"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"

Well I think thanks to Capt Webb's and the MEC's position an enormous crack has already opened that will likely not be closed soon. The company thanks them very much I am sure. Since everything we have been discussing is hypothetical, here's another possible result of retroactivity we should consider: The company is forced to absorb those over 60 back into the crew force. Let's say 120 make it back past the medical (Let's not forget that if the age change does not come for another 2 years, and there is retroactivity as part of it, there could be 200 more names added to that list on LOA or in the back seat). Then, a downturn in the economy coupled with continued optimization of our scheduling leaves the company with extra pilots. Think they have a chip to hold over our head then? Think they would remind us that it was our own MEC that helped create this surplus by forcing the issue of retroactivity? Think they would offer to not furlough if we gave them something else in the CBA to offset the cost? Think the guys at the bottom of the list will think they had their seniority rights protected by Capt Webb and this MEC? The point is they should not be taking a position here unless it represents a majority of their dues paying members. This is too big, and too important to ignore that. The company is going to try and exploit whatever happens for their own good regardless of how this plays out. That's their job. Either way it will be up to us to fight them on that. With a union split right down the middle because of this MEC's current stance, that will be much tougher IMO.

"i don't think that our union has a clear idea of the numbers of us opposed to retroactivity."

Oh I think they have a very clear idea which is why they refuse to give us all a say here. If they thought we would support them, you could bet they would find the time to get our backing as a majority for their stance.

Actually, from reading the 30 or so pages of posts, a lot of people don't seem to care what the law might say. They are ready to screw over the "currently over 60, but still working" crowd, as it will delay their own career expectations.

At least some posters will admit it is about them, and their possible earnings, while others act as if only the over 60 guys are concerned about cash, and they are opposing it for some higher purpose, beyond their wallet.

Good thing "the big O" hasn't seen my cruise clothes:D

Credibility
 

OK... I will buy into the whole "if we oppose the change than we can't play in the change game." However, when it comes to retro.. The FAA, Congress, and ALPA national have taken a stance to not support it so FEDEX's MEC has decided to take a position for it... How is this any different than us opposing the Age 60 rule in its entirety??? If that isn't a contradiction in policy or proposed policy.... :confused:

Thanks for choosing to post.


Got my 3rd e-mail this week from 727 (block 7) rep on retro. Last one is very lengthy on how they intend to back up their position. They have gotten a ton of e-mails. They claim retro is good and moral (their words).

We believe prospective is not a chink in the armor. It's been done with other age issues and is nothing new. Congress did not pull it out of thin air just to mess with pilots. The FDX MEC does not agree. They don't think that, maybe, the NWA and IPA MECs might be doing the right thing and not them.

I believe FDX ALPA is and ALPA national may cause their own irrelevance on this issue. By not polling and going with the poll they are telling the President, congressmen and the FAA administrator that they are going against their membership.

When organization leaders lobby and try to influence political decision makers without the backing of their groups....well...it encourages those politicians to politely or otherwise ignore their input.

Am I totally clueless due to my 18 months @ FedEx (11 yrs @ ALPA) ???
 

Am I looking at this too myopic? The Union (FedEx ALPA) takes a poll, the votes are counted, the majority of the members overwhelmingly have a clear say on the issue. And the Union leadership votes against the majority??? Age 60, cabotage, open skies, duty rigs, disputed pairings.....I dont really care about the issue itself....the problem is fundamental. In a democracy, when there is a vote, the majority wins. YOUR airline took a vote, if you voted against the issue YOU won, but wait... YOUR union chose not to support the majority.

What good is a Union that does not support the majority...right wrong or indifferent. Gentlemen, the flaw is fundamentally that simple.

At this point I dont know how much longer I can afford ALPA looking out for my best interest.

OK snipers....Fire for Effect !!!

What do you think about the retired guys coming back? Should we push for that too?

And you can bet the lawmakers crafting the final legislation will ask about that too.


I don't think DW is the political master he thinks he is. His Don Quxiote charge has a good chance of backfiring on us all.

How can someone effectively lobby for the interests of their members when most of the membership wants to kick the guy out of office before he can influence anything else? Democracy, Republic or whatever.....Dysfunctional is the better word.


