First off I don't think there is anyone on an Leave of Abseance (LOA) who is over 60 and I also believe if you are over 60 working as a SO and have medical issues , you must retire instead of a medical LOA as you say.

Second, with respect to the FAR's our contract allows for Pilots to work over 60 albeit as SO's currently. Our contract does not allow for Retired PIlots to return to active status. The Union isn't trying to open a pandora's box.
The Union (your MEC specifically) is only saying we intend to protect current
ACTIVE line members of the class and craft.

UAL and DAL do not have any 3 man cockpits or in other words any over 60 Second Officers.

Sleepy, while I know that's how things work in the real world of Washington, it is a sad comment on how corrupt our politcal process really is.

Although Tony did not answer my question about fiduciary responsibility of not taking on retro when others are against it - and the MEC claims they probably won't win - I will agree with him that they are not hiding!

I listened to DW in the crew room. Nobobdy was really disagreeing with him in the room for the few minutes that I was there - though the demographic skewed pretty old. My rep answered first call and was available for a very long call.

All of that said, FDD also has a minor point because I would bet that a lot of the meetings were set up due to all of the unhappiness.

We(FDX) do have guys, over 60, on LOA.

You missed my point on DAL, UAL, etc...Those are the over age 60 guys whose lawyers would love for us to bring back our over 60 S/O's to the front seat. Their argument would be that they did not have the option to stay in the back, nor were they allowed to go on a LOA. Thus, they were forced to retire. The only difference between them and our guys...Is we had S/O's. They should still have the same capabilities to operate an airplane.

I'm just playing the devil's advocate here. This reasoning, I believe, is why ATA, ALPA Natl and everyone else but FDX ALPA doesn't want retroactivity.

To add to what Busboy said, almost all airlines have people on LOA who are over 60 for various reasons. There are guys at pax carriers who have been gone for years still listed as L1011/DC-10/727 pilots. Each carrier is slightly different, but in general these pilots do not appear on what you and I see as the seniority list, but that list is basically an active pilots seniority list. That is one of the reasons it takes so long to 'verify' a seniority list in a merger, because the real list has a lot of extra folks on it.

First off how many Pilots over 60 are on a leave of Absence?
And what are the circumstances of that leave?

Secondly, I did not miss your point.

We have had Pilots retire here at FedEx early, i.e. before 60 and once they retire, they can't come back even though they are still legal to fly. Our contract doesn't allow for it. ALPA is not fighting for anything not already adrressed in our contract. Our contract stated "FAA Rgulated AGE' in terms of being able to fly. If the Regulated age changes, the Government is doing that not ALPA. ALPA is only stating that seniority rights currently allowed in our contract must be preserved for ALL active pilots.

So...What happens at UAL, DAL, USAir, etc. doesn't matter to us?

I am not sure I get your point, They do not have over 60 Second officers on their Actiive Seniority list and I assume it is not addressed in their contract, so they do not have to address the issue.

FedEx does have Active dues paying memebers over 60 Second officers on our list and it is addressed in our contract and it is the right thing to address the issue.

[QUOTE=TonyC;165672]


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.

Tony C,
You are missing ther point if the rule changes as stated with no one over 60 at the time of signing comes back, then the back seaters have no contractual right too! They are still regulated from the front. Dave is trying to change the rule making so it becomes a contract issue.

I read what the union sends out and I had not noticed anything about Dave web actively seeking to change the rule making process to allow the back seaters a return until first of last week.

Also, since you touched on this, how is this any different than the parking lot deal with the leaders going against the majority? O I know the contract was voted on unlike this issue.

Also, I do not think the professional airline pilots I work with like you comparing us to kids playing in the street. I think we are much smarter than you give us credit for.

I really respect conviction if Dave really has a moral issue with the majority then he should step aside or do what we the majority pay him to do.

I'm talking about the DAL, UAL, USAir, etc. guys suing to get their jobs back if the new reg/law allows our over 60 guys back in the front seat.

How bout this...Why would ATA, ALPA Nat'l and every other airline not want retroactivity for active over 60 pilots? Why would they care?

Look The FedEx MEC just wants protection for all Active Pilots on the List.
Pilots not on the list are not covered by contract.

All I or the rest of us can go by is OUR Contract:

SECTION 22 Seniority
Contract Administration
Section 22.B. Seniority - Seniority Accrual and Application

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
1.Retirement.
2.Resignation.
3.Termination for just cause pursuant to Section 19, 20, and 21.
If a Pilot has Retired, resgined our is fired he/she is off the list.

