her blue ribbon Age 60 panel was split over the issue....with the ALPA members voting to maintain the Age 60 rule as is.

:(

Just curious,
Do you still support George Bush who took us to war when the Majortiy of Americans were against it............OH wait, I'm ****ed cause I didn't get to vote on if we went to war or not..........

Come to think of it, I'm ****ed because I didn't get to vote agaisnt Open skies............

I didn't get to vote on this age 60 thing either.......................

You are acting like ALPA is GOD. ALPA often has influence on the Hill, but the leaders are telling you LOUD and Clear that they don't have any on Age 60........"Not this Tme"

Even if ALPA had created a ballot for a membership vote on whether to change the position, what would that really have served..........IT AIN"T GONNA MATTER and if you don't realize that by now well maybe you haven't been reading everything that is out there.

It's happening without ALPA input and probably pretty quickly.
We have already lost that battle, it is time to re-evaluate tactics and try to salvage what we can.

Just one guy's opinion who will suffer negative movement when the AGE Changes.

Redeye....comparing George Bush taking us into Iraq and ALPA(where I pay a sizable fee for their representation) acquiescing on the Age 60 issue is quite a stretch. You are wrong by the way... the majority of Americans SUPPORTED going into Iraq when we did it. And yes, I still support him after spending almost 2 years deployed to Iraq since Feb 2003.
And when did ALPA ask my opinion, or yours, about the Open Skies issue via a certified poll?? That red herring won't work here. ALPA asked my/your/our opinion about the Age 60 question. And then went completely against the results they received during the poll.
I will send you a check for 50 bucks for a steak dinner if any legislation reference Age 60 is signed into law by 1 Jan 2008. The train leaving the station will make a lot of stops before it gets to where our FDX ALPA leaders now THINK it's going at the speed of heat.

When did your government ask your opinion if you wanted us to go to war?

As far as that Steak Dinner, Your on.

You apparently do not hink it is going to Happen.
ICAO Pilots already flying in this country and the Administration's U.S. Sell out of open Skies were the 2 final nails in the Coffin.

And BTW you do pay dues to America, it's called taxes and it is alot more the 1.95%, and IMHO you get a bigger Bang for the buck from ALPA.

I ain't real happy about the ramifications of a Change in AGE 60, but apparently you feel that ALPA has a lot more power on the Hill than what your Leaders are telling you.

If you really want to fight, are you on the Capital or
Century Club in the ALPA PAC? I am

Blackmail
 

This entire argument hinges on the threat of having no input for implementation if ALPA opposes the rule. Why is it that ALPA must support the age 65 rule change in order to influence its development? This seems to be a flawed constraint that is undermining our union and its representation.

I say: Oppose the rule change – if it happens anyway – make our inputs known. In negotiations 101 we start with our desired position + something and bargain down to an acceptable position. If our elected officials will not listen to the professionals in the field then we vote them out.

Can someone out there rationally explain the blackmail? Who issued the ultimatum requirement for a yes vote to participate. Was this in writing or a drive-by threat in the parking lot? The blackmail pi$$es me off as much as the union not listening to its majority!

Curby

Just the opposite Redeye....I don't believe ALPA has much sway at all on Capitol Hill. Their neutered/fractured approach to pending legislation has proven minimally productive in recent years.....Open Skies, Cabotage ete etc.
And when you compare taxes to dues.....keep in mind that not all Americans pay taxes, yet they still have an equal voice. With ALPA, and maybe I am wrong but; I expect them to adhere to the voice of the majority when all of us sign on to their leadership with the understanding that they represent all of us, since all of us pay dues. I don't want a say in everything the Union gets involved in, but obviously the Age 60 issue and now their disregard for the voice of it's membership on the retroactivity issue are big issues to ALL of us. Otherwise, why the survey and the heated response when we learned of their intended stance on the retroactivity issue. Morton's or Ruth's Chris??
Appreciate your professional dialog.