For those of you wanting to make sure the top 100 get whats moral and fair...This argument will last forever for you. You'll take it to your grave if it goes against you.

When legislation is crafted fairness and compromise are big considerations. That's why everyone hates political solutions and calls them "dirty". It is almost never the "perfect" solution. The rights of both sides are taken into account and both are often rewarded at the detriment of the other.

The argument-

The over 60 guys will cry foul without a retroactive clause. They will claim the rule has been wrong for too long. Maybe it was right at one time (maybe it was always wrong) but no time should be lost in helping those being wronged RIGHT NOW. Anything less is immoral and selfserving for those not in the over 60 situation.

The well under 60 crowd wants prospective. They have seen the same fall in income, yet they still oppose a raise in the age anyway. At least until they turn 58. Don't give me the BS about more time to make up lost wages. Those wages aren't coming back...ever and the younger guys still have to pay for ever higher mortgages and college tuition. The high wages of the previous generation have been a great windfall for them. We all have to deal with the reality going forward.


This is why ALPA national is against retired folks from coming back. You want morality? Then the retired folks should have the option of coming back. They are the ones hurting the most. UAL, USAir, etc. Anything short is not the "moral" option.

Was being against raising the age above 60 ever the moral way to go?

I submit to you no it wasn't.

It was what ALPA polled and decided to support. ALPA has a history of supporting safety, but not moral values. Correct me if I'm wrong. Do you think congress wants to hear the ALPA lobby talking about morality?

I think this morality claim is another excuse for the MEC to exercise "leadership" without member input. When the MEC chair or the entire MEC think they can get away with doing what they want to do, they claim it. I'm not falling for it.

I would like to use the time honored system of polling and safety considerations to rule our union.

Actually, I have seen plenty of posts claiming something very different. FDD and Albie have posted some well considered feelings (whether you agree with them or not) and have both concluded that they will fight for the guys IF it is in the legislation. I think their point - and they can be the ones to articulate it better I think - is that a majority opinion (their claim) is being disregarded in an attempt to get this in any final rule.

After 60 pages, I believe we need to at least seek to understand the other person's argument. Their will be no agreement when we argue without knowing what we are arguing about.

Here is the point to which I think the thread has evolved.

DW is going to try to influence ALPA national and their position on RETRO (as they change their official position on AGE 60). Some believe this is what is right. Others argue it is against the will of the majority. Others believe it is against the best interest of the collective group.

Hail Mary or punt?
 

Its 4th and 23 on your own 10 yard line, your receivers all have injuries and chain smoke. I believe our MEC is doing the best it can do and going for the punt. A Hail Mary right now has pretty poor odds. I took both polls and remember a question on the "secret" poll about what to do if the change to 65 WAS going to occur: Do we cover our ears, close our eyes and scream "LA,LA,LA,LA,I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" or do we participate? DUH! I am VERY much against the change. If we can influence the outcome by participating we are better off in the long run. Retro won't happen (got the word from Carnac)and most of us nearing retirement will go away nearer 60 than 65. The BIG issue is unity on the contract to prevent any penalty to retire at 60. DW and the MEC did not create this problem...loss of pensions, etc at pax carriers, enabled by the geezer gang is where we should vent our frustrations.:( (Gimme a sec to get in the bunker...OK flame on.)

For a guy who has been on the Junior side of things before and experienced
something similar I would like to offer another opinion.

ALPA, (FDX MEC) in this case can not control market forces nor can they dictate what the company does or doesn't do..............as long as it is in the confines of the contract. The contract already has a clause that says before a furlough occurs, all VLT flying must stop and all monthy Minimum line gaurantees will be reduced. That is Built in Concessions " to prevent or delay a furlough"

Lets just say Armageddon like you suggest happens.

First if the COmpany needs to Furlough, it will furlough and nothing ALPA can do would probably stop that. But MGTs always try to exploit it. I suspect FedEx MGT would be no different

If the company needs to furlough they will also try to extract concessions out of us. Having been through this twice before (on the receiving end) I would say right now if the company ever comes to the Union and says "We need concessions or we will have to Furlough"

The Union will need to say "lets live by the contract." and this is why iMHO. Everytime this has happend to me (and to others I suspect) here is how it played out.

