What does the Contract priovide? It says that if I have no legal restrictions, I can bid any seat that my seniority allows. One legal restriction is a medical restriction. Another legal restriction is the regulated age. If I can hold a Medical Certificate First Class and I am younger than the Regulated Age, I can bid any seat.

A prospective implementation of the Age 60 rule would change the Regulated Age to 65, and it would have the effect of taking away a contractual right that a pilot has. If I were to turn 60 before such a change, there's a catch. If I can still hold a Medical Certificate First Class, and if I am still younger than the Regulated Age (now 65), I cannot bid any seat, even though the contract says I can. The restriction is imposed not by the contract, but by the prospective implementation of the law.




It's possible that you haven't heard anything about this until lately because of the recent changes in the political climate that make the change to the Age 60 rule now inevitable, and the problems that ALPA is running into on Capitol Hill by virtue of the fact that we are now viewed as obstructionists to this Age Discrimination issue. The governmental affairs experts at ALPA are reporting that in order for us to participate in any meaningful way in issues that are important to us (not just the Age 60 rule, but Open Skies, cabotage, and on and on), we need to change our position on this issue. Capt Webb could have very easily gone quietly to the Executive Board Meeting and voted to change the ALPA policy, and we might not be hearing about it still. I know I've been hearing about it at least since the April 18 joint Memphis LEC meeting. I posted his position on the issue on this board shortly thereafter.




In the first place, no "deal" has been made, no concessions given, and no honor and dignity betrayed. Captain Webb is communicating his position to the membership in advance of his participation in any process where he might vote. When I asked him Tuesday (at the "We're Takin' It Back!" Roadshow at the Germantown Centre) if he was going to be voting for a change to ALPA policy at the Executive Board meeting, he stated that he was not committed yet to do so. I believe that if there's reason to believe that we can wait until the October Executive Board meeting, or even better until the next Board of Directors meeting, he would prefer it. However, indications appear to be in favor, at this time, of voting for the change during this meeting.

That's a far cry from publishing a message line one night commending the pilots for their steadfastness and reassuring them that our efforts are paying off, and then watching the morning news to learn that "we" have caved.

Captain Webb is not acting alone, and he's not acting as the puppet of a manipulative Vice-Chairman (or Vice-President, as it were). He's being up front, and he has the support of the entire MEC.



I thought you could draw from the example a concept without thinking that I was calling you a toddler. I was using a tool of language to explain the concept I was trying to convey. I apologize if I offended you with the example. I don't think you're dumb.



I reviewed the job description for MEC Chairman in the ALPA Constitution & By-Laws. It doesn't say he has to determine a majority opinion of the members, and that he is bound by such a majority. He is obligated to represent our best interests -- all of our interests. Clearly we disagree on how he should do that, but I don't believe he is abdicating his responsibility, the one we pay him for, by taking this stance.





.

It is my understanding that supporting the Age 65 rule will allow us too influence the process/implementation ... I think that all it will do is allow Congress/FAA to poke us in the eye later on ... After the fact ... "You supported this change and here it is" ... I cannot understand why we cannot state how we feel (Majority of FDX) and still influence the process/implementation. I don't think anyone (For/Against) will be happy with the change, but at least we have made our respective voice/opinions known.

By fighting tooth and nail for Retroactivity he will fracture this crew force and this union, all for a "handful" of people--is that "the right thing to do"?

What do you mean by "ALPA leadership"? If you mean the national officers, it doesn't matter. Their job is to support and defend APLA policy, which is currently to oppose change to the Age 60 rule.

If you mean the Executive Council, it doesn't matter either. They convened, heard preliminary results of the Blue Ribbon Commission's work, and forged a resolution recommending that ALPA policy be changed. While they dealt with several variations of prospective and retrospective language, they settled on a form of prospective language. But again, they don't determine ALPA policy.

The Executive Board, of which our MEC Chairman is a voting member, can change ALPA policy. Captain Webb believes that he has the support of other members of the Executive Board for retrospectivity of current seniority number holders. Only time will tell whether that view will carry the day. And to go one step further, even if ALPA policy changes to support a retrospective application of a Age rule change, there's no guarantee such an interpretation would come out in law.

There are a lot of moving parts in the process.




.

No pilot has a contractual right to do that today. Such a process would amount to "super" seniority. Captain Webb does not support such a process.




.

I'm glad somebody else was thinking money when I said fiduciary. ;)

First, I didn't call anybody "junior varsity," and I'm offended by the term used in reference to anybody on our seniority list. We're all on the varsity team, from seniority number first to seniority number last.

