Jolly

Would you agree that we have more fights coming?

Open Skies issues. since open skies with the EU is done the next logical ASIA (China is looming). Canada, Mexico and South Ameirca could be next,

I keep harping on License Harmoniization (especailly emerging countires) as the single biggest threat to our careers.

From strictly a business Standpoint..........................and let us say it is your call and yours alone.

Knowing that Bush already ageed that over 65 pilots can already fly in the US (they just have to be Foreign Pilots)As the Big Kahuna............................
.................................................. ..................................................
Would you expend all your PAC money and call in EVERYONE of your Political
favors to try to stop AGE 65 from Happening?

If your Answer is yes, what is your plan and how do you plan to fund it, for the future fights (which ARE coming very soon my friend)
Remember you just used up all your politicial capitol and favors becaus eyou have NO money left over to buy Access to Senators or Congressmen, not to mention credibility on the hill because they have already told us we are wasting our time trying to stop a change on AGE 60.



** Cabotage rights Allowing Foreign owned Carriers to fly Intra US for revenue
** Pension Reforms.......Raising IRS Caps on B Funds and PBGC legislation
** Open Skies We already gave away the EU is ASIA nest
** License Harmonization allowing a Chinese, Indian or Eastern EU Bloc Pilot to fly in the US.

You have limited resources
This is your Call............What do you do?

No I would not
 

Redeye,
All valid points. I would not waste any money fighting the Age-65 legislation because it probably is a done deal. But I would not change my positon to try and "limit the damage." The damage is done already, but let's keep our official position that flying past 60 is a bad idea. That keeps our position consistant, and when s--t happens after this thing goes thru we can say I told you so. We are going to now waste those same resources changing our postion to "fly till we die" in order to influence the process. We are all mostly on the same page here, we just don't see eye to eye on how to deal with this.

No argument there...

I disgree on 2 accounts.

Even if the FedEx MEC changes its mind and votes to keep fighting any change to AGE 60, the remainder of the MEC's will not (IMHO) and thus the Position of ALPA will still change to stop opposing.

As to the Damage already beiing done..................

While the Age Change is done (or more accurately will be done shortly)
What has yet to be determined, is how it will implemented...........Many folks on this forum seem to that has already been determined, but in talking with my Block rep and DW not everything is yet cast in stone.

Medical Standards
Disabilitity issues
Potential IRS tax law changes
And yes........retroactivity for currently employed over 60 pilots all all issues which are not yet in concrete.

ALPA leadership (according to my block rep and a phone call to the MEC Chair) has said that in order to have any valubale input to the changes above, ALPA must no longer oppose the change, in other words they must change their opinion.............

Political extortion ?? Yeap Maybe but That is apparently how things are done in Washington, You Pay to play or you make deals where you can when you can or you have gets demands placed on you by your constituents when they have the power to do so. In this case ALPA has lost any and all support from their Allies to Oppose changes to AGE 60 and thus have little political pull on this issue.

So they must yield to the Laws of politics.
We will need a few favors down the road.

If ALPA as a whole doesn't vote to fight for this, it doesn't matter what the FDX MEC proposed anyway. By majority rule, ALPA will proceed.

I understand the anger vented from the general membership of the FedEx pilots.
This was sprung on us rather quickly and without much chance for input............which is really the brunt of the complaints on this forum. I think the MEC got that message loud and clear.

They have tried to explain their actions. In any event we will all know more next week when the ALPA Exectuive Board meeting concludes.

Trust me on this one. I don't need to be lectured about keeping in touch with my representatives, government or union. I've always done my part in letting them know my stance. And, I have been at least a "Capitol Club" PAC donor for the past 20 years. The only thing I don't like about not having my brain bag anymore, is that was where I proudly displayed my "I backed the PAC" stickers.

But, my earlier point was...Who is going to try and stop any of the upcoming battles? Who cares about cabotage? Licence harmonization? I would argue that U.S. pilots are the only ones that care. And, who is going to listen to us then? And why should they?

Money? We're easily outspent. As you pointed out.

Fear of reprisal? We don't act like a labor union. We're proving that. To have any effect on upcoming legislation...We're having to roll over when the battle seems lost. What would make anyone think we won't do the same, in the future?

Respect? Now we're going to fight any higher medical standards for over age 60 guys. When we've cried "safety", for our stance on age 60 for over 40 years!

We don't have a leg to stand on.

If we are to have any chance of success in the future...We need real leadership. Leaders that can educate and motivate the members. We don't have that now. Our local FDX leaders can't even get the members to stop voluntarily flying DP's!!! Now, there's some leadership.

It's pitiful!

