Just as a point of reference, when I turned 60, my calendar showed NOQ, as of my birthday, until the first event of ground school for the back seat. In order to show up at the school house with the proper attitude (going from captain to s/o requires a rather large mental adjustment), I asked for, and was given, a little more than a month off. This included some vacation time, but was mostly just time off without pay.

Your comment of "Of the 13 individuals, senior to me, that turned age 60 in Apr and May, only 1 is not still in the system" is rather telling, in that it appears that you only are concerned with guys who are senior to you, and therefore might be back if the rule is changed. I thought you were concerned with the entire rule change in general. But now I understand.

I've intentionally kept out of this debate because it's a real bucket of muckets. For the junior guys, all you see is that you're going to be sitting where you are now, but for a lot longer. This might or might not be true. Especially at FedEx, what with new jets on order, and new domiciles, there should be significant growth (we all hope.) As well, you always assume that because a guy is turning 60 that he is very senior. That's also not the case, but who am I to point this out to you. You constantly bring up the fact that we should have done a better job of financial planning, but fail to realize that a good number of us got here during a time when you sat at the panel for 4 to 5 years, and didn't have a chance to make captain until almost 9 years. Hell, some of us sat on reserve, when there were no rules for reserve, for upwards of 3 & 1/2 years. I don't tell you this to gain sympathy, but so that you can understand where maybe we were doing the best we could. As well, we didn't have the 6% matching that we do now. All just minor issues.

As well, you seem to want to abdicate the seniority system, because it would benefit you to do so. I do understand the issues associated with this contentious rule change, but the thing that bothers me is that you are willing to throw away the system that has stood us in good stead for so many years, just to allow you a slightly faster seat progression, while at the same time forsaking guys who have been humping freight for Fred for a long time.

There are many arguments that can (and have been) made, and all are, or may be correct. We don't know how this will shake out, but I can tell you this: without a solid unity of purpose, and a well supported union, this pilot group will be recovering from the next negotiated contract for many years to come. Dave Webb and the rest of our union leaders are doing what they think is in our (collective) best interests. The fact that you don't agree, is just the way it is.

As for the non-members list, I couldn't find it either... What gives?

JJ: There was nothing in Busboy's post that you quoted about any of that stuff. You must have a guilty conscience.

How is this for you. I spent my first 2 years here on reserve on the panel, couldn't sniff a right seat until after 3 years, and decided to stay on the panel a year past that just to see what holding a line would be like. Boo hoo for me. I am still vehemently against a change, and I am almost 47.

For every scenario you list just imagine how much worse it would have been for those guys if everyone senior to them just got a 5 year windfall when you were about to a) get off reserve, b) upgrade to the right seat, c) upgrade to the left seat, d) get recalled from a furlough.

None of us is begrudging the senior guys anything, except a change in a longstanding rule that favors them dramatically, providing them a windfall of 5 more years in the left seat AND costing the junior guys at a minimum SOME amount of upward mobility and MONEY. We can argue for ever how much or how little, but it will cost the junior guys SOMETHING.

The most frustrating thing is that guys like you and Dave Webb won't even admit that basic fact and simply shake your heads at how impetuous and selfish we are because we only want the same chance at upgrades and progression that you guys had.

Its really not all that selfish to just want to keep your place in line without having the guys at the front with their prize come back, call cuts, and push you back another 5 years.

Thanks for your service and all, but you could lighten up on calling the guys in favor of the status quo selfish and greedy.

FJ

While the link, with the sortable list with birthdates, is not working (been that way for a few weeks and I haven't gotten any response from the ALPA web people, it is available here Positive Rate on page 18, or in your hardcopy that comes in the mail.

Whereas I agree with you about Busboy's post, when I read it, all those thoughts sprang forth. My response was not directed at him at all, but at all you guys who go on and on about how unfair it is, and about how you will suffer. The fact is that it is indeed a windfall for the senior guys, or the guys who have already turned 60, and for whatever reason, have decided to go to the back seat. I readily agree with that, and only wish my timing was a little better in that regard. However, what none of you bother to mention is that if this rule passes, you will each have 5 additional years with which to either continue to work, or, at your choice, retire. The real issue is that it's happening now, as opposed to when you're 57 and not 47. If the age rule is going to change, than it's going to be good for some and bad for others, regardless of when it changes. To be p!ssed at us older guys for being in the right place at the right time, stinks. It would be sort of like being p!ssed at your neighbor for winning the lottery. Personally, I didn't petition for the rule change, nor did I join any group or support any group that did. Like us all, I'm a bystander in this event. If it passes and I get to again fly as a captain, so be it. If it doesn't, same thing. In either case, don't attack me, because I had nothing to do with it. As for lightening up, I believe I've only posted two or three posts on this thread, but if the shoe fits.... And by the way, I might have a guilty conscience, but it's not about anything I've said or done here.:)