Second, I don't see how a retrospective application of an Age law change will drain union funds. The economic impact on my future paychecks will be the result of change in the Age law -- nothing comes out of union funds.





.

Apparently I'm not getting the message you're trying to send. What have you heard from the MEC Chairman and the MEC that you consider to be "condescending"?




.

http://www.eyeforaneyetv.com/

This could solve the whole thing. On the subject of lawsuits though, my assumption is that any potential lawsuit against ALPA at least would be for duty of fair representation. If so, why wouldn't the door swing both ways, ie why couldn't the majority who don't support what FX ALPA is trying to do sue for the same cause? Before heads and gaskets start blowing, that is not what I am advocating as a course of action, rather what I am getting at is why is this such a big concern to FX ALPA over a few people when the other side would represent far more $$$ in any potential litigation?

When the over 60 guys at other carriers don't get what our over 60 guys that went from being a S/O back to being a Captain got, ALPA National will be getting sued big time!!!
ALPA National is thinking way ahead of our MEC by not going for this ridiculous issue!!!

The NPRM process has been used to change rules, and it requires that any change to the rules be "as safe as" the original rule. One such NPRM that has been hanging out unresolved for many years involves flight times / duty times. The Air Transport Association would like to increase flight time limitations for a day to 10 hours (a 25% increase) in exchange for a decrease in Duty Time allowed for that same day. We would prefer that both Flight Time and Duty Time be decreased.

If Congress changes the Age 60 rule, bypassing the NPRM, it will circumvent the "as safe as" standard, and it will set a precedent. How long do you think the well-funded ATA would take before they'd be back to Congress lobbying for help to "resolve" the Flight Time / Duty Time issue?

That's one issue. Another issue is expertise. Where do you suppose the experts on aviation work, in the FAA, or in Senate staffs? On the issues that surround the implementation of a rule change, we want experts involved, not congressional staffers.




.

I am not sure of your point. You sound as if FDX ALPA or ALPA National waves a wand and makes it so.

Just so it is clear. Nothing has changed......................................yet.

The ALPA Exec BOD meeting will be in a few days. There is a chance that ALPA National could change it's policy on AGE, in other words the Exec BOD might decide to change it, they might not.

If they do decide to change it, all the MEC chairs have a vote and the majority vote wins. Sound Democratic enough?

One way or another if ALPA changes it's position, it will be merely ALPA National's position. Then realize this is only a POSITION.

ALPA's position ( even if it changes) isn't going to change any laws.

If the law does change to allow over 60 guys to fly (SO's to return to the fromt seat in your example). If they will be allowed to return, it is not like it will be only FedEx over 60 2nd officers will be singled out.........they would be able to do it at UPS, Gemini, NWA, Kalitta Polar , Southern Air or any other property that has over 60 Engineers.


If you are saying that already retired over 60 guys can't return that will be true. An already retired guy can't return now to be a 2nd officer if he changes his mind.........can he?

And BTW ALPA National, FDX and other properties are already being sued over the age 60 issue. That nothing new, it has been going on for years.

If you're talking about a poll, you must be talking about the ALPA policy on changing the Age 60 rule. That's the topic of the polls, not the Retrospective/Prospective issue. So, let's talk about the polls.

According to the polls, FedEx pilots are opposed to changing the Age 60 rule. There is no dispute on this point. If it's up to FedEx pilots, we should not change the rule. Guess what? It's not up to FedEx pilots. The rule will change, regardless of our opinion. If we were unanimous in our opposition to the change, it would not prevent the rule change. The issue has been changed from a Safety issue to an Age Discrimination issue, and our staunchest supporters have now switched sides. The rule will change, and we need to get ready for it.

According to the polls, 66% of those opposed to the rule change want ALPA to be involved in the process if it does change. You may argue that's like asking "If your house is on fire, do you want us to call the Fire Department?" Frankly, I don't know why the answer isn't 100% in the affirmative, unless respondants simply refused to accept the premise that the house is on fire. Regardless of that speculation, the 66% represents another majority. Which majority should be ignored, the majority that oppose the change, or the majority that want ALPA to be involved if it changes?

The majority that opposes the change is rendered moot if the rule does change, and I believe that to be the case. It is the responsible thing, then, to become involved in the process for the benefit of all members.



The Union should not represent the majority of its members, nor should it represent any minority of its members. The Union should represent ALL of its members.





.

"Apparently I'm not getting the message you're trying to send. What have you heard from the MEC Chairman and the MEC that you consider to be "condescending"?"

Are you serious? I have been told the MEC Chair and the MEC know better than myself and the membership what is good for us. They don't trust me to do the "right" thing so they decide for us. If that's not condescending then I don't know what is. I sure as Hades know it's wrong..