Would I do a better job? No, I don't think so. But, don't anyone tell me what a great job our leadership is doing. Local or Natl.

These are all important. Knowing their importance I know what I wouldn't do.

I wouldn't spend a dime, a minute or ounce of energy on changing legislation or FAA rule making to include Retroactivity.

I am not in the room when any of this is going on, so I can obviously only speak in general terms. BUT--

There is no truth to the concept that opponents of legislation cannot influence the wording of legislation.

(**NOT SAYING ALPA CAN INLUENCE AGE 60** NOT SAYING ALPA LOBBYISTS ARE NOT BEING TOLD TO CHANGE OUR POSITION**)

Caveats aside, we all can search our memory banks for legislation that we are familiar with where this has happened. This is why a bills wording so often do not reflect the name on the bill. Opponents lobby to have all their little exemptions and such tacked on to the point where the bill is destroyed.
Sometimes you end up with legislators who "voted for it before they voted against it":).


I know someone who works in this line of work who gave me an example of what he referred to as a "hostile amendment." Imagine a consumer advocate bill that a retailer would be against, but for obvious reasons all of the Senators need to say they voted YES. So, the retailers find a Senator to have the bill amended such that the funding for the new program in the bill is removed (by removing a fee that the retailers were objecting to having to pay- The fee paid for the program). All the Senators vote Yes anyway, even though they can see the implementation has been destroyed by the amendment, but they still can't be a NO vote. Thus the person opposed to the original bill has influenced the final legislation. HAPPENS EVERY DAY!! I just gave you one real example.

Of course, I am not saying the political will exists to stop this. I am not saying it would be right or wrong to do so. But we can put away the idea that someone with enough muscle cannot influence a bill they oppose. ALPA is just telling (me anyway) that we don't have enough muscle!

Bus

You bring up many valid points, but it is easy to say our leaders our weak because it they are the closest point to us.
I don't worship the Ground Prater or ol Duane walks on, nor do I say
"I am not worthy" when Webb, Huggins, Baker or any of the FedExMEC walks into he room. That being said, I don't think these guys are the brunt of the problem either.........
The have done a decent job from where I sit
I don't always agree with their views but I can't complain with much of their work.

You say we don't act like a labor UNION? I am assuming ALPA National?? or just FedEX ALPA??

What would you have ALPA President do right now?
What would you have DW do? as you pointed out we can't even stop our Pilots from flying disputed pairings. If you can't get them from stopping something so easy, How would you get them to do something more risky to their Job......

Whether your a GOP supporter or not, The BUSH Administration has nuetered labor. We can't strike anymore, his Appointed Judges have seen to that, so now they can void contracts at will, while simultaneously taking the right to strike away. So Far we have been Lucky at FedEx, but that won't continue forever.

ALPA can't raise enough PAC donations because many Pilots are offended that ALPA endoreses Democrats. !(which always confuses me, everyone says what a shame they did that to USAir, UAL or DAL but yet they vote for the People who push for it..........oh well their right I guess., but it gets me that many of those same folks that *****, don't give tot he PAC)

How about we show some stones and call for a National SOS?
I'd be all for it.

The sad part is we can't even got folks to show up on an OFF day and support informational picketing on some one elses property. How many folks showed up in Washing DC yesterday?

ASK a United or NWA pilot to show up and picket for DHL................

Or likewise...............for UPS..........or SWA.

We can't garner support on in the PAX side even with the fact that almost all of them have lost their Pensions. If we can't get enough unity to join each others informational picketing............How do you garner enough support to GROW STONES and become a REAL LABOR UNION.

So while I concur with some of your sentitment, what would you do if you were chief, given the reality of how things are.

From one guy with multiple "I backed the PAC" stickers to another.

What would I do if I were Prater?

Since I was dumb enough to ask the membership's position, I would adhere to their position.

What would I do if I were DW?

Ditto, especially since they overwhelmingly let me know how they felt about the issue.

I would also realize that since we appear to be powerless in the situation, that we would also be powerless in influencing the legislation. I certainly wouldn't spend our resources on gaining retroactivity for over 60 folks since everyone else seems to want the legislation to be proactive.

You are buying into the BS, wake up dude! Let's oust these guys!

[QUOTE=nightfreight;167719]What would I do if I were Prater?

Since I was dumb enough to ask the membership's position, I would adhere to their position.

What would I do if I were DW?

Ditto, especially since they overwhelmingly let me know how they felt about the issue.

I would also realize that since we appear to be powerless in the situation, that we would also be powerless in influencing the legislation. I certainly wouldn't spend our resources on gaining retroactivity for over 60 folks since everyone else seems to want the legislation to be proactive.