The non-member list is down due to problems encountered with the transition to a new revenue management system at ALPA. They are working out the bugs and hope to have it back up in a couple of days. The link to the message line addressing the new system is below in the May 3rd Message Line.

https://crewroom.alpa.org/FDX/Deskto...cumentID=37743

"Rather telling", huh? Actually, no, you don't understand. I was given a retirement list, 18 years ago, that lists individuals date of birth, seniority, etc. The list does not include anyone hired after that date. I know of no list that does. So, your conclusion is way off the mark. I am concerned with the rule change, in general. I just don't have the data to include those junior to me.

I don't fail to realize anything of the sort. I lived it!!
My time in this industry(incl. 18yrs here):

4.5 yrs as S/O
8.0 yrs as F/O
9.o yrs as Capt


That is the biggest crock of crap in your post. I know its the MEC's mantra right now. Its in every e-mail, letter and video we get from them. But, it is not a contractual issue, it is a regulatory issue. Moving you to the back seat was not a contractual issue, it was regulatory. I don't remember anyone on the MEC fighting to change regulations to protect your "seniority rights", then. Were they abdicating the seniority system?

I am not throwing away anything for my gain. Or as you say, "just to allow you a slightly faster seat progression". Faster than what? Faster than it would be without changing the rules? That will be your gain, not mine. I stand to gain nothing, no matter how the rule changes. And, I don't consider the idea of working past age 60, a gain.


I would argue that our MEC's actions have done more to fragment this union and more to alienate the different seniority groups, than any Ford & Harrison, or management scheme, could have ever done.

An important nuance that most of us have probably missed here is that there's a difference between senior and old. The old, seriously old, and chronically old are scattered throughout the seniority list -- not just at the top. Except for the Anchorage, Los Angeles, and Subic Bay blocks, where only Captains and First Officers exist, most (if not all) blocks have Over-60 members. I'm nowhere near that ancient age, yet I have several members of my new-hire class in that category. There are Over-60 guys in my Block, and in the Block junior to me. I'm not certain, but I'd bet there are some in Block 7 as well.

What if all the Over-60 guys were junior? Would that make a difference in how you feel about letting them bid the right seat? What if we let them go back to the end of the seniority list when they turn 60, and then bid what they can hold? The only people that would be affected are the ones that haven't been hired yet. That way it wouldn't slow you down, right? Would that make it easier to swallow?





.

Tony: For me, right seat only (as proposed by Huck several times) would be the most fair compromise that could possibly come from this change. I don't see it happening, but that is what I suggested in two different places in the ALPA survey. I urged everyone to do the same, and I know several others who made similar comments in the survey.

I don't think it has much of a chance for several reasons, not the least of which would be APAAD's insistence that it wouldn't be fair. AS if the change itself is somehow fair. Right Seat Only would be a reasonable compromise.

As far as retroactivity, I have also stated that in this area I actually agree with Dave Webb. I don't think, however, that is has any chance of being adopted because of the glaring dichotomy of the FedEx/UPS 59.9 year old experience and the United/Delta/etc 59.9 year old experience and the inevitable lawsuits that would follow.

Where I take issue with the MEC and Dave is in fighting for that, which he admits we can't win, is somehow more right than fighting against the change in the first place, which we can't win either (according to him). That disconnect I simply can't get my hands on. That tells me more about his (and ALPA leadership's) interests and desires than any survey or video speech ever could.

FJ

[quote=Jetjok;169652]Just as a point of reference, when I turned 60, my calendar showed NOQ, as of my birthday, until the first event of ground school for the back seat. In order to show up at the school house with the proper attitude (going from captain to s/o requires a rather large mental adjustment), I asked for, and was given, a little more than a month off. This included some vacation time, but was mostly just time off without pay.

JJ: I hate to quote the same post twice but this comment is very telling and the way I read it goes a long way to explaining why the senior guys are so hellbent on getting back to the left (or right) seat. Yeah, it sucks to have to sit and the back and watch two numbnuts (its a joke guys, relax) up front "stumble" their way through something you could do in your sleep.