I think this issue of retroactivity has more thorns yet to be uncovered. Many pilots have recently retired when they reached their 60th birthday and it was mandated that they could no longer fly in a front seat. Most retired as captains and left at the top of their game. The age 65 issue seemed distant on the horizon and not really an option. Others stuck around and went to the back seat for various reasons.........maybe high 5, retirement multiplier or maybe too many ex-wives and high overhead. Plus not all pilots have the option to stay due to manning limitations.....their are only so many engineer seats and the number is declining every day. Just because a pilot stuck around for whatever reason and this NPRM goes into effect how does that make him more rightfully eligible to bid the front seat than say a pilot who retired less than a year ago and is only 61? I can see more lawsuits coming out of this and a lot of money spent on litigation. It wreaks of discrimination if you have a retroactive clause. Now I know some will say you give up your seniority number when you retire but this age 65 thing has had the burner lit and gone into the mach to get passed. 12 months ago it was presumed that there was not going to be any retroactivity and the process looked like it was going to be lengthy. Now congress steps in and all of a sudden there is this rush to push this through. I'd like to be a fly on the wall in some of these back door meetings to see what the real imputus is to getting this passed so quickly and who are the major players pushing this through.

I'm going through a somewhat similar process with the military reserves. There is a bill right now to lower retirement age to 55 from 60 for the Air National Guard and other reserve components. I'm 11 years away from collecting any pension and if the bill were to pass tomorrow and retirement age went to 55 I would still have to wait until 60 to get mine even though I have 29 good years. No grandfather clause in that bill's language. Normally when a law changes it is effective on a certain date and from that date forward....not backward the law is changed. One day you get ticketed for speeding over 55 and the next week the speed limit is moved up to 65.....you don't get your ticket thrown out. At the time of the citation for speeding you were in violation of the law.

Marion Blakely stated there would be no retroactivity due to all of the potential problems it would create. ALPA has been against raising the retirement age for many years and now is saying we need to jump on this fast moving train. If that in fact is 100% true, then fine let's get on board but who's grandiose idea is it to also negotiate for a retroactive clause when Marion Blakely said there wouldn't be one? That brings me back to the question of what really is the true stance of the ALPA leadership on age 60?

Folks Follies.........:)

[QUOTE=machz990;165631]I think this issue of retroactivity has more thorns yet to be uncovered. Many pilots have recently retired when they reached their 60th birthday and it was mandated that they could no longer fly in a front seat. Most retired as captains and left at the top of their game. The age 65 issue seemed distant on the horizon and not really an option. Others stuck around and went to the back seat for various reasons.........maybe high 5, retirement multiplier or maybe too many ex-wives and high overhead. Plus not all pilots have the option to stay due to manning limitations.....their are only so many engineer seats and the number is declining every day. Just because a pilot stuck around for whatever reason and this NPRM goes into effect how does that make him more rightfully eligible to bid the front seat than say a pilot who retired less than a year ago and is only 61? I can see more lawsuits coming out of this and a lot of money spent on litigation. It wreaks of discrimination if you have a retroactive clause. Now I know some will say you give up your seniority number when you retire but this age 65 thing has had the burner lit and gone into the mach to get passed. 12 months ago it was presumed that there was not going to be any retroactivity and the process looked like it was going to be lengthy. Now congress steps in and all of a sudden there is this rush to push this through. I'd like to be a fly on the wall in some of these back door meetings to see what the real imputus is to getting this passed so quickly and who are the major players pushing this through.

Marion Blakely stated there would be no retroactivity due to all of the potential problems it would create. ALPA has been against raising the retirement age for many years and now is saying we need to jump on this fast moving train. QUOTE]

First of you are incorrect, any Fedex pilot who turns 60 andcan pass a 2nd class physical and his S/O Check rif=de can go tot he back seat. There is no requirement for a vacancy bidding, he/she merely informs FedEx of the intent to do so before turning 60 and by the contract is allowed to go to the bak seat. No over 60 pilot who was physically qualified one has ever been denied
the opportunity to train as a S/O.

Now your second point is is incorrrect too. Once a pilot retires he retires.
It doesn't matter how old.
We have had many Pilots who have elected to retire early say 59 or 58.
They are still legal under current rule to continue to fly but once they say
"I retire" and they resign thats it........they are retired. They can't come back right now even if they changed their minds. They could have stayed if they wanted. Same goes for for anyone else.

As for what Marion Blakey said.........that is the main point of all this.
Apparently congress is saying we ain't waiting for the FAA to implement this!

