It's amazing FDX ALPA is willing to entertain the idea of screwing over the vast majority of the pilot group by allowing @ 200 over 60 F/E's to retrain in the front seat - thus, delaying an F/O's upgrade an additional 1-2 years - great, now we'll get delayed a total @ 6 or 7 years - NO THANKS.

Has anyone looked into recalling the MEC and any block rep supporting this?

Where'd you pull this out of? This is contrary to anything that has ever been published.

Well, that was helpful. :(

The seniority system is not getting modified, just your expectations. Do you really expect the union to negate the contract seniority rights of it's senior members?

What everyone here needs to do is contact every union member they know and ask them to contact their rep as well as the entire MEC with their feelings. The SPC chair may be a good guy to vent to but you will get more results with a mass campaign demanding a vote on these issues. If that is ignored then recalls need to be looked at very seriously. Venting here is good but get the word out fast and let's tell the MEC there is a strong majority that will not allow this to go unchecked. That's just one reason we pay our dues.

"The bottom line is that the guys that went back to the S/O seat never gave up their seniority"

"Sorry Mark, but one senior official is reported to have said that FedEx intends to return any S/O to their former position when the regulated age changes if the has been out of the front seat for less than 24 months."

So MGP, wouldn't those who have been gone more than 2 years have their seniority rights taken away? You don't seem to be too upset about that..

That is an issue that I expect ALPA to address. The company has the right not to train within a time period before the "Regulated Age". Since that age is changing from age 60 to 65 they might have the right not to return them to the left or right seat but they should be pay protected. Do you agree Dawg?

FALSE! ......

Sorry Mark, it is true.

Proof? Documentation?:rolleyes:

My view of this affair is this:

1. The rule change is going to happen, with or without ALPA, IPA, APA, or any other airline union involvement. Pure and simple.

2. The major congressional players who, in the past, have been proponents of leaving the Age 60 rule in effect have virtually all abandoned their past position and are now promoting the passage of the rule change.

3. ALPA, which has long been an opponent of changing the Age 60 rule is now being seen as acting in an obstructionist manner.

4. Although ALPA (imho) probably still doesn't want the retirement age to change, they realize that it's better to be on the train when it leaves the station (when the rule is changed), than to be stranded at trackside when the train pulls out, for places yet unknown. At least if they were on the train, they might have the ability to influence the trains destination somewhat.

5. FedEx is now probably the largest contributor to ALPA's coffers, and as such, should and probably does carry a lot of weight with ALPA National.

6. Our MEC chairman is (I believe) the longest standing member of his peer group at ALPA National.

7. FedEx has by far the most over-60 guys still "flying", so the company will have to develop a plan as to how to deal with them, once the rule changes. Traditional wisdom says that some of these guys will be allowed to return to a window seat that their seniority allows them to hold, while others (probably those closer to the new Age 65 cutoff) will be offered passover pay. My understanding of the FAA's term "current", is that someone with less than 2 years out of a seat, is still "current" in that seat, for training purposes. Unrealistic, probably. Some degree of retraining will need to occur, and some will make it and some, probably won't. Same as the rest of the population.

8. New aircraft will continue to show up on the property, thus facilitating upgrades and transitions, although as everyone realizes, at a slightly slower rate, due in part to the rule change.

9. Guys will continue to "medical out", both over 60 guys as well as under 60 guys.

10. Yes, this is a windfall for the older guys, but not just those guys who are already over 60. We have a lot of "younger" older guys, guys who have had previous careers and have been here only a few years. They too will have the opportunity for a longer career. In fact, they might be part of the "silent minority."

1. There's plenty more, but it's time to go cut the grass. For those of you advocating leaving ALPA, Don't. You'll still have to pay dues, but you'll have no say at all in the runnings of your union. At least now, you have the right to have your voice heard. Maybe not listened to, but at least heard. I believe ALPA is doing what they must to be part of the "solution", instead of being part of the "problem."

the crusade is over..it was stated also by a duty officer that they would rather have younger healthier captains on lower payrates with less vacation than old guys on disability who will also be busting checkrides and making the schoolhouse a nightmare...

windfall????? gee..pouring coffee at 3am....yeeehaaaa

ALPA Obstructionist ?
 

Since when has ALPA worried about being seen as obstructionist? Is ALPA obstrctionist when they lobby against the open skies agreement with the E/U?
It's their job to be obstructionist when an issues arise that will have adverse effects on its membership. The only way ALPA should change its stated policy on the age 60 rule is after the majority of its members vote for the change. For our MEC to change its position on this issue without a more accurate assessment of its membership's wishes is totally irresponsible.