You've had to do it twice now at FedEx, because EVERY newhire has to make that same adjustment when they get hired. They were all Captains before they got hired here, and most had to make that same adjustment.

Maybe if we treated the backseat job and those doing it with a little more respect and dignity it wouldn't be such a bitter pill for the guys to swallow when they extend their career back there. Its a nice option to have that the pax guys no longer enjoy, its too bad more guys can't make the transition a little more gracefully.

FJ

"What if all the Over-60 guys were junior? Would that make a difference in how you feel about letting them bid the right seat? What if we let them go back to the end of the seniority list when they turn 60, and then bid what they can hold? The only people that would be affected are the ones that haven't been hired yet. That way it wouldn't slow you down, right? Would that make it easier to swallow?"

Not me. That's not what this is about. This is about fairness to all. What I would like to see is this rule change only apply to those that have not yet earned their ATP. That way there are no active pilots that see the windfall that Busboy talked about. Not me, not you, and not Foxhunter, NMB or their ilk. Now that would be fair.

For the record, I am a WB Capt with decent seniority. I am in position "A" for this age change and stand to benefit greatly from it as long as I am fortunate enough to work for a viable company and stay healthy. I should be jumping for joy in fact. Thing is, I remember what it was like to be on the outside looking in, hoping to have a chance to get hired, knowing there was a limited window in which I could make a career in aviation work, and also what it was like on the bottom of a seniority list when the furloughs came. It's those guys I think are really getting screwed here, not those who have to retire at 60 (to the best retirement in the industry no less, which we used lots of negotiating capitol to obtain) just like everyone before them did. I had a discussion the other night with one of our WB Captains. He was all for the Age change but against the fight for retro. He asked me and I said I was against both. Right away he started yelling at me saying I was selfish and only wanted to move up at those turning 60's expense. As I wasn't interested in yelling back I walked away. You should have seen his face the next morning when he saw me checking out of the hotel with 4 stripes on. I almost could hear him braying like the jacka** he was. Anyway, that is not what this is about to me. I know those who advocate retroactivity would like it to be as simple as "If you are against this, your selfish". To me it's about our union representing us, as a whole, and seeking our input on issues as big as this. I am in complete agreement with Busboy when he said this to JJ..

"That is the biggest crock of crap in your post. I know its the MEC's mantra right now. Its in every e-mail, letter and video we get from them. But, it is not a contractual issue, it is a regulatory issue. Moving you to the back seat was not a contractual issue, it was regulatory. I don't remember anyone on the MEC fighting to change regulations to protect your "seniority rights", then. Were they abdicating the seniority system?"

Nope. They were following the law which is what we should be doing now. That is what our contract tells us to do. Anything beyond that is not covered. The MEC has tried to make it a seniority issue (why I don't know) and split our unity, in ways the company could never had imagined, by doing so. Time will tell if it can be healed to the point where it was prior to this. The only clear message the MEC has sent is to tell those approaching Age 60 to delay retirement and hang out on the panel because they are fighting to get your Capt's seat back. It's not a message that needed to be sent IMO. Certainly not at such a high cost to our unity.

[QUOTE=Falconjet;169733]Well the thing that's different now is that when I turned 60 I was "officially" old, something no one has wanted to hear since they legally got served their first beer.;) Now before I get flamed about it's what I deserve, like JetJok, we're just trying to give you our side of the story. Not all of us are on our third wives and fourth corvette. Like JJ I too am a bystander in all of this. I didn't lobby for or against the 60 change. Personally I don't think I'll ever see a front seat (left or right) again. FWIW, when I got to the DC-10 in 1989 there were over 60 guys in the back seat (Chuck Yates et al) lobbying very hard for Congress and the FAA to raise the age to 65.

OK Falconjet, you've suckered me in for this last time. Here goes. When I said I needed some time off after coming from the left seat, it was so that I could approach this "new" job with the same amount of vigor that I've tried to bring to each job I've had here at FedEx. It was not because I felt that sitting sideways sucked, or "having to watch two "numbnuts" struggling with their jobs", sucked, but it was to overcome the feeling of being in charge and at the same time, getting into the flight engineer mode. Nothing more or nothing less.

As for every new hire having to make that adjustment, that's just the way this business is. When you sign on, you start at the bottom. Believe me, it's not at all the same thing. Ask any new hire, regardless of their past experiences, if they are happy to be here. The overwhelming answer will (I hope) be "YES." It's quite different coming from a captains or first officers seat. The fact that you don't see this tells me that you've probably not been a captain before.