ALPA leaders are telling us there is a very real possibilty that this deal won't go through the FAA. That is what we should all be worried about.
We would much prefer it get implemented through the NPRM process.

Office Copiers and Contract Ratification

Once upon a time, our contracts were approved by the MEC. One pillar of faith for the FPA was membership ratification of contracts, and that policy was incorporated in the "new" ALPA. As important as we now hold that procedure to be, we still have hundreds of pilots who have not and will not read the contract -- ever. I'm not trying to trivialize the importance of the Age 60 issue, but it's a bit puzzling why so little interest could be shown by way of attendance at LEC meetings, and then such demands made that individual votes be taken and honored. Captain Webb clearly stated his position during the April 18 meeting, and there was no outrage. A couple of people made passionate pleas to continue to fight against Age 60, and that was to be expected. I recapped Capt. Webb's remarks in a thread here (Does ALPA get a "say"?), and it got little feedback. (Perhaps I should have put it in the Cargo forum instead of the Age 60 forum?) What has changed now that makes it necessary that we abandon the representative democratic process that has been serving us so well to take a vote on just this issue?


3 vs. 497

I only mentioned the three most glaring errors to make a point. I could have made a list, but what purpose would that serve? It's not my intention to single people out for ridicule. Even people with honorable intentions have demonstrated a lack of knowledge about how our organization works. Most of us would have trouble locating a copy of the Constitution and By-Laws, and many seem to lack an understanding of how an MEC Chairman is elected or how he might be recalled. My point is that we pay people to become subject matter experts, and we should use their services to our benefit. When the legislative affairs committee says that our most staunch supporters have now switched sides in the battle, should we ignore them? Administrator Blakey hasn't spoken to me lately. Sentor Inouye doesn't recognize my face, but that won't matter when he introduces legislation as the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. I'm not the expert in those fields, but we have experts on our side. Who do we want making decisions that rely on this expertise and information? We want people who actually have access to the information, and the breadth and depth of experience to properly apply that information. Most of us on this forum, including me, aren't qualified to fill those shoes.


Why did "they" poll us, anyway?

Good question. Dave Webb mentioned that he thought the poll was poorly timed. Dave Webb didn't commission the poll. The ALPA FedEx MEC didn't commission the poll. Capt Prater's Blue Ribbon Panel commissioned the poll as part of its information gathering process. It makes more sense to me that those polled should be supplied with the best information available and given an opportunity to form opinions and then answer a poll, rather than to be asked opinions and then be given information that might change those opinions. Be that as it may, it's not the MEC Chairman's charter to take polls and follow them. In this case, the poll seems to be more of a distraction than a tool.


Doing what's best for the membership, or doing what they want?
- - Or, Why can't I play in the middle of the freeway?

How can the leadership do what they say is "best for the membership" if they know it's not what the membership wants? That's been asked here in few different ways, and I heard it asked of Capt. Joe Fagone today at the We're Takin' It Back! roadshow at the Passenger Terminal. (Less than a dozen FedEx pilots took advantage of this opportunity to speak face-to-face with Capt Prater, the focus of so much hatred about the Age 60 issue. That's another puzzle, or disappointment, depending on your perspective.) Capt Fagone's answer? It's hard to not do what's best for the membership.

A pollster would have an easy job of deciding what to do. Take the poll, follow the numbers. It wouldn't matter whether it was the best thing to do. It wouldn't matter if those polled had all the right infomation, or the expertise to interpret it. It wouldn't matter how the decision would affect the lives and careers of the members, because the blame would be entirely on their shoulders. It would be easy to do the wrong thing. What father in his right mind would let his child play in the middle of the freeway simply because the child wants to? I'm sorry if that analogy offends some because of the oversimplification, but that's what it really boils down to here. As MEC Chairman, Captain Webb has a moral obligation to do what is best for the membership, even if it's not popular.


Enamored?
- - Or, Can he do no wrong?