Seat progression
 

For those complaining about geezer clog, here are some public school math numbers to contemplate. The excess bid for the DC-10 will be coming out soon. The plan is to excess about 150 folks out of the 10, either by those bidding off or forced off. By my guesstimate approximately 30 of those excessed will be forced to either retire or go to the back of the 727. That leaves 120 pilots that will be immediately put into the training pipe line, most likely into wide body seats. That means the 727 folks looking to move up aren't going to move up as quickly as they have. Now look ahead to the 727 reitrements and resulting excess bids and the problem is compounded by a three person acft being absorbed into a two person fleet. Oh yeah, let's throw in the age 60 thing. You can see why seat progression and hiring will be slower down the road.
History...When I was hired here my seniority was 943. Today, nearly 20 years later, it's 1022. That's because of the Tiger merger and where our group was blended into the list. Am I complaining? No, it's just one of the factors you have to deal with in an otherwise wonderful job. Historically it's taken 7 years to get to the left seat of the 727 and 10 years to get to the left seat of a widebody here at Fedex. If you're doing better than that go buy something extravagant that will put a big smile on your face.:D

Slightly, as in "Hitler was slightly nasty...." :)

And before we get all misty about those career military types (actually I quite respect them) who come here at the age of 50 and will now have a longer career, let's think about the current military guys who now get to wait 5 more years for their dream job....

How come ex-Coast Guardsmen aren't called "Coasters"?

Is it too masculine?

In a similar thought ... I'm tired of the "over 60" advocates telling me that the 'age 65" rule will benefit me also by allowing me to fly to age 65.

Hello ..... I DO NOT WANT TO FLY PAST 60 and every guy that does affects my seniority for the rest of my career!*? It's a bad deal for everyone under 60 so that guys like FoxHunter and JetJok, that have no hobbies (except this job), can try to keep their self respect.


Mark

You'll HAVE to fly to 65, if you want the same years of captain pay.....

All we have is the number from the poll, a mysterious 52%, (still a majority mind you). Why don't we introduce an actual motion for a referenedum on the issue, before the MEC can implement the resolution. That way we get a hard scientific number, not some Wilson center number that no one on here got called for.

I have yet to meet some one on the line for the rule change. I highly doubt its a "Statistical dead heat"

Unfortunately, to me anyway, the issue isn't just about Age 60. I could (and will) live with a change in the rule. I don't agree with it, but I will get by. What I can't fathom is how the "leaders" of our MEC and National can just come out and decide that they know better than the majority on this or any other issue.

The issue is REPRESENTATION. If the folks you vote in to REPRESENT the will of the majority refuse to do so there is only one course of action. We need to start a recall on Captains Prater and Webb. I can understand somebody quitting ALPA if ALPA leadership refuses to REPRESENT the will of the majority. In fact, I would certainly respect and understand such a decision. It is nothing even remotely close to quitting because you don't agree with the majority.

I see very clearly now why the negotiating committee fought to get agency shop in our new contract. They knew all along they would be going against the majority on this issue and figured they would need the dues from all the guys who are going to quit over this issue.

Of course, they didn't go after the SENIOR guys who have been non members up until the new contract, just ensured that the junior guys would have to pay even while they are again knifed in the back by the leadership, comprised, not surprisingly, by the SENIOR widebody Captains.

Nice how that works.

I am pro union and believe in the need for a union in this industry to protect the crewforce from company abuse. That union, however, needs to represent the majority of the crewforce, not just the most senior members.

97% membership with open shop was a much stronger statement to management than 100% dues paying (for non grandfathered non members) and only about 48% membership, which is what it will come down to eventually after the senior guys have their way and rape the majority.

I agree that whatever solidarity we had during the last contract negotiations has just been squandered by Capt Webb and the rest of the MEC.

Nope, we're just secure in our masculinity, unlike you ex-AF C-130 types.;)

Well said. I didn't like the tone of his message. I understand the position of trying to adjust our position to protect our benefits when the change has been determined to be inevitable. I was disappointed in the comment implying 60+ leaving the back to return to the front. How about a poll on that subject within FedEx? Dave would you accept those results?

For or against the rule change, I think we can all agree there are possible CRM and therefore safety issues that need to be taken into account. Like it or not, we are all here to make money and this is as Albie said --- Zero Sum. Hard not to take it personally. Hard not to let it affect you.

What do you do? Not sure. Maybe the rule change should be instituted over a series of years. Move it up one year every two years. Spreads out the benefits and the harm and distributes the dollars a little more evenly.

If a five year snap back is enacted, you are looking at some serious hard feelings. Like ALBIE said, DW was always so concerned about ticking off the young guys because they would be voting on his retirement benefits - now he has apparently done some of that with one email!

Like I said, I believe that the CRM impact will present itself. Maybe we can all agree to wear hats so that we can be more professional!:)

This p_sses me off. Like Twain said (Mark, not Shania), there are 3 types of lies: Lies, damn lies, and statistics. This poll is a bald-faced statistic.

That swirling sound in the background is our careers going south fast. Between the sodomizer and now this flip-flop arrogant attitude from Webb and the boys, here in the trenches there are storm clouds out there. Bigtime.

No one asked me in any poll. We may not be able to deflect away the age 60 debate, but if our so-called leadership promotes an agenda of filling Capt upgrades with 5 years of S/O re-treads, it's years in the deep freeze for most of us. And career suicide for them.