As for treating the back seat guys with dignity and respect, well, that too is a difference between a new guy whose first assignment is a back seat and a guy who has been at the company for some time, going to the back seat. New guys in the back have always been treated poorly, but over time, that has gotten much better because guys who are now captains remember what it was like for them, when they first started out here. When I flew the left seat, I treated everyone with D & R. Now that I'm in the back, I still do, and expect them to treat me the same way. No, actually, truth be told, I demand it. I do agree with you about having a back seat to go to after turning "retirement age" is a nice option. It will be even nicer to be able to return to a window seat.

This thing is not about fairness at all, it's about timing. Pure and simple. To come up with an arbitrary requirement as you have (no one who holds an ATP) seems sort of wishful, at best. The rule is going to change. Accept that as a fact of life. Whereas it will negatively effect a portion of our population, it will do the inverse for another portion. I can't remember when a law was passed that didn't have exactly the same end result: one group benefiting at another's expense. Just a fact of life. Not fair? Sure, it's not fair, but neither is life. Windfalls are just that, windfalls. It's too bad that we can't see that for what it is, but I certainly do see the other side. To those on that side, I say: you will have your chance too. It's only a matter of timing.

It's the same old story
 

The rich get richer and poor get poorer. Or in our case, the senior dudes get richer, and the junior guys get screwed. How can even think about looking at it any other way? Why don't you just enjoy the great retirement that our contract provides and play a lot of golf, and in the process pass the torch to the rest of us. I just don't get it.

Jolly, you really do need to read entire posts before commenting. It's only "fair." There are a number of guys who are both older and junior, both at the same time, but I guess that if they're senior to you, than that's all that counts. As well, I don't play golf. It's too exacting (and slow) for me. I'm into racquet sports, in a very big way.

I'm sorry that you just don't get it, but I'd be willing to bet that when you're approaching retirement, you will. And if, by chance, the rule does change, and guys who are approaching age 60 decide to stay on, what then? Will you still feel the way you do now? ... that they should just go away and play golf, or will it be different for them, because after all the rule has changed. If you feel that they should still just go away, I'd suggest that it's going to be a really loooooong, unhappy career for you. Maybe you should thing about changing your screen name to Eternally-Sad-F15. By the way, I think we've flown together over in Asia, when you were in the jet only a few months. But then again, I've been wrong before.

Thank you. You just made my point. The age 60, or near it group, is going to benefit at the expense of the rest of us.

And, I am being called greedy? Go figure.

"This thing is not about fairness at all, it's about timing. Pure and simple. To come up with an arbitrary requirement as you have (no one who holds an ATP) seems sort of wishful, at best. The rule is going to change. Accept that as a fact of life. Whereas it will negatively effect a portion of our population, it will do the inverse for another portion. I can't remember when a law was passed that didn't have exactly the same end result: one group benefiting at another's expense. Just a fact of life. Not fair? Sure, it's not fair, but neither is life. Windfalls are just that, windfalls. It's too bad that we can't see that for what it is, but I certainly do see the other side. To those on that side, I say: you will have your chance too. It's only a matter of timing."

Yep. I agree. That's why retroactivity should not be an issue. Thanks for making my point. When the law changes, it changes then. Not retroactively. Somebody is going to be left behind wherever the date falls. Just like the poor guy who won't get hired because of it, the guy who has already turned 60 should be out of luck too. At least you have the best retirement in the industry to fall back on JJ and will still live on over at least 100k a year. I'm really finding it hard to feel sorry for your group. Just be glad you won't be the one frozen out on far less wages and benefits for 5 more years. I know, some of you will have to sell your planes and vacation homes, and poor Capt Collins can't even afford a tie to wear in his USA Today picture. How will he get by on his almost 175K in military and FedEx retirement pay? Yep, timing is everything JJ. I just wish our MEC understood that as well as you..

You're assuming that we (the vast majority of folks) will be able to stick to "the plan" and retire at 60 w/o losing the current pension formula. Will we have a 15% ding on the A plan since now we are "retiring 5 years early?" Will it be grandfathered? Will retiring at 60 provide the same benefit as it does now?

I'm not happy about career progression slowing, but changing my ability to get a full retirement at 60 is what really has me concerned. You can go to 65, but I want out at 60 with the current A plan formula.