If you think I'm enamored with Captain Webb, or that I think he can do no wrong, then you have never seen his face when he sees me coming. :) I don't think he's perfect by any stretch of the imagination. I spoke with him after the Joint LEC meeting in April and told him that he might get more people on board if he would tell us what we need to "have a say in" with regards to Age 60 legislation. He said we need a say. I said, "In what?" I started a thread on that topic here on APC and on *************. I've spent a lot of time and energy studying the topic. I wish he would have made my job easier by providing the information up front. I just read the Block 8 Rep's Update letter today, and he spells out a pretty good list of such issues. Could Capt Webb have done a better job communicating some of this? Definitely. I told him then that I looked forward to hearing more about this from him in the days to follow. I didn't get as much as I would have liked. That's disappointing. It's doesn't diminish, however, the moral ground on which he stands to take this position. The Communications Chairman has provided much meat with which to feed the debate, as have the LEC Reps. Regardless of how it got here, the information is here, and it supports his position.


Bad Math?

Yikes. Since I left the glass for round dials, I thought I'd brushed up my public math enough to not be thoroughly embarrassed. Going back to my hypothetical example, there's no way that the music can stop for more than five years. Even if something bizarre were to occur and all the Over-60 Second Officers were allowed to bid window seats and push us backwards 141 numbers, they'd still be 65 in 5 years and we'd be back to where we started. Nobody (I don't think anybody) is supporting a position that would allow Over-60 Second Oifficers to get anything other than what their seniority allows. In other words, unless there's a vacancy posting, they would have nothing to bid on. No, I don't support a retroactive vacancy posting or bid. Being over 60 is not a medical condition, so changing the rule would not be like a guy getting his medical back and going to any seat he could hold. If there's a vacancy posting, he can bid. If there's not, he can't. So, there's no way that giving the Over-60 Second Officer the right to bid on vacancies would slow anybody down for more than five years. Realistically, I would guess that actual retirements, deaths, disabilities, and system growth would result in career stagnation of about 2 years. Capt Prater said today that the polling results showed that most pilots would plan to retire around age 62 if the Regulated Age were changed to 65. Of those that plan to retire at 62, some won't make it. So, just using the 62 number as a reference (I think the age at FedEx would be lower since we have a solid "A" Fund, but I'll use it anyway), I can't imagine 141 Over-60 Second Officers being able to stagnate my movement another 3 years. In fact, that looks more like part of one good-sized vacancy posting at FedEx. Is that a negative effect, going from 2 years of stagnation to 3? Certainly. Is it so negative that it's worth sacrificing the seniority of a small segment of our group? Certainly not.

(So, 13,970 characters is too long, huh? OK, I'll split this into two posts, then.)





.

Speaking of Seniority, How about those MD-11 First Officers?

Not fair. I mean, it wasn't fair what happened to many of our Memphis based MD-11 First Officers. Pilots who were junior to them were trained in the MD-11 for the Anchorage domicile, and were then transferred to Memphis before they could be trained. Why did the Company do that? More importantly, HOW COULD the Company do that? In my opinion, you can thank one Capt Frank Fato for that deal. In what has been since referred to as the famous Dark Parking Lot Deal, FedEx pilots were sold out, and had a contract dictated and rammed down our throats. "The Agreement" was a poorly written document, hastily assembled, and ratified by fear. As the contract, it allowed the Company to do what it did, even though it is clearly unfair, and abrogates seniority. We were stuck with the language, and could have never won a grievance over it. The union's decision in that case was based on a fiduciary responsibility to the membership, in not fighting a battle we could not win. Does that make it any easier to swallow? Not one bit. I got involved early on with that issue, digging through the contract to see how we might fight it. As unfair as the practice was, there was simply no way to fight it using the contract. The union did not abandon the seniority rights of the individuals affected -- they simply had no contractual footing to support a fight.


What about IPA?
- - Or, can't we just be neutral?

So, the leadership at United Parcel Service has determined that it's too close to call, so they won't adopt a position one way or the other. The members are on their own to support one side or the other. The leadership at Northwest has publicly stated that it opposes raising the Regulated Age, and has joined with their company in petitioning Senator Corker. Our MEC Chairman has stated he supports a change to ALPA policy, even though he opposes changing the rule. Who's right? It has been siad that flexibility is the key to airpower. I had a Wing Commander who personified the corollary that indecision is the key to flexibility, and I can't help but be reminded of him by the IPA's position. You might argue that it doesn't hurt anybody, but I respond that it doesn't help anybody. They're entitled to their view, but I don't think it's right for us. I don't want to sound harsh or critical of NWA, either, but it takes no courage to stand up and support what is currently ALPA policy. It takes courage to stand up for what is right, even when it is not popular. Clearly, there are different opinions of what is right.