In case it might have been missed in one of my previous posts, allow me to reiterate. The issue of Passover Pay for domicile transfers was not an issue that was supported by contract language. To grieve that would have thrown hard-earned dues dollars down the drain. Did it suck? Yes. Did it seem unfair? Yes. Was it legal by the contract? Yes. It's foolish to grieve something that's legal by the contract, and that has been established by precedent.

When I was an ANC MD-11 FO, I bid the Memphis domicile. Prior to my transfer, MD-11 FO's junior to me were trained and activated in the MEM domicile. Was that fair? I don't think so. I had to commute to ANC for 3 months while junior pilots bid on the lines I wanted. Was it legal per the contract? Absolutely. Same concept. The contract was followed.


Retroactivity prevents a segment of our seniority from being assigned a second-class status. It protects the seniority of all pilots, not just a few.




.

Does anyone remember the saying:

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK,
IF WHAT YOU THINK DOESN'T MATTER!!

Tony I am in agreement with you. Suppose in this current Senate Bill
S-65, has anammendment at the last minute ( @ 0300 AM ) which includes a little Blurb to change Flight time duty time or license haromization or yet another increase in Foreign ownership?

I think (at least I hope so) we can all agree that it will set an extremely bad precident if Congress is allowed to circumvent the FAA NPRM process and become the new Aviation Rule making committee.

That was before anyone, that was past the current "regulated age", was allowed to go back to a seat that was not previously legal for them to go to.

I think we'll see the lawsuits take on a whole new life, if the FAA allows our current over 60 guys back in the front seat.

Who told you that?




.

Yeah probably, you will also see lawsuits if an over 60 guy is allowed ( say 8 months from now) to continue to fly but yet another who guy retires in say 6 months from now is forced to retire. There will always be lawsuits no matter what.

My point is that if our MEC fights for Retroactivity (Retroprospectivity or whatever you want to call it) and then it is included in the final language, it may come back to bite ALPA National.
If they (ALPA National) do not fight for the "rights" of those individuals that turned 60 during the NPRM process (and they are left hung out to dry) like our MEC is apparently doing for our "old backseaters" it will most likely lead to much more litigation against ALPA.
The fact that our MEC is seemingly fighting so hard for so few when there are so many other important aspects to this Regulation/Legislation process is mind boggling--that is where I'm coming from (I'm biased without a doubt).

If you have taken any of ALPA's polls(Wilson/phone/web) on a variety of issues before, you know they have a tendency to box you into certain issues by the way they phrase the question and the answers they give you to choose from. Most people just fall for the trap and give the 'best' answer of those offered-just like the SAT's or the newhire interview test. Some choose not to answer to make their point, and yes a few probably believe that the house isn't on fire but I bet it's more of the former than the latter. I haven't seen too many people around these days who think that this is just going to go away easily.

I'm one of the 34%. I do know the house is on fire.

With DW's position I would rather he not fight the fire.

So when is the recall ballott coming and how many of you guys are running. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, fresh ideas are a good thing. There is a difference though in talking a good game and playing one.

Your point is valid. I think you will see some activity next time from some guys who in the past have been content to sit on the sidelines.

I've been wrong before, and may be wrong on this one. We'll see...

Thoughts
 

A couple of questions/comments:

From earlier 'Tony C' post:

"The NPRM process has been used to change rules, and it requires that any change to the rules be "as safe as" the original rule."

From 'Roberta' Post of the proposed S.1300, Section 706 titled "Modification of FAA's Age-60 Standard":

(d) GAO Report After Modification of Age-60 Standard- Not later than 24 months after the effective date described in subsection (e), the Comptroller General of the United States shall report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives concerning the effect on aviation safety, if any, of the modification of the age standard contained in subsection (a).

I have not verified either source document, but assuming that both the NPRM comment, and the representation of the proposed wording, are correct, it would appear that the FAA's own standard of safety for a rule change has not been adequately proved to the Legislature. Otherwise, no report would be needed about any effect on aviation safety caused by the rule change, even if only to verify that no change in safety occurred. Thoughts?

Question - where in the contract does it allow a crewmember, when reaching age 60, to automatically be awarded a S/O position when no vacancy bid exists? Section 23, A, 1) and 3) contain the closest discussion I can find on the subject, but I don't believe they accurately address the question. The wording "no second officer crew seats" might imply no vacancies, or might simply mean as written - no three-crew aircraft on the property.