............................

well..that is why i think ALPA is trying to get involved now( about a year too late) and put some protections in....when i hit 60 that will be 35 years with FDX. If i was to get an early retirement penalty that would be outrageous!!!!! I hope they also protect the B-fund...

Not trying to sling mud here JJ, and I won't have a lousy attitude over this thing. I don't like it, that's for sure. Yes it does effect me in a negative way, and a bunch of other pilots at my seniority in the same boat. I'm professional enough to keep this out of the cockpit, and for what it's worth I still have a smile on my face when I go to work. Life's too short to be p---ed off at the world.

But it's like I said, I just don't get why anyone would take a pass on the great retirement our contract provides at 60. I'll have 18 years here plus my 21 years in the AF and would like to retire early. Will I miss it? No, I really don't think so---there's too much life left to live and want to live it while I'm healthy. This is a very emotional issue for us all. I think the change is a really bad idea for all the reasons we've already been over. That being said, it's probably going to happen and I'll apparently have to suck it up and move on. Kinda sucks though.

Not every all of us have a Military retirement coming in or one to look forward too. Not all of us have or will have the FedEx Retirement Maxed out at 60........This will affect ALL of us negatively, not just YOU and the more junior guys.

There were 3 guys in My new hire class who were over 50 when they got hired here. When they reached 60 they only had 5-6 yeats worth of B fund money since we had recently got our 1st contract. They only had 9-10 years FedeX longevity, so they went to the back seat to keep getting another 2% per year...............wouldn't you do that?

When I asked my FAA doctor just the other day about the Age 60 thing, he said that there are guys over 60 flying 121 on a waiver now. I thought I would have heard of this before and wonder if it should be believed.

Why is it that you assume all the worst? Is it because you feel it makes your case more valid? Regardless of whether this rule changes or not, contract negotiations will be the vehicle that changes or doesn't change our work rules, medical benefits/costs, retirement options and limitations, etc, etc. Perhaps we should concentrate on remaining united, instead of bashing those guys that will, by luck alone, benefit from this rule change.

Can't argue with you
 

Redeye,
You raise some very valid points. We all have our own reasons for retiring at 60 or not. We all don't look at life the same way. Can't really say what I'd do if I only had 9-10 years here. I still think very little good will come from this rule change, and there is potential for a lot of bad stuff to come out of it. I'll quit my bitchin for now and shut my pie hole. I guess I'll just have to wait another five years to fly with my favorate Captain everyday!

Jolly

Who does this rule benefit besides ex-military guys trying to get 2 retirements?

There are people who define themselves by their career, and those who define themselves by things that cannot be taken away. I strive to be one of the latter.
How sad to be checking into another Marriott after 30+ years at an airline or military/ airline career.

Freightbird just shacked it!!

"They only had 9-10 years FedeX longevity, so they went to the back seat to keep getting another 2% per year...............wouldn't you do that?"

Ever hear of the law of diminishing returns? What good is getting an extra 2% per year retirement if doing so takes years off the very life you hope to retire to? So my answer is.. No, I wouldn't do that. Better yet, I wouldn't do that to my family. I think they would rather have me around a little longer even if it was with the 2% per year less. Next question..

sshhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! jetjoc is sleeping...he has a 3am departure...he will be pouring coffee all night...what a way to spend your golden years...if you need me i will be asleep for my 3pm departure...hehe!

As usual, you're wrong again. Actually I just got back from playing racquetball a little while ago. It was the second time today, which is usual for me. After rb, a group of us went to the 99, a local bar/grill, for dinner and a few beers, or in my case, diet cokes. As for pouring coffee "all night", well, anyone who knows me, knows that I didn't do that as a new hire, and have maintained that service since. I'm happy to do my job though, and if someone would like coffee, I'm more than happy to pass the jug. :) I'm quite sure that you can sleep soundly, because I can't imagine anyone "needing you", except maybe your parole officer.:D Just kidding!:)

Anyone who wants to work a little longer than you do. As well, anyone who wants their last 5 years to be their "high 5", unlike some of us who never had that luxury. Why do you feel that you have the right to pass judgment on others motives or situations?

You're kidding right? Tell me you're not saying that it is beneath you to pour a friggin' cup of coffee? I personally only asked the S/O, so I wouldn't have to fumble around with the jug between my legs or over pour it over the console.

I'm not sure which complex you would be suffering from...But, its definitely a symptom.