I'm sorry if that didn't flow like most other posts. I tried to answer the questions raised in your responses to my first post as best I could. If I missed your question, I sincerely apologize. If you'll please restate it, I'll try to answer it as best I know how.

More than anything, I invite you to attend the "We're Takin' It Back!" Roadshow event tomorrow at the Germantown Center (whoops, I forget -- they're kinda snooty in Germantown, they call it a "centre";) ) at 1801 Exeter Road in Germantown. (Germantown Centre) FedEx pilots should be familiar with this location, as we have held numerous rallies and LEC meetings in their facility.

If you've somehow missed out on all those opportunities, head for the intersection of Poplar and Germantown.

ARRIVING FROM THE WEST: Go 1 Block past Germantown Road, and turn left (north) on Exeter Road. Go north past Farmington, and then left into the parking lot of the Germantown Performing Arts Centre and the Germantown Centre. The Germantown Centre is on the left (south side) of the Performing Arts Centre. Enter through the door on the left (south) side and walk all the way to the back (past basketball courts, etc.) to arrive in the Great Hall area.

ARRIVING FROM THE EAST: 1 Block prior to Germantown Rd, turn right (north) on Exeter Road. Go north past Farmington, and then left into the parking lot of the Germantown Performing Arts Centre and the Germantown Centre. The Germantown Centre is on the left (south side) of the Performing Arts Centre. Enter through the door on the left (south) side and walk all the way to the back (past basketball courts, etc.) to arrive in the Great Hall area.

ARRIVING FROM THE SOUTH: Turn right (east) on Poplar, then go 1 Block east, and turn left (north) on Exeter Road. Go north past Farmington, and then left into the parking lot of the Germantown Performing Arts Centre and the Germantown Centre. The Germantown Centre is on the left (south side) of the Performing Arts Centre. Enter through the door on the left (south) side and walk all the way to the back (past basketball courts, etc.) to arrive in the Great Hall area.

ARRIVING FROM THE NORTH: Turn left (east) on Neshoba. (Neshoba is an intersection with a traffic light, and it as at the bottom of the hill before you ris up into the "heart" of Germantown.) ½ block later, turn right into the parking lot of the Germantown Performing Arts Centre. Continue through that parking lot into the parking lot for the Germantown Centre. The Germantown Centre is on the left (south side) of the Performing Arts Centre. Enter through the door on the left (south) side and walk all the way to the back (past basketball courts, etc.) to arrive in the Great Hall area.


(For those of you who know there's a closer entrance on Watkins Alley, hush! If you know how to find that, you don't need my directions, anyway. And the more people that park on the east side of the building, the more chance I'll have of getting my parking place on the west side! :p )


[EDITED TO INCLUDE LINK TO MAP]

Here's a map: Germantown Centre Map


.

Tony, Does NWA have any ROPES working there today. If not, it seems like their position on the Retro issue is a no brainier.

If they had no ROPES, that would make their position on prospective vs. retroactive a no-brainer. As I understand, they still have 2 747-200s that use engineers. I don't know what the status of those engineers is (over 60, under 60, professional engineer?), so it's hard to say how that might affect them.


Their position on the Age 60 rule change is more difficult, as it is for everyone. It all depends on the number of pilots who feel like they have suffered sufficient setbacks in their careers (furloughs, pension grabs, contract concessions, etc.) that they have to fly to 65 to make it back. I'm not familiar with their demographics, or how the ages are weighted, so I can't say if their position is predictable or not. If they are predominantly young pilots, then their position fits.





.

I think they have a few on the cargo whales.

I spoke with a guy who was at the meeting two weeks ago in Denver. He asked the NWA representative about the fate of their F/E's over 60. The guy's precise response was, "fuk 'em."

And I think you'll also find, if you speak with "THAT GUY" that the NWA MEC is more dysfunctional that ever.
Their MEC isn't unifed let alone their Pilot group.

Show me a group of Pilots with the "******* em" attitude towards a certain group and I'll show you a Group of Pilots who will get slaughtered at the Negotiating Table.