I know it has has been policy since I've been here. And, the policy has been against previous "manuals". Many may remember the excess bid of 25 S/O's in the DC10 around 1989/1990. The GFT process was used, and only reached the first stage. My understanding was that the successful argument was that over-60 guys were being allowed to go to the back in violation of the FCH.

If it is fact not contractual, but only, say, a 'JL-policy' (which I've been told), consideration may need to be given to the fact that this "policy", which in the past really did not have an impact on other cremembers, now could do so. assuming the expected age change will occur. Consideration, maybe, by the union?

Or, might it be allowed only in that is is not addressed adequately in the contract?

r/

The only place I see it is in 23.A.2.c:

A restricted pilot who cannot move to or be accommodated as a second officer from another crew position because his relative seniority is less than the current population of second officers or there are no second officer crew seats, shall be offered the opportunity to retire as provided in the Agreement. Following a pilot's rejection of the offer, the pilot shall be released from employment as provided in Section 22.B.1., and shall not be considered as having been furloughed in cases where the only crew status the pilot can occupy is second officer.

Seems to me there must be a vacancy...

CBA SEC 24.E.6

A pilot who has a legal restriction that prohibits him from flying in his current crew status shall be accommodated in another crew status, if any, from which he is not legally restricted consistent with his seniority and standing bid.

[Captain Webb does not support such a process.]

Tony, we once had an F/O as our FPA president so I don't think his seat position is relative. However, I'm leaning toward Generalisimo Webb as an appropriate moniker although, El Presidente' Webb has a certain ring to it.

It's his title. He's earned it. I notice you have the same thing under your Avatar.



It would also be appropriate to call him Chairman. He also answers to Dave.



Does this mean you've run out of arguments? ;)




.

Actually, I'm not sure he answers to anything. He sure doesn't answer to the majority of MEC members.

Pools, opinions, and majority governance
 

Thank you Tony for providing a level headed explanation regarding the hows and why of ALPA leadership and politics. Too many (FedEx) pilots who strenuously disagree with with age 60 and/or retro seem to feel that just because a majority of (FedEx) pilots disagree with the impending changes, that FDX ALPA should take a stand that runs counter (in the opinion of) the leadership of what ultimately will benefit the most (or provide the least determent to) the pilots they've been elected to represent.

Age 60 is a no win to the majority of pilots for a number of reasons, not just because it will create some stagnation to all pilots not yet retired. No doubt those pilots advocating age 60 who are approaching the current retirement age and who wish to stay till 65, will benefit due to already being at the top of the seniority list when others (senior to them) were obliged to retire or move to the back seat, but the majority of pilots will suffer (varying) degrees of financial or QOL set backs due to slowed seat progression/relative seniority slippage or stagnation.

While the train wreck of the increased retirement age is a result of political forces ALPA did not support, ALPA and specifically FDX ALPA seems to be taking an undeserved hit for trying to make the best out of a bad situation. Everyone has a right to disagree with how its elected leadership deals with this age 60, it would be helpful it everyone with a axe to grind about this issue keep it all in prospective. FedEx has, till this point had the best career progression of any major 121 carrier. Career stagnation/retraction could happen for a number of reasons unrelated to retirements and we all would, to varying degrees, would suffer from them. While past performance is no guarantee of future success, FedEx seems to be poised to grow into the future and we all will benefit by such. Having said that, we need affective leadership and a unified crewforce so that we can build of recent gains and protect our careers from future known and unforeseen threats from within our company and from outside (FAA, legislation, cabitage, etc, etc).

What do we loose with Congress/FAA by not supporting the age 65 ... ALPA leadership feels that we will be in a better position to influence the process ... this is what I disagree with. I think in the end that Congress/FAA will use our support for the change too poke us in the eye later on ... Big picture IMO is voice what our position is with regard too the majority and still continue too be involved in the process/implementation of age 65.

Has anyone written / called their congressman or senator to see if the statement that we must change our position to have influence is actually correct? Has ALPA produced a letter from any of the politicians that have actually said this? I've written mine who is on the transportation committee and haven't gotten a response back. Calls will start soon.

Yea -- I guess we should just give up
 

To use your logic --- I’m against illegal aliens entering this country thru our southern border, but it looks like George W is going to give them all a pass anyway---so I might as well give up that fight too and try to influence the process. Makes perfect sense. I know that most American’s feel the same way I do, but obviously George knows what’s best so we should all just give up the fight and accept it.

Are you guys actually buying into this argument?

Come to think of it, I’m against Euthanasia too—but I’m sure some bleeding heart liberal who know’s better than I will win that battle. It’s obviously the right thing to do for all the terminally ill, so I’ll just give up that fight too and have some influence on the process. That’s the ticket, it may be the ultimate solutuon to this age 65 s—t sandwich ALPA wants me to eat.