The company said "Business is slowing. Profits are down, we need to tighten our belts and we need to Furlough". The Union said, "we really don't want you to Furlough". "The company responds with a "Well to prevent a furlough we need X Y Z"
After much debating in the MEC office the union says, "OK will give you X Y Z to prevent a furlough." Concessions are given, but 6 months later the Company comes and says, "sorry business is still slow, we need to keep tightening our belt, we still need to furlough " and Furlough anyway but now the whole group just agreed to concessions to stop a furlough, but instead gave concessions which will lengthen the furlough of the unlucky JR folks,So what did they stop.???

...........Think I am wrong, talk to any USAir guy hired after 1986. Talk to the Furloughed NWA, DAL and UAL pilots.

Now over to PART 2

Fr8 DAWG's Armageddon theory Part 2
 

FDX is lucky because knock on wood we have never furloughd or seen financial troubles........"KNOCK on WOOD"

I tell everyone I meet here, do not think it can't happen.

Now back to Fr8 dawgy's theory.

Lets say nothing changed right now and the company had to furlough.
5 % of crew force is a pretty realistic number....250 folks for example.

They still have to Furlough in Seniority order, or reverse seniority order to be more accurate. Yes we have 161 Over 60 guys on the DC-10 and 727 FE seat that can't be up front, but we still have close to 350 very JR SO's still on the 727 and DC10 combined. Those JR SO's would certainly be the 1st to go. . NEXT would be Purple Nuggets. ANC MD-11 FO's and so on Up the list until it hits the total # of furloughs targeted by the company. and Yes if the company had a BIG furlough there is the potential that some over 60 (more senior guys would be furloughed before a JR FO..........

I really don't see FR* Dawgs point. I think we all agree furloughs suck.
Furloughs suck. When the rule changes.......there are going to be over 60 guys flying and these guys will be senior too.

Now tomorrow if the rule changed tomorrow and Poof they were all immediately MD-11 CAPs.

Yeap it would sure bump all of us down the list........NO question
But if the company still said we need to furlough don't you see that the same # of Junior Pilots would more than likely be still be furloughed and Unless the over # 60 SO's changes dramatically
Furloughs affect everybody negatively.

The ONLY WAY age 65 has a real impact on the industry (I mean a devastating impact) is if it destroys the unions.

The real irony in this fact is that most of the over 60 crowd have demonstrated time and again here and elsewhere is that they only care for themselves. Most of them have shown themsleves to be anti-union leanings their entire career.

If ALPA and other unions are destroyed over this issue yet they get to fly for five more years they have accomplished two goals.

Concur on your First point, if we allow this to fracutre us, we will be slaughtered.

As to your second point I disagree. Some of the over 60 crowd might exhibit some of the behavior you mention, but not most, in my opinion.

Most of over 60 Pilots, not all, are strong ALPA advocates and have paid dues for many years.

You could make a point that just as many "Junior" guys are also playing the "ME, me, me" game.

As some have seen, I can be hard on the Union at times but; it's not at all accurate to point the finger at the elder statesmen in the industry as having "shown themselves to be anti-union leanings". I'm mid-40's(not quite elder statesmanlike yet)and I recognize and appreciate and benefit from the sacrifices made by those who came before me as they walked picket lines, faced furloughs and even career suicide as they supported our Union goals. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong but, they did it in support of our Union goals. Until you've been furloughed a couple times your perspective on "supporting the Union" can many times be just slightly rose-colored. Like it or not, without a strong Union, we'd be flying those nut-buster days and nights the guys at the "other" airlines fly every day just to stay in this industry.

Yes, those are the arguements. I will add, the over 60 guys are still on the list and paying dues (retired people are not) Both views come down to money in someone's pocket. The junior folk think they must be right, if nothing else, because there are so many of them. I think the over 60 guys have a case, because they are on the property and on the seniority list. (Note- I don't say senior folks, as I know several of the over 60 guys are junior to me, which means they could hold WB FO or very junior 72 Cap at best.) Obviously, our Union leadership thinks they have a case, and are willing to speak up for them. I don't expect the rest of ALPA to do so, because we are the only major ALPA presence with a large number of over 60 guys. My view is, do we want our leadership to do what is right, or what is popular? Obviously, there are a lot of folks who think their view is not only popular, but right. However, disagreeing with that stance is not a crime. I realize that I might lose a few bucks if retroactivity manages to come through the rule-making proccess (I'm nowhere near 60) but I still support it, as the right thing.