Just watch what happens to the new USAIR. They are so divided over this seniority integration. I personally feel the East guys got the short end, but that is niether here nor there. These guys are entering the tertiary stages of their Joint Contract negotiations. With the current state of Dysfunction over there.......Parker will eat them for lunch, unless by some miracle they can some how find collective resolve,

Tony,

Another good post, yet another that I disagree with much of it. This issue is polarizing, no doubt.

Your analogy of FDX ALPA leaders compared to national leaders or Wing Commanders is not appropriate. On issues of vital importance, like a contract or Age 60, we want our representatives to back our position (particularly when it is an overwhelming majority). They asked our position (and since they didn't listen, it was a mistake) and totally disregarded it. If the overwhelming majority was pro-change, we might not like it, but we would accept the majority's wishes.

You seem to believe that ALPA, which appears to be completely powerless, can now be a power broker in the process if we announce that we favor a change in the law. Why is that? And what are we going to do to make it better? B plans are protected and our A plan will be negotiated with management. The only "shaping" I see is a desire for retroactivity.

You are hung up on "standing up for what is right." This isn't a question of "right," it is simply an individual choice or favoring (or not) a change to the rule. I have no problem with anyone wanting to fly past 60. Personally, I don't see a change to the rule as being beneficial in any way to my career. You don't see NWA ALPA's as courageous? I see NWA ALPA simply voting their members wishes. This coming from a company that has a frozen pension, a temp 5% B fund, and some of the worst work rules in the industry (after a concessionary contract.) Nothing courageous or weak, just doing "the right thing."

I guess NWA ALPA must be getting their information from other sources than ALPA since they are going to continue fighting against a change to the rule. Why are they wrong?

Tony, the bottom line is that DW's vote is probably irrelevent anyway. I think the issue will pass the MEC Exec Board despite a nay vote by Fedex. I just want them to vote the way the overwhelming majority want and let the chips fall where they may.

Despite this rule changing or staying the same, the sky isn't falling at Fedex. Luckily, we are in a strong industry and working for a strong company. That said, I want my union to support it's members, just like they did at NWA.

"Fuk em" is harsh, but going out of your way to get them back in the left seat is ridiculous...

The NWA rep., in my opinion, is reflective of an overwhelming sentiment of the majority of guys and gals here at FDX. Good on him for speaking the truth as he felt it, unlike I suspect, our MEC members who have differing opinions on this subject; whose opinions are mirrored by the discourse reflected right here on this board, except without the courage of speaking their convictions.

Hey Tony --

You commented that the union had a fiduciary responsibility not to grieve the ANC 11FO thing because they couldn't win. Is there any fiduciary responsibility not to fight for retro when the national is against it and (according to my LEC rep) FDX ALPA doesn't think they can actually achieve it?

And I suppose if Fedex ever has to Furlough, we should just say F^^K those furloughed guys.................right

just like the Guys at NW have done
Just like the Guys at USAir have done

Yeap the FedEx MEC should use just follow their example..........

FYI - NWA still has several 747-200 on their cargo side - all the pilots are on the same seniority list. I'd imagine about a dozen or so - and then I believe there are still a few on the pax side.

NWA currently (3/31/07) has 16 747-200's.

At 8 crews per aircraft(just a wag for int'l), that would be 108 S/O's. How many over 60? Who knows.

http://ir.nwa.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=111021&p=irol-fleet

What?? Where did you get that??
 

My impression, this entire thing is about "I got mine." I don't see the connection between furloughed pilots and guys who have hit 60 under the current rules and have to leave the window seat. These two issues aren't even close. And I think if you read the guys post it actually said "F--k em is kinda harsh, but bringing over 60 guys back to the left seat is ridiculous." But hey, you don't care about my opinion anyway-----I'm one of the junior guys.

Tony, I've re-read you post recapping the April 18 Joint Council Meeting, (ref the link above) and draw a different conclusion. Your first line of the recap reads: "Captain Webb recognizes that ALPA policy is to oppose any change to the regulated age. There is no compromise or equivocation on that point. He also recognizes that the change to Age 60 as the regulated age is inevitable."

Based on your recap notes why should the overwhelming majority be outraged? Nothing threatening in above three sentences. Nothing threatening in the MEC Chair's stance onj the subject. However, the overwhelming majority is outraged when the MEC Chair did a 180 on the subject.