You are buying into the BS, wake up dude!
QUOTE]

Look if you don't believe what you are being told, don't believe it.

When the lobbyist say we are at a Dead End, I have to trust them as I am not on the Hill everyday.

ALPA isn't Powerless on the Hill, they are telling you that in as far as AGE 60 is yes they have done all they can do, it is a done deal.

You don't seam to grasp that. in fact they have done many things.

recently FFDO's were the result of ALPA

MAny of the current Duty limits are the results of ALPA in past NPRM's.

Most of the TERPS procedures and protections on your appraoch plates are because of ALPA.

You most recent contract was attainedbecause of help from ALPA (and the hard work of those who you show such disdain for. (and the collective will of the Pilots.)

I must ask, Before you decide to oust them........do you have suitable replacments in mind that want the job?

Right now I would take Mutt and Jeff as suitable replacements.

I will agree that despite FDX's vote that a majority will most likely take place at the Exec Board. In principle, I would like them to vote for the overwhelming majority and then let the chips fall as they may. If the vote is then in favor of changing the stance, so be it. This change in stance is Prater's desire and he wants this to happen.

I, for one, don't want ALPA to have any say in the process. If congress wants to pass a law, so what? I am not sure why this is such a bad thing. It would be enacted faster than a NPRM and if it is the right the thing to do, then let's do it. Not sure why the aviation experts at the FAA can do any better, if it is 65 it is 65. This isn't an issue of Terps or duty day limitations where a knowledge of aviation is a requirement.

OK it is clear you are now flamebaiting.

You don't want ALPA involved the process at all.

You want Congress to legislate this change without Pilot input on Medical issues, I see

If this is how you really feel than I really don't see what you beef is with anything??:confused:

"Quote:
Originally Posted by FreightDawgyDog

I have been told the MEC Chair and the MEC know better than myself and the membership what is good for us.



Who told you that?"

Tony,

I am not interested in a game of 20 questions with you, nor a semantic's debate. The actions of this MEC speak louder than words here: The majority of pilots cannot have a democratic say because the MEC knows what is right for this pilot group and the membership doesn't. Of course, I feel the need to reiterate again that they are the only ones advocating retroactivity here. ALPA, the FAA, and Congress do not. I guess we will never know for sure whether a majority of pilots here are for it because we have been denied a vote, but I think that very fact speaks volumes about what the majority thinks. The thing that will forever stick in my craw is Dave Webb and his MEC's always seem to spend extra focus on helping out the same small group of people here. Scope penalty payments, VEBA, extra cash in benefit funds for those over 50, the best retirement in the industry (that will be wasted for the next 4 years by those who will now continue to fly over 60), and now an Age 60 stance change plus demanding retroactivity in a law that has not even been made yet. If you are not approaching 60, or already there, I think you have reason to feel a little underrepresented here by the MEC's that Dave Webb has been Chair of.

Look Tony, you have made your position clear here. I have stated my concerns as well. You have tried to make a case for the MEC Chair and the MEC for not seeking out and following their membership majority wishes here. Some have agreed with you, most have not. I have yet to speak with a fellow pilot, in person, that agrees with the retroactivity, nor agrees that we should not be allowed a majority say in what our stand shall be. I have no problem disagreeing with you here, just as I have told my MEC and LEC Rep's that I disagree with them as well. I am still waiting for someone to justify a change in our stance on Age 60 on one hand (even though it is against the majority wishes) because we need to side with the majority of ALPA here to have an effect on legislation, and at the same time say we need to fight as a small minority for retroactivity in said legislation. Do we need to be united with them or not? I have actually been convinced on the change in our stance, as putrid as it is to me, but have yet to be convinced about fighting the rest of the world on retroactivity. We should either be united with ALPA's stance on these issues or not. Isn't that the point of changing our Age 60 stance in the first place?

Anyway, everyone knows how I feel here and I'm tired of covering old ground and playing word games. I have received emails from 2 LEC reps concerning allowing retroactive bidding on a bid closed before the Age change, in the event they win their fight on retroactivity. I was happy with both responses and hoping to hear from the rest of them, including Chairman Webb, on their position. I am trying to get ahead of the next fight the MEC may have for this group of pilots I mentioned earlier in my post if they get their way with retroactivity. That is where I am focusing now. See you all on the line..

FDD ----- Go over that Retro Active bidding before the change thing. I got lost.

Redeye,

What kind of input on medical standards do you want? More or less stringent? You want treadmill tests? What? I don't think there is a need to change the system that currently exists. Blakey doesn't see a need to change the system, do you? I see the current medical standards as sufficient. Not sure what you want here..

