Juniority does have it's privileges, like who won't have to work with................

Hmm, what if all the under-60 guys say they don't want to fly with a 60+ guy in the seat? Hmmm..;)

Fellow pilots, ignore George and his undignified behavior. He lost his dignity a long time ago. Better to spend your time letting your LEC Reps know how you feel and making sure everyone else you know contacts them as well. I noticed the Comm Chairman's response left out the part of the MEC Chairman's message concerning those over 60 when the change comes. To me, that was the most divisive part of it. Don't let it go or we will have no say as a majority here. Write your Reps now. Here's what I sent to all of them..



I have appreciated your hard work on our behalf for these many years. There is no doubt we disagree on this issue and I think you will find a large majority of the of the pilots you serve disagree with you as well. There is also no doubt the MEC and I disagree about the right of the membership to vote on issues that involve their careers as opposed to allowing you and the MEC to decide for us. In this case, it is my belief all sides should state their concerns and put it out for a vote as opposed to just making edicts from the MEC. I understand the issue of changing our stance against Age 60 may not allow that time frame, but certainly fighting for retroactivity of any rule change to those over 60 when the change comes does. While I am sure the MEC is in possession of information and figures I may not have seen, the last ALPA member poll I saw said 56% of their members were against an Age 60 change. As the latest Age 60 Blue Ribbon Panel Poll of ALPA's members will not even close until May 10, I find it hard to believe you are quoting those numbers. In fact, as I said in my previous email, I find it mind boggling you would come out with your message before even gathering the facts from that poll that many members like myself took a great deal of time and thought to complete. It seem obvious to me the MEC wasn't interested in my opinion here after all and I wasted the time I took to fill it out.

Just so I understand our current stance per your message last Friday (and email to me), the MEC is saying this is all about being part of the majority and having a say when it comes to reversing our FDX ALPA majority held and long standing Age 60 change opposition. On the other hand, the MEC is also saying we will fight, even if we will clearly be in the minority, to allow pilots who are banned by regulation from flying past Age 60 when the change takes effect, to return to flying. I see rampant hypocrisy all around here and find it distasteful to say the least. Our long standing opposition against a change to the Age 60 rule for safety reasons is now abandoned (against the will of the majority) because it looks like we lost the fight and think it will somehow make us a force in designing this regulation. Of course, if it is now safer all of the sudden for pilots to fly past 60 then why regulate the need for the other pilot in the cockpit to be under the Age of 60? We also now appear to be on board with forced Age 60 retirement as being more of an age discrimination issue then safety concern though we will not fight the new Age 65 discrimination policy? The MEC is also throwing into the mix that they want retroactivity for those that stayed in a back seat, while allowing those that retired to languish even though they may be younger than some current F/E's that will now return to flying under your policy. What a true comedy of errors this has become. We should stick to our principles here and have the dignity to say "We still are against this change for safety reasons and we use the very fact that the new regulation will require a pilot being under 60 in every cockpit as our evidence that it is valid. Having said that we would like to work with you on this change if it is to come to make it as safe as possible for all involved". It also appears we will fight for retroactivity for those over 60 only if they stayed on the panel. It's either about safety or it's not. It's either about age discrimination or it's not. It's either about fairness to all involved, or it's not. That is the stance we should take on these issues in my mind. The approach we appear to be taking leaves us no solid ground to stand on and can only damage the very unity you fought so hard to build.

As far as those ever 60 when the change comes being denied seniority, this is a regulatory issue right now, not a seniority one. The MEC seems to be trying to make it one before they even know how the rule will be written and without caring what the rest of us want. Chairman Blakey made clear there would be no retroactivity and it appears ALPA's input would be for the same. The MEC wants to fight that even though my most conservative guess would be over 70% of the members you were elected to serve would be against it. It is my belief the MEC should seek out the majority opinion of FDX ALPA union members regarding whether or not we want to fight for retroactivity for those pilots already over 60 when the change comes and if that fight should include all pilots forced out at 60, not just current F/E's. If the regulation comes out with retroactivity in it then I would agree that seniority issues need to be addressed. To go into this saying "your MEC is stridently opposed to any regulatory change that prohibits a pilot from exercising their seniority rights" seems to be putting the cart way before the horse and causing unnecessary divisions in our union. If the MEC wants to fight for retroactivity then I think you need to let the majority of the members you serve have a say on that. I look forward to further communications on this issue from the MEC. I will be flying this week away from MEM and unable to attend any hub turn meetings but will find out what I can about how they went. Thank you and it is my hope we can all find a way through this Age 60 mess that is principled, dignified and leaving our hard fought for unity intact. That appears to be a pretty tough task right now.

From the proposed legislation:

[I](c) Applicability- The provisions of subsection (a) (ie. allowing age 60 to 65 back into the pilot seats) 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).[/I]

I think Maltese hit the nail on the head. The verbage is fairly specific with those over 60 at the time of enactment seeking front seats AFTER they have been transferred to another position (ie., back seat) - they have no claim. Have I been reading the language wrong?

I hope this helps.

http://www.age60rule.com/docs/2007%2...o%20Blakey.pdf

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I talked to my POI (135) today and for what it's worth he said it would be 4 or 5 years before age 60 is changed. No rules are changed quickly with the FAA.

george...get familiar...

Oh, you mean Congress won't hold a special session just for Curious George? I figured they'd recall The House of Representatives by Thursday, get a bi-partisan vote by the Senate by Friday, bring "W" in from Crawford for a nod over the weekend, let the ATA have their inputs by Monday morning, send a form letter to the other 121 carriers out there saying "here it comes", get Marion-baby to run it thru the FAA minions by lunch on Wednesday, and hold a press conference that afternoon. Then, Fed Ex will leap to the forefront since it's going to cost money, and cut a bid by Friday Happy Hour.

And 30 days later George will be in class. I got it now...

I think what that means in legalese is that the statute itself will not provide a basis for a claim. This would not, however, preclude the use of an existing collective bargaining agreement as a basis for a claim of seniority...