A lot has been made of the phrase: "change is inevitable". The MEC hangs a major portion of its position on this phrase. Heck, death is inevitable too and I don't imagine the MEC would race to catch it before it left the station.

Beginning the second para of your recap: "Having said that, Captain Webb is committed to vote against any change to the ALPA Age 60 policy at the upcoming Executive Board Meeting. While that is possible, he feels that it would be unwise for such a decision to be made at that level, especially given the widespread opposition to change."

What pray tell, caused the change in Captain Webb's position from a no vote to a yes vote? Oh and bye the way lets invite everybody back into the cockpit who is less than 65.

Just a few quick thoughts after reading the first part of your post. Had to respond in a hurry, hub turning tonight. Hope to meet ya at tommorrow's meeting.

We're probably in the same room right now -- this would be easier over a bag of pocorn, no? ;) I saw some guy walk by me with Tuck on his ID a few minutes ago -- maybe we should have our own meeting in the TV room.


I believe the change in his outlook has been precipitated by the inertia on Capital Hill. When he said in April that he thought it would be better to let the Board of Directors direct the change in ALPA policy, I think he thought (that's dangerous, isn't it?) there was enough time. His opinion hasn't changed on the issue, it's just a matter of who should direct the ALPA policy change. It's looking like that needs to be done sooner rather than later, and the Executive Board (where he votes) will be the likely vehicle.


He stated his opinion on retroactivity then -- not much of blip.:rolleyes:






.

Jolly,

Yes, I do think ALPA is wrong at times. Though I don't always agree with them, I think they do a good job. My position is that age 60 is going to change. Maybe this year, maybe next year, but definitely before I retire in the next 20+ years. I also believe that ALPA saying they need to get on the train is the right thing to do now. They will get more input by saying we want to help with the change rather than fighting the change to the bitter end. As for seniority rights, that is a slippery slope that the union should not go down. Once they start supporting one group giving up seniority, where do they stop. I would like age 60 to stay as it is. I would also like all of the 60+ guys to have to stay in the back WHEN the rule changes because that helps me more. However, I don't think it is the right thing to do.

I keep hearing "this is the right thing to do" or how "It's hard to not do what's best for the membership" when it comes to these issues we have been discussing. The hard thing, and IMO the best thing to do is convince others you are right. I see no courage in refusing a majority their say and continue to be insulted when told that I don't know what is right here. I think I work with a lot of pretty darn capable and fair minded pilots at FedEx. I don't think we are wrong for having a different opinion than the MEC about what is right. I don't think I am taking the moral low road if I disagree (since they are certain they are on the moral high road here) and I am tired of these condescending excuses about why our MEC Chairman and the MEC is afraid to present their reasons for their position to the members and trust them to vote for what is right. It may be smart to not allow a vote you are not sure you will win, but it isn't hard and it isn't courageous. In fact, one could make a case it is just the opposite. We are all educated, hard working, dues paying professionals that are paid for the decisions we make. To have this MEC Chair and the MEC tell me I can't be trusted to make the right decision here is an insult. To continue to say only they can be right here, which means anyone not agreeing must be wrong, is arrogant. Not taking the time to make their case to this educated pilot group and allow them to participate in their future is wrong no matter how you try and justify it. This MEC Chair and MEC have lost my confidence. I don't know who Capt Webb will be speaking for next week at the Exec meeting, but I do know he won't be speaking for me and many others on this board. I hope Capt. Prater is aware of that.

FDD,

Sorry if you feel insulted by my posts. We obviously have opposite opinions. I am simply stating "my" views. Only time will tell who was more correct. I only hope that the more vocal group decides to run for a leadership position the next time we have an election. Most of our elected reps run un-opposed and the voter turn out is dismal. On a final note, the block 8 rep has a letter on the ALPA web site that should be read. He states his reasons for his position quite well.

Thanks for the answer, But why give up the fight?
 

Pinseeker,

Thanks for the answer to my question. I concurr that this is a done deal for the over 60 legislation to go thru. When or how soon, who knows. We are talking about the US Govt here, so it could take years and cost millions of lives.