Like I said, the way I see it, the only think I see ALPA's influence would be to grandfather the over 60 second officers. Please tell me how their influence shaping this legislation (or NPRM) would benefit us. The FAA isn't going to deal with B plan issues, our contract, etc. It seems quite simple, raising the upper age to 65. And for that matter, if they change it, they shouldn't require another pilot to be under 60. If ALPA and the FAA think it is safe, just raise the age.

My beef is simple, I want our MEC to listen to the overwhelming majority of it's membership. I want DW to vote "no" on the Exec Board vote. My beef is that while FDX ALPA won't go to bat for the junior pilots due (those MD-11 FOs) but will bend over backwards trying to allow the over 60 S/Os the chance to come back. I want the representation that we deserve. That is my beef.

Here is my take. ALPA will change it's stance and say that all of the talk about safety and Age 60 was a mistake. With the one major barrier to changing the rule gone, a NPRM will be out in 3-6 months. It will mirror ICAO standards (while keeping our medical standards in place). The rule will be proactive and the S/Os will not be allowed to move back to the left seat.

Mutt and Jeff may be options, but if you are that irritated then run on the platform you propose. I don't throw that out there as a retort or a smart alec comment, but a legitimate proposal.

Here's who signed that POS letter:

Dave Webb
Wally Huggins
Chris Baker
Jack Anzur
Vic Tansey
David Risch
Mike Arcamuzi
Derek Martin
Jeff Stark
John Grones
Sean McDonald
Scott Schwartz
Guy Lopez
Edgar Irizarry
Scott Lohman

Most of these folks have been working for us for a long time. I don't think they are communist, God-hating horrible people. I think by in large they've done the right thing.

But if you look closely--you will notice a lot of those names have been FPA/ALPA leadership for a long, long time. Some have argued that we need to TRUST these guys based on past performance. Others have argued that these guys have become insulated and lost touch. I think some of Wally's notes indicate a long vacation or a small does of lithium here or there might be in order...but that's just MY take.

Personally--I think there is some truth to both sides. However, if you EVER had an interest in serving your bros on the MEC, I think you just got an opening. Recalling the block 7/block 8 reps would not be that tough right now. Its been pointed out that replacing DW isn't really an option, and even if you tried he'll be in Washington before you can do anything about it. Good or bad...ALPA insulates its leadership from the day to day whipsaws of emotion.

So--which one of us bitchin', loud-mouth SOBs is gonna send one or more of these guys back to the line to read positive rate, donate money to the PAC, and never again have the chance to vote against the majority?

Pony up or shut up... I've got some names in mind. Anyone know when the next election will be? Any by-law experts know how to request another one? I'm just a dumb FO who doesn't know civics...so one of you experts pipe in.

Heck--if we had another election--maybe J.F. could even get more than one vote this time...

You're right Albie, they're not God hating communists, and they're not out to get you. I am a block 5 Family Awareness Neighbohood Nazi. This too, will pass. Let's allow it to happen on our terms. 'nuff said", Block 5. Its time to end this thread. Agreed?

Not Nazi, not dictator, but communist isn't too far off.
 

What do you call a form of government where a few decide what is good for everyone against their wishes? What form of government hides information that disagrees with their propaganda? Have you seen the results of the May 10th poll or have you just been told the results? Have you seen the results of the Wilson poll?

I'd call it.........The Bush Administration!

Touche' :D

No, he is not flamebaiting.

If DW and company want to do the Don Quixote thing and try and lead us where we don't want to go, we don't want their message to be heard at ALPA national or, if ALPA national jumps on board with DW, Congress.

It's been noted we have lots of important issues that ALPA needs a voice in--License harmonization, retirement rules, medical requirements, foreign ownership, cabotage. Very important point. Our voice will be diluted if we continue to push such "peripheral" issues as retroactive implementation. The FAA and Congress will treat us like we are rambling fools--if they don't already.

Yeah thats what Sandy Burglar was doing, hiding Bush propaganda.

And THEN they take it to both bills to the Compromise Committee to "iron out" the differences and the whole darn thing can be rewritten in some cases. That smoky room is where you really want your influence to be heard and acted upon.

.

I won't argue that 10 years ago you certainly could have replaced "The Clinton Administration" for "The Bush Administration.". But currently the Buck stops on GWB's desk now, not Wild Bill's.

I was comparing the current environment to a previous poster who was compalining about Democracy (or lack there of) within the Confines of ALPA.