What if what if..........
What if FEDEX wants to terminate our A-Plan?
What if FedEx wants to hire Forieng Piulots in China?
What if FedEX want to furlough out of Seniority?

You can play "What IF" all what if all youwant. I can't control who sues who over what. We already have Pilots suing over Age discrimination. All we can do is look to our contract and defend it the best we can.

I personally know of 2 people at FDX that are on a LOA since they turned age 60 in anticipation of coming back via the congressional legislation. Im sure there are more.........

Redeye--

There are many different viewpoints. I think we understand that the MEC feels strongly about protecting seniority rights and defending the contract. You have made that point.

From your response, you seem to be missing Busboy's argument. No less than DW himself said in the crewroom that retro is going to be difficult to achieve because some feel this will enable a legal argument from those forced to retire at other airlines. That does not argue against your point of the MEC's intentions.

Busboy asked why ALPA national would care since there aren't many backseaters anywhere else. It was rhetorical because he wants you to see the point I clarified above (attempted to anyway).

Can we all agree that FDX ALPA wants the legislation to be different than ALPA leadership at this point in time?

You may continue.:):):)

I see his point and from what I have read there are a few MECs around that might still vote to keep opposing the Rule change. Different pilot groups within ALPA have different views..........depending on their circumstances.

Obviously a Group that has had their Pensions Stolen from them feel more passionately about certain provsions than others.

Obviously a group that has 1800-2000 Pilots on Furlough looks at things differently too.

This DW email has certainly taken on life of its own.

I was merely pointing out the simple view of it.

Seniority rights are defined in our contract.......as I previously pasted.

The FDX MEC is not adovcating any retiree coming back>

But you can already thank the DAL MEC for setting that precident over a year ago, when they allowed (with an LOA) retired 777 pilots to return to active service to fly the 777 while the company had Pilots on Furlough.

The FedEx MEC is not advocating any such thing, I would hope they would fight just as vigorously againt that, because it is not in our contract.

None of us can say with any certainty what the rule changes will eventually be.
We can fight amongst ourselves, which the company absolutely loves BTW,
or we can attempt to see some common ground.

The best place to start is with our contract. Our contract has specific language. WE have Pilots over 60 who are dues paying members, most other ALPA carriers do not, (NWA has a very few, I believe Gemini and Polar has a small # as well as ATA, but FedEx is an "A" group Airline within ALPA, and No other ALPA contract (or any Airline Contract for that matter that I am aware of) has the "Regualted AGE" provision that our contract currently does.

The FedEx Pilots are better prepared for the eventual change than most.
Our contract at least states that 60 is the normal retirement age should a higher AGE be regulated. Yes we will have to defend that section vigorously next time, just like we defended our Vacation section last time.

Yes we all agree that this change will have some negative affects on all of us (under 60) with respect Upward movement. Again ALPA never wanted this change. Thank your Senators, Congressmen and current Administration for this.

I hope by now that most Pilots realize that the change in AGE 60 is coming.
We don't have to be happy about it but denial won't help anything.
We need to look long term and try to influence legislation that will affect all of us..........not short term at the few.

Redeye--

I did not say the FDX MEC wants to get retirees back!!

My question was about whether letting the over 60 FE's back (we agree they want that in the rule right?) was different than the Alpa national view.

Read the posts. I AGREE with you in regards to the contract, but that isn't really what busboy was saying - hate to speak for someone else.

Let me lay out some facts AS I SEE THEM!

1. The rule hasn't changed yet. We cannot possibly apply anything to our contract yet but a hypothetical.

2. The FDX MEC is communicating the need to apply retroactivity to any rule change. This would not include retirees - only those still on the active seniority list.


3 The FDX MEC is communicating that AGE 60 is dead. The change is coming. It is in an NPRM. It is in legislation as well but the legislation has not passed. They say it is possibile it will in some form. Alpa would rather get some influence so it can be returned to the NPRM process.

4. We (ALPA national) have little or most likely no input unless we stop our opposition to the change.

5. ALPA national has not even officially changed its position on AGE 60. The MEC chairman are going to meet and most likely vote to do so. DW has indicated this and that he will attempt to apply the above retroactivity to the ALPA national position.

6. DW said in the crewroom meeting ( i heard him ) that achieving retro for those over 60 but still on the list will be difficult to achieve because many at the Nat'l level believe it provides a legal argument for those retired but under 65.
**THis is where Busboy was going**

Flyer,
Thank you. You're right on the mark.

And, how about this?

From our CBA:

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is understood and agreed that the provisions of this Agreement are subject to all applicable laws and governmental regulations now or hereafter in effect and all lawful rulings and orders of all regulatory agencies now or hereafter having jurisdiction. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or contrary to law, the parties shall consult concerning the effect of that law on this Agreement.