BTW - Some folks have asked about other carriers and their over 60 retired guys. I'll worry about them when they worry about me. I know UAL and DAL ALPA never worried about me in the past.

Our union will fight for the "slight chance" of getting retroactivity, but wouldn't flight for the "slight chance" of helping those MEM based MD-11 FOs. Kind of a double standard....

In this post you talk about doing the right thing vs. popular thing and then in the last paragraph say "I'll worry about them when they worry about me." I know these were different topics, but it seems to show different rationalities for arriving at decisions. What do I mean? First paragraph you argue for doing the "right thing". Seems to imply there is a correct decision - a moral decision - without regard for the individuals involved or others that may be effected. Second paragraph you blow off whole groups - in apparent disregard for right and wrong.
If we are going to move forward as FDX ALPA and ALPA NAT'l, then we need to have a logical, fair discussion.

But seniority must be protected at all costs for the good of all pilots on the master list!!! Unless you are the 100 or so who deserve passover pay, you are junior or your in the majority opinion on age 60 then just shut up and trust your "leaders".

In the mean time pay your VEBA dues, send money to the PAC and read up on the new FX 401k retirement we'll get in 2010.

If thats your attitiude we are all screwed

After reading all 63 pages, here are some thoughts:
As everybody has said...some are going to get screwed by the over 60 change. Right now we should look at minimizing the a** pain for as many as we can.

If the law is going to be passed as quickly as everyone says, and there is no verbiage that allows the over 60 S/O's back up front, they can go to court and change the law for age discrimination...

Which leads to the next point: what is the difference in age 60 vs age 65? Both are setting an arbitrary number for when you are no longer able to fly.

No matter what side you are on, it really is all about the money. It has nothing to do with the joy of flying, being told when you can or can't do something...just money. As soon as everyone agrees on this, we can then work on making some real progress. The senior Capts will see they are getting more money and that maybe next contract we can work on increasing the senior F/O pay rate and maybe even the New hire payscale. The old saying of it was good enough for me won't work anymore because the 60 isn't good enough now...

Age 65 is only a start. Read this article from the EEOC chair.
Discussion Letter
We support raising the age limit for Part 121 pilots to age 65 for a specific time period as a reasonable interim step in the process of eventually eliminating age as a determinative factor in the employment of airline commercial pilots. As with age 60, there is no credible medical, scientific or aviation evidence to suggest that concerns for safety require a mandatory retirement age for pilots of 65. Raising the age limit to 65, however, will serve as a useful transitional step, allowing commercial pilots to continue flying beyond age 60 while the FAA plans a full transition to individualized testing of the skills and health of all pilots, regardless of age.

Don't look now, but that loud cry of "yip yip yahoo" was foxhunter rejoiceing to the almighty.

Shhh sarcasim...All I'm saying is it's a kick in the acorns to see the MEC and LEC saying our union is protecting all pilots but point out concrete examples where this is not true and people get all defensive.
No big deal it's good to be king and sucs to be the pis boy.

I gave up on ALPA national as a force to treat all it's members the same back in the early 90s. So if you want to consider me a hypocrite, do so. I am however advocating for a group of our pilots whom I have no connection with, other than knowing a few of them. So at least I'm not advocating something to line my own pockets, or to prevent some "future loss of money and seniority." Just the opposite, I'm going against my own personal interest because I feel retro is right.

However, if in your quest to get the results you desire, take all the time you want to worry about all those other airlines. I'm sure they are worried about your fate, too.

Hdawg,

I'm as irritated as most at the apparent transmit/receive disconnect as anyone.

We can raise holy hell on the board. You can sign a recall petition. (It will make you feel good--but that's about it due to the way the by-laws are written). Go to [email protected]. However--the chairman is elected by the block reps, and therefore is more or less insulated from direct action by the masses.