I was thinkin' the same thing, Busboy. :)

Before I was hired, a buddy of mine explained how he had to wrap the water bottles in paper napkins before he placed those and the Sanicoms up front before the Captain and First Officer arrived at the airplane. I laughed and swore I'd never stoop to such silliness.

A few months later, I was not only wrapping the water bottles, I was folding little pockets with napkins which I then clipped to the yokes and filled with Sanicoms and peppermint candy.

It turns out, it wasn't beneath me after all. It was a service I provided with pride, because it just made things go better when we were all getting along. I didn't drink coffee then (it interfered with my naps between the 1,000' and 500' calls:eek: ), but it never bothered me to pour for anyone else, or even to mix in the requested quantities of sweetener and creamer.


Interesting attitude . . . and I was beginning to like Jetjok. :p




.

I always offered nmb's some of my special Irish creamer! ;) :cool:

Ba-dum-bum -- CHING

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, he'll be here all week. Try the veal, and don't forget to tip your waitress. :D






OK, seriously . . . the question I asked in Post #727 wasn't intended to be rhetorical. I want some real feedback.

What if all the Over-60 guys were junior? Would that make a difference in how you feel about letting them bid the right seat (or left seat)? What if we let them go back to the end of the seniority list when they turn 60, and then bid what they can hold? The only people that would be affected are the ones that haven't been hired yet. That way it wouldn't slow you down, right? Would that make it easier to swallow?





.

TonyC - yes absolutely it would make it easier to swallow. Especially for those that say they "just love to fly". If that's all they're worried about then the back of the seniority list, or the idea of right seat only would be great for all sides.

How about this: you can fly past 60 if there's less than a million in your B fund....

Actually, I wasn't kidding at all, at least about serving coffee as a new hire. Thankfully there wasn't all that much of the stuff drunk in the New York domicile, as most of the trips were very short, with 3 or 4 ups and downs a night. I'm sure it was an attitude that I had back then. Not a very defense-able position I know, but it's sort of like my dick size, small, but it's mine. Things are quite different now, however, as I'm happy to accommodate (serve) the front-enders. What would be nice is if once in a while, when one of them comes into the cockpit for the first time, they ask "can I get you anything?" That never seems to happen though and I attribute it to the fact that they were probably beaten as a child.;) The Boeing, at FedEx, is a learning environment, and as such, I guess that guys coming onto this jet are still learning what it takes to be a well rounded crewmember. Each and every time I leave the cockpit, just as I did when flying as captain on the MD-11 and as first officer on the Airbus, I ask if anyone wants anything from the "back." It's a good thing to do, if for no other reason than to show everyone else that you're thinking of them.

Tony, Tuck, and Huck (sounds like a law firm, similar to Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe),

The problems I see with this idea are many. First off, seniority is seniority, pure and simple. If the rule changes, than guys deserve to operate the seat that they are senior enough to hold. One of the reasons that guys go to the back seat, once they turn 60, is that they retain their seniority number and bid flying, vacation, training, etc, in that seniority order. To force them to the bottom of the list is ludicrous, as there is no provision, nor has there ever been one for this type of action. Personally, I'm sure that there are a number of guys in their 50's and 60's who couldn't keep up the pace of a new hire guy, what with crazy reserve hours, flying the trips that everyone else turns down, either by not bidding them or by having an eye problem (I can't see flying THAT trip, so I guess I'll be sick.), etc. For that matter, I'm sure we have a number of guys in their 40's who couldn't keep up.

However, the thing that bothers me the most about this type of thinking is that it just goes to show that what you guys are really saying is that it's ok for over 60 guys to fly, just as long as they're junior to you. A very parochial attitude. Understandable, but parochial none the less.

For guys wanting to fight this change, I say, go for it. Fight as hard as you can, but please don't use: loss of our A or B fund; a change in the mandatory retirement age, thusly forcing guys to work till 65; or any other negotiated benefit or work rule we now operate under, because these things are negotiated, tit for tat. As well, please don't threaten us with changing retirement benefits for those already off the property, as guess what, one day that will be you too. Talk about shortsightedness.

As well, after the fight is fought, if you lose, than accept the situation and let it go. If the rule doesn't pass, that's what I plan to do. This is a very emotional issue, for both sides. Junior guys see their quality of life and livelihood being put in jeopardy, while older guys see the ability to work a few years longer (for whatever reason) suddenly become a reality. The one thing none of us can afford to jeopardize is our cohesiveness with regards to management. Because if we do, this Age 65 thing will be small potatoes.