Now, I'm no lawyer, thank God. But, I wouldn't you think that a lawyer could argue that the choice of an involuntary downgrade with a 40% paycut due to a regulation(regulated age) , or retiring...Is not really much of a choice. But, that is the choice our retirees had.

Reading the above section, I would have to say that nothing is set in concrete. Could this be any more vague?

I agree, that age 60 is going to happen. If not this year, sometime before I retire. And, I agree we should try and steer the legislation and rulemaking to benefit us.

However, I believe that our MEC's push for retroactivity is misguided.

I concur with all of that.

I hate to come off as a conspiracy theorist here but I can't believe ALPA National (or FDX Alpa) didn't see an economic windfall immediately when the age 60 issue was raised. What with all of the furloughs and pay cuts, we all know ALPAs revenues took it in the shorts. With this fact in mind, I'm not sure how hard ALPA was "fighting" for us knowing they could keep guys on the top of a carriers payscale for another five years.

And as far as DW's rant on seniority, I didn't realize guys senior to me had more of a voice than I did. I thought we operated on a majority rules system in our union. Do you guys remember how steamed the training guys got for the workrule / pay changes in our new contract? Our union leadership's answer to that was basically, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Well, I guess the seniority of a few guys in the back seat who've already had full careers (either here or in the military and here) outweigh the career progressions of the other 4000+ pilots here at FedEx.

I wonder if they'll waltz into the left seat without a vacancy posting like they were allowed to move into the backseat?

Protecting their seniority protects the seniority sysem, which protects your seniority!

And therein lies another problem. Seems to me that there is a conflict of interest between national wanting to avoid RJDC part deux and what the individual pilots and many MEC's want.

Just returned from MEM "Takin' it Up" tour. An inordinate amount of time was spent on "why aren't we (ALPA)", doing anything to stop it. Let's all finally realize that we can no more stop this than we can improve our position from number 54 at EWR/JFK by complaining about it. Interesting factoid from Prater, though - Legislative change (age 60) will happen this year, FAA regulatory change will take two. I vote for kickin' this can down the road for now, and concentrating on more dire issues (Open Skies, Cabotage (Tradewinds,the other airline in the Rainbow coalition?)).

First
RedEye leave our black and white world pilots and look with the BIG Grey that Lawyers see! letting ropes back (retroactive change to age 60) will drain our union funds (like Tony C said about the "junior varsity" seniority rights) defending something that is in the contract....retirement = no right of retrun!

Second
I think pilots, against retro, believe in seniority and the law. If the age is changed without retro provisions then our over 60 guys can't return per the contract. This means NO CONTRACTUAL ISSUES, per the above quote (provided by Busboy)! (again saves our union funds being expended on something that will be too costly and yet will not win..age discrimination as already stated by EEOC) ALPA National is opposed to retro...why do we make the push?

Third
Apperently pilots feel that not advocating retro is the way to go, is the majority opion, and is completely different from campaigning against retro as is currently happening! If retro provisions are in the law as legislated or regulated, EVERY MEMBER will understand that "the right thing to do" is protect seniority rights.(this time it will of course be defensible unlike junior senority!) The argument that the company will use this dysfunction against us is our leaderships doing. Had the leap to retro not been advocated against the majority, the only issue would be do we engage in shaping our future with respect to age 60 change or not! The toothpaste is already out of the tube and our leaderships inabilty to foresee this problem is a little troubling (not advocating any action!). I have felt it been alluded to as a necessary course of action for a campaign for retro pay....any comments on this (it is another can of worms)

How would the seniority system be affected if retro was not implemented?

How does this protect a below age 60 individual's seniority?

If this precedent (non retro) is set, what scenario(s) would you envision happening to exploit this, thus destroying the senority system?

To give you an example off the top of my head, the company says "no pilot without prior experience in a glass cockpit and European flying experience may bid the 757." That would screw over a bunch of people of all seniorities, who can no longer execise the bidding privileges of their seniority. Since we have blown off the ropes, can ALPA fight this? Not likely.

The whole deal only applies to the over 60 crowd, if,
and even DW admit it's a long shot, the law (if by congress) or regulation (if by the FAA) specifically does not say "the rule only applies to pilots reaching 60 on a specific day, ie effective day or something of the sort."
If the rule does not make a prohibition, you are saying, "even though the Federal law now allows people of your age to fly front-seat, you have the Medical Certificate required (1st or 2nd class depending on seat,) you are a dues paying member of ALPA and are on our seniority list, and we are having a bid (I don't think anyone seriously advocates just letting them jump back without a bid) we will not let you exercise the bidding rights of your seniority, because, once upon a time, we thought you were gone for good."