I think most of us feel seniority is very mportant, but most junionr guys feel like ALPA could give a flying BLEEP about us. Just look at how the passenger guys have left thier young hung out to dry during all this post 911 down turn. In the case of FedEx ALPA, it's seems like they have gone physco, because when a majority of membership wants one position, and our MEC takes the opposite---well it just don't make sense. In the end, the junior guys get screwed once again.

I still think that for ALPA to change it's position on the age 60 legislation shows weakness. Let's hold the line and fight the good fight, not give in because we think/know we will lose. For FedEx ALPA to flip flop on this, and then go hard over rudder for retroactively bringing guys back makes absolutely no sense. Hey, did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Jolly

They Did
 

Don't look now, but they already did get slaughtered. I guess they are unified now because for the most part, they now have a "******* em" attitude towards just about everybody....Mgt, pax, red book, green book, blue book, yes voters, no voters, junior FOs, senior FOs, junior CAs, senior CAs, international airline, domestic airline, widebody, narrowbody, you get the drift. Bring a bat and join the "party."

What sucks is that I grew up in a red book house in the seventies up in MSP. Man, that was a union back then. I have no idea what happened.

Jolly,

I'm not saying give up, but the battle has changed. Why committ suicide here when we may have an opportunity to effect how the change comes about. I say fight the battle we have a chance of winning. I also don't think we should bring guys back, but those who chose to stay and work in the FE seat should still have their seniority rights protected. Once you retire though, you are gone. JMO.

Don't you think that retroactivity for the current over 60 S/O's, and guys on a LOA, will open up a pandora's box in the courts?

I think it will just make the case even stronger for the other over 60 guys that are going to sue to get their jobs back. Not all of them were able to go to a back seat and were forced to retire. Why shouldn't they be allowed back in the cockpit, too? Many of them did not want to retire...They had to. I'm sure there are many at UAL, or DAL or whereever that asked for a LOA, but were denied.

It seems to me that "the right thing to do" is either, all of them or none of them. I vote for the latter.

I'm typing on my phone so be patient with me here.

People ask why it is important to change positions with respect to the Congress. One of our people was meeting with a Senator the other day about US-EU Open Skies stuff. Said Senator said, sorry, can't help you. Then we went on to rant about his personal projects, how his state needed more funding, then proceeded to read our guy the riot act over how we were being obstructionist on Age 60. Our rep then told the Senator that we had placed Age 60 up for reconsideration. This made the Senator take a pause in his rant, and then he said the following. "So when do you want that hearing on US-EU Open Skies?"

So our opposition to Age 60 does affect our efforts in other areas that are important to us as well.

I'm not saying that the above should change your mind on how you feel on this issue personally, I'm just trying to answer the question on why it is believed that a change in ALPAs stance is important to ensure that we have continued input on the things that can affect us.

I don't think you're wrong for having a different opinion. I just think your opinion is wrong. ;) That's what makes for a good debate, right?



Haven't you been listening? Haven't you been reading? Capt Webb made his opinion public a month ago. We have received correspondance from him, the Communications Chair, and all the Block Reps. They've been in the hub, they've been available for phone calls, they've been receiving and answering e-mail. How could they possibly be hiding? While we can argue about the volume and content of the message, it's clear that they haven't been trying to hide anything. Capt Webb could have very well pranced off to Herndon and voted his opinion without ever telling us, and there's a pretty good chance none of us would have ever taken notice. That's not what's happening.

Log on to the ALPA website and read the BLOCK 8 UPDATE from the LEC Rep of the most junior block - - PLEASE. That's Block 8, First Officer Dave Risch.


It's time to head for the Germantown Centre now for the "We're Takin' It Back!" Roadshow with Capt John Prater, ALPA President. See y'all there.

(Oh, and I'll see you at the hubturn meeting at midnight-thirty tonight, too.)




.

Pinseeker, Good post. I too, want the age 60 rule to stay where it is. But outside forces seem to moving that way. The crucial interest for us is in its implemention. In particular, Retro. If this is written to allow our ROPEs to return to front seats (not a lot, in my opinion), it will open the the door for everyone displaced by the age 60 rule, regardless of the carrier. The "windfall" will go to the Labor Lawyers. (Oh yeah, they're on our side, for sure). Later Dude, gotta run.