While we are at it, let’s bring all the old codger’s who have had full careers back to the left seat. It’s the right thing to do. On the plus side, we have all those flying lessons to look forward to. This is going to be awesome!

Do we agree that it is right? NO

Do we all know that it is going to happen? Most of us have come to that realization.


Do most of want all these illegal aliens to be granted immunity. NO

Do you think you are going to stop it? Our Politicians have sold us out, I agree, but guess what, The BIG corpoprations, ie the BIG money in Washington wants the free flow of gauranteed Cheap labor and guess who is going to get their way?

Do you think it is you and me? or BIG MONEY Corp America?

Age 65 is no different. Big money wants it, they get it..........we lose.

If Bush's administration should announce, tomorrow, that they have come to an agreement with the Europeans and Asians allowing cabotage here in the U.S., should ALPA drop its resistance to that because its inevitable? I don't think so.

Look. A majority of the members at ALPA carriers that have lost their pensions want this to change. Their representatives should voice that. We, at FDX, don't want the change. Our representatives should voice that. Since when do we need unanimous votes on everything in this union. That's stupid.

It sickens me to see every vote in our own MEC, unanimous. That's surely not a democratic body. Is that how it should work in Congress? Its certainly not how it works on the Supreme Court! It doesn't need to. That's how a representative democratic body is supposed to work.

But, if that isn't what we want our union to be...Then why don't we just allow Prater(our ultimate leader)to change ALPA's policies without a vote from anyone?

I do believe that the age 6o rule is going to change. Maybe this year, maybe next week. But, this has been handled like a bunch of amateurs. From the top, at the national level to our own MEC.

But don't fight to make it even worse for ourselves by demanding retrospectivity(admittedly a smaller issue). But when you take into account:

1. Our seat progression is going to stagnate
2. Our industry-wide wages are going to stagnate substantially by this age 65 thing (less personnel loss for us and the pax guys--less of a looming crisis for the carriers, which was one of their reasons for wanting Age 65)--wages are all about attracting new talent as far as the company is concerned!
3. We are going to have to fight to keep from being penalized for retiring prior to the "new regulated age (65)"
4. We are going to have to fight to keep our B fund

Retrospectivity is just another factor in the equation that really hoses those of us with 10 or more years to go...

Look I agree with your sentiment. I am one of you, I am on your Side.

The reality of the situation is that YOU and the REST of US had our opportunity to fight this issue for the past several years.

ALPA has had the "Action Alerts" links on their website forever asking
us to email their Senators and congressmen concerning AGE 60.
How many of us actually took the time to write your leaders over and over?They ask for donations to the PAC.

ALPA only barely raises1,000,000 in PAC donations each year from 65,000 members. a whopping $15 per member. Maybe you donate $500 each year and good on you for doing so. I am willing to bet most out there just said" Let ALPA handle it" and probably those same folks didn't give a dime to the PAC...........because they are cheap or used the excuse that ALPA tends to support Democrats..........

What your ALPA leaders are telling is is that this fight is over. Now all that is left to fight about is how it is implemented. But the FIGHT over the Change in AGE is done my friend. I don't like it, you don't have to like it, but thinking we have any shot at stopping it is..............futile.

The current Adminsistration cut a deal with the EU on Open SKies.
That is a done DEAL.........do you want to fight it Now, WHERE WERE YOU 5 years ago when ALPA said Hey this is coming?

If you want to FIGHT, good on you, there are be many fights looming.

License Harmonization and cabotage is the next one, what are you and the rest of us going to do about it? These are fights that have yet to be decided.

What's really the right thing to do
 

Redeye,
No arguments that this is probably a done deal. But, if we really want to "do the right thing" ----We should fight this until the end. That shows a consistant position that the vast majority of ALPA membership supports. Most of the membership would be pleased that ALPA did the right thing by fighting this. To flip flop positions, and then throw salt in the wound by supporting retroactively bringing the old guys back is ridiculous.

The upside of holding the line is that it keeps us united. The down side is that we (or FedEx) face possible legal battles with the old codgers who want to "fly till they die." That's where the Euthanasia legislation comes in. It could be the "ultimate solution." Hypoxia could be the method of choice----quick and painless.

Excuse the sarcasm---I'm trying to keep a sense of humor here.

Yes it is.......no one is arguing that it won't. (with the exception of the B- Fund)

You seem to think there is a chance in H*LL in stopping what has already been decided.

My point is that we had our chance and we successfully fought it off for this long........but we have lost the battle on AGE 60. Do you really think otherwise?