... 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.

FDD



"Haven't you been listening? Haven't you been reading?"

Tony C

Well thanks for proving the "condescending" point for me Tony. Yes I have been listening and reading. Where did I miss the part that said this issue was being put to a vote after hearing what the MEC has to say? That is where the "afraid" part comes in. How you or any other poster could try and translate what I said into "the MEC is hiding" is beyond my understanding. I never said they were hiding or inaccessible. I said they were afraid to trust one of the most educated and professional pilot groups in the industry to agree with their viewpoint. If they are so sure they are right here, that shouldn't be the case. We obviously disagree about whether this group can be trusted or not. The MEC Chair and the MEC think they know better than this group, ALPA national, the FAA and Congress about what is right. Yep, I think arrogant is a word we can apply here.

That sounds like it is right of the Grocery store " NationalEquirer or Globe" magazine rack.

Since the 1960's how many rounds of Furloughs has the industry seen.
in 1967
in 1973
in 1979
1n 1991
in 2001

Using you logic ALPA should have endorsed the changes years ago due to lost revenue. Lets not Forget Braniff went down, CAL strike which Busted CAL ALPA, Fall of EASTERN, Fall of Pan AM and finally TWA. Talk about lost revenue.

Lets look at another simple fact: Most Airline contract top payrates Max out at the 12-15 year mark. So a Pilot with 23-25 years longevity is making the same hourly rate as one with 12-15 years
longevity.

Last post on this topic....getting tired of fighting that dang windmill.
ALPA uses the sense of impending legislation argument to justify going against the results of the "overwhelming majority". I fail to believe that Congress will isolate their energy on this one issue and rush it through the lawmaking process. Telling their constituents that they are "aggressively addressing" an issue and actually pushing through the legislation are two very different things. And why is ALPA so nervous about legislation as compared to an FAA rule change? Maybe because the FAA has spoken out against retroactivity and FDX ALPA is concerned they won't get it?
And finally(I promise), when a pilot has moved from the back seat to the front seat upon reaching 60 years old, there has NEVER been any type of understanding that they would get support from the Union on going back to the front seat....implicitly or explicitly. It is disingenuine to assert that they have any right to that front seat again and the Union is not responsible, legally or ethically, to support and fight for them moving back to the front seat.
Timing is everything and it should be just as critical for a guy forced to retire from an airline at 60 as it has been for a guy to move to the back seat at 60. You gave up the seat, involuntary, because of existing law. So did the guys who were forced to retire and didn't have a backseat to go to. I believe the membership would vote against retroactivity with an "overwhelming majority" because it is fair and just. Only a vote on this issue would prove where our membership stands.
Thanks you and..........good night.

Wouldnt this example be exactly what happens when filling the position of a check airman. The company looks for specific qualifications of an individual not just the senior most person wanting to fulfill a position?

It seems that if retro was the law then pretty much everyone would accept it and go about his/her business.

Hamfist, we have noting to disagree with. Frats

Anyone else see this in USA Today this morning? Poor Captain Collins...45% pay cut! I mean, he's only got his military retirement, FDX retirement which was a cornerstone of our last contract, 17 years at the company, plus widebody capt pay for however long. Cry me a river. I wonder who called who for this ridiculous editorial? It's guys like this that make me hope the rule takes 5 years to pass, or better yet, never.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/...ing_.html#more

Hey Collins,

Get me some coffee! Protect essential.....

Give me a break.. My heart bleeds for him...

From a previous post ...http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/...ing_.html#more...

Oh my goodness!

We are losing 5 experienced pilots a day? Gosh...At that rate, with my measely 22yrs of airline experience, I would be a super senior capt by the end of the year. And, that's if they all came from FDX.

LOOKOUT BELOW!!! We've got a youngster at the wheel!!!

Luckily that "5 pilots per day" loss is spread throughout the industry. We can all relax now.

Simply Put a change in AGE 60 will affect everyone 59 and Under Negatively with respect to moving up the list from Attrition.

That is Going to Happen. So No maater what, you are going to be affected negatively. I'm sorry but Get used to it.

Now if the over 60 active pilots on the FDX list (i'm told there are 161 of them) are allowed to bid back to the front seats, that would also have a negative affect.