However--you--and a bunch like you--can run for block rep next round. Our guys did pretty well on supporting our negotiating committee, etc this last round. But I think what happend earlier this month was wrong. Contact your block rep...and consider running for block rep. "Takin' it back" isn't just Prater's motto. Perhaps this is the wake-up call to get those of us who have been content to make a few calls here and there to our union buddies that if we aren't satisfied we need to put up or shut-up. Its put up time... Unity and solidarity are important, but so is open door communication. Open door comm in my opinion isn't just "...this is why we are doing this. You need to understand..." It also involves some listening. It involves explaining how you plan to mitigate future problems.

The silver lining in all this pain and angst is it should get everyone more involved--regardless of their position. That won't be a bad thing...

That is just the point. No one really knows what the verbage is. Is the FAA going to Publish an NPRM soon? or is the Congress going to act first.
Do you have inside info on what the Congress wants? If so, lets here it

Albie, if you or anyone else becomes rep, you may find yourself in the unenviable position of defending the retro provision your new master (DW) advocated. Not to discourage anyone from doing so, but I forsee it to be a totally thankless job. So man up with the proper mindset...this would be a combat situation, as you could expect to be taking fire from all sides.

I don't think whoever takes the point next time will be alone or unsupported. Its not a single issue that has folks like coffeebitch, FDD, and others so upset. It is the indifference to dissent. It is the appearance of revealing information only when the timing is advantageous to the position adopted by the MEC leadership.

I don't claim to have walked in their shoes. They have a very tough position. But nobody held a gun to their head and made them sign that letter either. Who do you serve? Your block? Your bros? Or the union leadership? I know there will always be grey areas, and this isn't a personal attack on anyone who's had a long, tough job the last few years. I just get the perception, however, that a few fresh faces wouldn't be a bad thing. Did I say burn down the house? No. Did I say the current guys are awful? Heck no. But I have been very guilty of running my own life and letting "that union stuff..." be handled by "...those guys who were into that..." I think if we want to crack the ivory tower that means we're gonna have to put up a little more effort and get more involved. As someone pointed out to me--my civics analogy was wrong as congressmen don't run for office every 4 years...and I am woefully short of SA on ALPA by-laws and procedures. I don't think I am "the guy" to step up here...I've already tossed a few other names around. (Steve Glenn Steve Glenn Steve Glenn) (subliminal attempt here...) But I'll support anyone who offers a pledge to improve communications and add some fresh insights into the current mix.

And for the record...the Lord is my master. My AF buddies are my bros... And fellow ALPA block members should be the customers for whoever steps up to the plate. I don't think anyone takes a blood oath to DW, or Derek, or any other heir apparent. I honestly believe the guys in office truly believe what they are doing is right, and cannot understand why we "just don't get it..." They aren't evil. I just think they are wrong on this one. Apparently a lot of other folks do too. Time will tell if that will lead to some fresh perspectives in those offices.

If it doesn't...we got what we got. And I'll support the team.

Albie,
I contacted my rep ( well before today) and received a great response. I indicated that I trust my rep and the union but disagree with the position. Not because guys will fly until 65 or seat progression but that this will impact our benefits no matter how much unity we have. Maybe I'm paranoid but an A fund, B fund, 401K, Veba, pay raise and 5 extra years of flying and the company ( industry) is going to say okay? If I'm wrong find me in 2010 and the booze is on me.

BTW - Some folks have asked about other carriers and their over 60 retired guys. I'll worry about them when they worry about me. I know UAL and DAL ALPA never worried about me in the past.[/quote]

OK, I'll bite, who is worrying about you? Our over 60 F/Es? DW and the MEC? Who exactly do you think is worrying (and concerned for your well being) about you?

Hdawg,

If it all goes to hell I'll still be looking for stable hands. We'll find a way to eat. We'll do pony rides for tourists on the beach in the morning and stay drunk all night on the beach at night...

But no doubt--the airline career we watched when we were in college is gone. If there is a silver lining to 9/11, its that I didn't wait until I was 50 or older to figure out I probably better have a B and C plan.