I would argue athat ALPA is far more Democratic in that Pilots have far more say in than we do as US citizens. We vote to ratify contracts, we vote to ratify LOA's. A memeber in Good standing can make resolutions at their LEC meetings.

Look there are many unpopular issues we as Pilots are currently facing and soon will be facing. Like it or not, ALPA is the only orgainization that is fighting for Pro-Pilot issues or more importantly is the only organization with the Assets to do so.

If you really think the Leaders, both local and National are going down the wrong path than do something about it! While I too was personally surpirsed and Upset initially, with what has recently happend, I do understand the reasoning and the thought process.

If you or anyone else thinks that they truelly can do better than it is time to
"Put up or Shut up" If you haven't already contacted your Status Block reps, then do so. Voice your complaints and ask what is being done. If you still aren't satisfied, then get enough support from the rest of your general membership and find someone who is more in touch and begin the recall process.

I will make this recommendation: Before you do that you better have a suitable candidate in mind who is wiling to do the job.
Because when you recall and an office goes unfilled or unopposed, often
a less disireable individual can slip in and you will be worse off than you are now.

Good luck

Yah!! Wow!! You got him there!!

Don't forget to throw in such meaningful retorts as Spiro, Billygate, Ollie North, and Watergate.

Don't forget whitewater since hillary's soon to be ALPAs "man".

Thank you for your always inciteful input, Mr. Hannity.

There is no shortage of scandals in Washington.....from either Party.

Your welcome Mr. Moore.

True, and I would leave political comments for political threads if others will.

Ouch, that was worse than "Mr Colmes"! :eek:

Yes, he's a very clever one isn't he? Probably gets his lines from that great American, carl rove.

And, I'm finished with the politics and theatrics on this forum.

Well said. It's a pleasure to see some reasonable posts on here.

Can't match wits with you Mr. Carville

You need to work on your punctuation. You right wing fascist pig!:p

This is taken from HR 1125:

(c) Applicability- The provisions of subsection (a) shall not provide a basis for a claim of seniority under any labor agreement in effect between a recognized bargaining unit for pilots and an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, that is made by a person who was a pilot and who attained 60 years of age before the effective date described in subsection (e) and is seeking a position as a pilot with such air carrier following that person's termination or cessation of employment or promotion or transfer to another position with such air carrier pursuant to section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the day before the effective date described in subsection (e).

That would pretty much cover retroactivity, for any over 60 pilot. On the list, or not.

Of course, with the help of our lobbyist DW...Maybe that can be changed.:mad:

I just (finally) read the text of both H.R. 1125 and S.65 (The Freedom to Fly Act of 2007) and they both have the applicability clause that was previously mentioned. I also thought that it was supposed to come up for a vote this month, but it seems to be stalled. Any other info on when the FAA appropriations bill will come up for a vote?

This is where people have to be careful and not buy into all the hype that the change proponents want to believe so desperately. There is no guarantee that either house will approve their proposed bills as written and certainly less chance of them agreeing to terms and passing the FAA Authorization Bill with that language intact any time soon.

Could it happen? Yes, absolutely, positively. Could it happen this month? That is highly unlikely, but possible. There are plenty of bills being pushed right now that will take months to resolve through committee, and the FAA Authorization Bill is just one of many.

There is just as good a chance as the FAA being funded via a continuing resolution for several months of FY08, if not the whole year if the houses can't come to agreement on the Authorization Bill. ALPA is carping that this thing will be fast tracked, and it might, but I think the Congress and the President have a few other issues they are working on that they can't agree on right now and I doubt that the FAA bill will be at the top of their plate anytime soon. I could certainly be wrong.

Anybody that claims they can tell you when this thing will go through is full of hooey.

I admit that change is likely and it could come this summer, but I wouldn't put money or my whole life's plans on hold waiting for it.

FJ

When was the last time any of you saw any of those FCIF's announcing somebody retiring?

Seems like they've kind of dried up. Of the 13 individuals, senior to me, that turned age 60 in Apr and May, only 1 is not still in the system. Most are listed as NQN, NOL or don't allow access to their calenders. A few don't have any codes, trips, etc. on their calender. Maybe they retired?

I know this has been explained before...But, where do we find the secret deciphering ring for VIPS codes?

And what happened to the friggin' "Non-Members List" on the ALPA web site?

"And what happened to the friggin' "Non-Members List" on the ALPA web site?"

I tried to access that last week and kept getting an error message. Now it says it's not available. I was hoping to see how many non-members were over 60 now or due to retire at 60 in the next 2 years. We all know the greatest percentage of non-members are in Block 1 with the Instructor Block being a close second. Anyway, I am calling the union today about why we can't see the list. I'll let you know what I find out.