I guess you need to see how many Fedex pilots are senior to you and worst case (unlikely but lets look at worst case) all 161 over 60 Second Officers are healthy and savvy enough to pass checkrides and physicals. That 161 is a burp (ones years retirement #'s over your whole career) compared to all the other 59 and younger that will soon be able to work past 60. The 59 and younger numbers are far greater than the 161. So the retro thing, while negative, is not as BIG as AGE 65 as a whole.

In my opinion while all this is negative, we need to focus on more important things that will affect us all Much more negatively. And might I add we will need to be unified to do so.

Pension laws......nobody want to be foreced to work past 60.

Open Skies....... a bigger threat to your seat movement. If US Airlines do not grow, guess what you don't move up either. Open Skies has the potentail to affect all of us negatively. President Bush is trying to agree to open skies with China.

License Harmonization: Probably the Biggest and worst threat of all to anyone with more than 10 years to go. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what has happend to the Bulk of US manufacturing Jobs. They have all but ben eliminated by cheaper foriegn labor. Do any of you really think that our Generous Airline CEO's aren't already running the numbers on a Chineses Pilot willing to fly a 747 for $50,000 USD a year.

While I agree AGE 60 isn't a good thng for most of us, it is the smaller issue in the coming threats. Don't get too distracted from the real threats that are coming all of which could make AGE seem insignificant.


Hope that was a fair expalnation. :)

Redeye,

Thanks for your explanations.

Not trying to be stubborn but it seems all of the items stated will happen with the Age 60 change. I think its safe to say that the majority of members are willing to accept the change.

I'm trying to figure out why the fight to change the proposed rule from prospective to retroactive.

How would prospective destroy the seniority system?

Hey no problem, I always enjoy a cicilized debate.

To answer to your last question
"How would proactive destroy the seniority system?

I can't speak for the opinions of DW or MEC.

This is my take and maybe someone else will chime in if I am on the mark.

ALPA has been consistently against any change to AGE 60......until recently.
Now due to events we have seen posted on this forum there is a real Possibilty that the ALPA Executive Board will vote to change ALPA's official position this week.

I won't rehash the reasons that ALPA leadership seems to be reconsiding it's position.

What I believe the FedEx MEC is saying, is Hey we are all really opposed to the change, but if we are going to reverse our position to now be For a Change, we must do so with ALL the Active members in mind.

MOST of the ALPA "A" group carriers no longer have any over 60 crewmembers because all their "3 Holers" haqve been retired. So retro activity of active crew memebers really doesn't change things for them. In other words it really doesn't affect them more negatively.
NWA is the only other Group A carrier with over 60 FE's. They still have a few 747-200's and from what I gather the NEW MEC is Still voteing to oppose AGE 60.

Realize the the FDX MEC Chair is just one vote of several on the Executive Board ALPA wide.


I think the FedEx MEC is saying we are a Union and any decision we make must include everyone on the List.........period.

That is my take

Your photo on a national newspaper with a dopey look on your face and no tie, priceless! Wonder if "O" will have any words of encouragement for him?

you meant prospective to retroactive, right?;)

My take is, it isn't whether the ruling becomes prospective or retroactive that undermines our seniority system. Its what our position prior to the ruling/legislation is that could hurt us. If we take a position that is willing to sell out a subset of the Master Seniority List, we give the company and/or lawyers a crack in our armor to work later - on this issue, and other untold issues. Look out for them, no matter the outcome, we protect the cornerstone issue of seniority. Best case scenario, we fight for the ropes seniority rights and lose. :D We never get all that we want anyway, right?

I will agree Redeye has shown a lot of class and been a good source of info and perspective.

Just like about 95% of our crew force...even the old guys :)

Yes. Fortunately I dont rely on my english / grammar to pay my bills. :D

I have been a longtime lurker on this board and this is my first post but i would like to add my input to the over 60 argument. let me begin by saying i am an over 50 widebody captain with twenty years at the company and however this plays out, it is not going to have much affect on my fedex career. Alpa national has surveyed us and determined that if change to the over 60 rule is inevitable (which i believe to be true) then Alpa should drop its opposition to that rule. by not opposing the change they seek to have more influence on how the change is implemented. how that influence (on Congress and leglislation or on the FAA by regulation) is excercised is unclear to me. what is clear to me is that we, as members, have every right to determine how fedex and alpa national bring that influence to bear on the leglislative or regulatory process. retroactivity is only an issue if regulation or law make it an issue. i am an absolute believer in the seniority system. however, seniority as it applies from a company negotiated contractual process is an entirely different animal than changes to the seniority system (as we know it) that arise from regulatory or leglislative change. if you are opposed to retroactivity then i urge you to contact your block reps and the MEC and let them know how you feel. i don't think that our union has a clear idea of the numbers of us opposed to retroactivity.