So far, FPA and FDX ALPA have done a pretty good job in looking after my interests, although like everyone else on the property, I have one or two oxen that have been gored by the current and previous contract. DW and crew have certainly done more for me than anyone at any passenger carrier ALPA ever did. And yes, I talk to my Block rep , if not frequently, at least from time to time. Like the MD guys who felt screwed on passover, I have also been told my issue is not worth a greivence, as it affected too few people, or that I was reading what I thought was obvious in the contract wrong. But on the whole, yes, I'm happy with D Dub and crew. Sorry your not, even though, based on your advertised seat, you are fairly senior and should be out of the angry young demographic..

fdx727pilot.....do you mind of I ask you how old you are? I'm 47 and I admit my age impacts my position on Age 65 Legislation. Is 47 in the "angry young demographic" you speak of?

"I really don't see FR* Dawgs point. I think we all agree furloughs suck.
Furloughs suck. When the rule changes.......there are going to be over 60 guys flying and these guys will be senior too."

I was responding to a poster who said the union was supporting retroactivity, (even though ALPA National, the FAA, Congress, and likely a majority of their own members are against it) because the company would try and use their non support against us later in regard to seniority issues. I was pointing out that no matter what happens, the company will try and find a way to try and exploit any outcome and gave an example using a furlough scenario. My point is I did not agree with that justification of the MEC's stance. Sorry to confuse you.

I'm not sure if I know exactly what results you are accusing me of desiring!!

I am not calling you a hypocrite or anything else for that matter. I guess I was thinking that the last part of your other post must have been a quick remark you hadn't considered - but apparently you have. I was hoping you would see that saying things like that makes all of your posts for the "right thing to do" (some have been persuasive - and you have obviously spent a lot of time on this thread) seem like you are just spewing BS to win the point. I wasn't attacking you or flaming you. Thanks!

The remark was added in response to a question about supporting our over 60 guys vs other carrier over 60 guys, i.e. retired, and a lack of concern for them.

I'm not sure what you want out of this, either way (was trying to stay neutral for that specific remark, as I realize both sides are passionate,) but, if while you work for whatever result you desire, you want to worry about National ALPA unity or other carriers pilots, good for you. Personally, I don't think concern for FDX ALPA ever even came up at any other MEC or their pilot groups.
I just intend to stay a local issue man in my worries about right and wrong, and what I should support. So that keeps me in the confines of FDX ALPA, union-wise. I have some heartburn over ALPA in general, based on previous experiences, but FDX ALPA is what I've got, so I have to go with it. Would never go to the dark side (non-member.)

BTW - For hamfisted, I just turned 50. And most of the guys I fly with are new guys in their 30s and early 40s, so that is the demographic I was referencing. AerisArmis certainly doesn't fit that. Neither do you.

Sorry -- didn't mean to slight you or ignore a question.



OK, first let me make sure I'm using the word "fiduciary" correctly. Merriam-Webster has three definitions, the third being "depending on public confidence for value or currency." I was thinking along the lines of value and money, but a more correct use I believe emphasizes public confidence. Considering that, I think I chose a poor word, but it still leaves a good question.

What I should have said is that the union has a financial obligation to grieve cases that can be won, and to carefully consider, and probably not grieve cases where we have no chance of prevailing. It costs a great deal of money to take a case through the grievance process, and spending the money where we know there will be no return would be financially irresponsible. (And maybe there's a place where "fiduciary" belongs in that process, too, but I'll get back to that.) The same financial responsibility doesn't really come in to play when considering the position of retrospective versus prospective for the implementation of a change to the Age 60 rule. Since it doesn't cost money to support one view or the other, the comparison to the Domicile transfer/Passover pay issue doesn't work.

Does the MEC Chairman have an obligation to hold the confidence of the members in his trust? Absolutely. While admittedly it is a risky business to promote a position that is not popular, I don't think he is disregarding what he honestly thinks is in the best interest of all members of the Class and Craft which he represents. In fact, in order to represent all of them, he has to support a position that will not leave a segment of them behind. To implement a rule prospectively will tell those already over 60 that they cannot benefit from the rule change, while all other members of the Class and Craft can benefit.





.

The problem with this argument is that the position he is supporting DOES NOT benefit the VAST majority of us, and to waste union dollars to FIGHT for it is insane when we will have numerous other fights in the future (retirement penalty for leaving prior to 65, B fund spinoff, medical issues, etc.).
There has got to be more to this than just some Seniority thing...lawsuit prevention, hooking up some pals, etc.
If it's lawsuit prevention then come on out and tell us, if it's something else, have the guts to do the same!