At that point, the only poll I want to see is a recall ballot. :mad:

Gentlemen and Ladies.

I think everyone needs to step back and Breath.

I know this is an extememly emotional issue.

Let us look at the facts.

Is there anyone here who still thinks that ALPA has a chance to stop the propsed Age 60 change? You must know the facts first.

Fact The FAA is already allowing ICAO Pilots from Foreign Nations to fly into and above US soil.

FACT Marion Blakey FAA Admin already announced the issuance of an NPRM to Change the rule.

FACT The US just ratifed an open skies deal with the EU and is working on more agreements with China and other nations.

Fact There are 2 bills from Congress ready to legislate the change S 45 and HR 1143 (?)

FACT The economic world is changing and there are many elected "Friends" in Washington are ready to sell our jobs to Foreign shores. Think it will stop with just Assembly line and call center jobs?

Fact Rep Jim Obertstar (MN) was ALPA's biggest ally on this issue and he just abandoned he opposing position and is now supporting the change. He told the ALPA lobbyist that if we didn't change our position we would have NO influence on the language.

With the loss of our only KEY Congresional Ally ALPA finds itself in a bit of a quandry. Remember the train has already left the station and is gaining speed.

So now ALPA leadership (ahead of the membership) appears to be the deciding that it might be better to get in the fight from a different angle. The will require changing their official position of Opposed to against. Again, ALPA was the only Group oppossing it.......(APA and IPA are too but have Zero Clout on the hill).

For all of you guys that have your panties up in a wad and want to quit, I ask you this again.

Given the above information:
1.Do you think the rule won't change if ALPA still opposes it?

2. Knowing the change is coming, would you prefer to have Congress legislate the change or have the FAA implement the change though the NPRM process. ALPA would certainly have more clout to influence languagewith the FAA than to have to deal will a congressionqal mandated bill.

3. Lastly, you all elected your block reps. They are often privy to information much sooner than the rest of us hear it. Maybe some of you didn't know Oberstar abandoned us or that Congressionl pressure is immense on this issue. Does this change your outlook.

I have always maintained this, if you really don't trust your leadership then get rid of them, but ensure you have suitable relplacements.

Last but not least (Think about this) if you quit ALPA over this, it might make you feel better initially but what does it accomplish? and more importantly who does it really benefit? Answer it ain't the Pilot group.


ALPA's Executive council is composed of the Executive VPs from Each group.
ALPA's Executive Board is composed of the MEC Chairs from each Airline
ALPA's nATIONAL Board of Directors is the Block/Status reps from all the MECs.

If you are concerned, call your Council or Block reps and voice your concerns. Email or Call your MEC Officers. Don't ***** and whine on these boards. Bitching on these boards is like masturbation, it might feel good but produces no LIfe.

Quitting ain't the solution either. Quitting is for quitters and most of us didn't get to where we are by being quitters. So what are you , Are you a Quitter? How bout you run for an ALPA leadship job.

I've seen other issues that benefited Capt's Webb and Chimenti more than the average guy since the last contract:

Issue #1: Retiree health care. The contract "fixed" this problem only for pilots age 54 and older (pilots that would retire during the effective period of this contract). Anyone younger was "left to be negotiated at a later date" according to the contract. I don't know how old Dave and Bob are but I'll just bet they are older than 54?

Issue #2: Signing bonus. This benefited ALL pilots but it benefited some pilots more than others. Let me be more specific ... calendar years 2006 and 2007 won't either be my "high 5" years. If you are able to use the signing bonus in your "high 5" then it benefits you EVERY MONTH for your entire retirement. I wonder if 2006 and 2007 will be in Dave and Bob's high 5? Any bets?

It will be interesting to see if Dave and Bob (and the other MEC officers who have accepted change without the benefit of input from the membership) decide they would like to be Capt's past age 60? Any bets?

Regards,



Mark

So, the elected union officials and representatives can quit and surrender on the issue and its ok, why aren't they quitters?

Also, you skipped number 2.

The first couple of times Chimenti made his comment that he was looking out for the international widebody captains nearing retirement and that he, by the way, was an international widebody captain nearing retirement I thought it was kind of funny and quaint. A buddy of mine remarked that his job was supposed to be to represent ALL of us. I shrugged it off and thought little of it.

After about the 20th time Bob said that I started to wonder. After the signing bonus disparity, all the improvements for international widebody captains nearing retirement (and those already retired) I no longer shrug it off and now know that my buddy was right.

Yes we got some improvements and the rising tide raises all boats, but those senior international widebody captains nearing retirement have some pretty big boats.

Just Edited it

Have you ever been in a fight son?

Do mosts fights go exactly as planned , especially when you are the under dog?

Generally my experience has shown me that when my tactic isn't working, I change my tactics. Changing your tactics to meet the threat is one thing....................turning tail and running is quite another.

Would you be better suited if all your ALPA leaders quit?
After 3 months of elections and appointments and everyone getting their feet wet this whole deal my already be done.

If you think that would be better.........get a written resolution ready for an emergency meeting and another resolution for the recall of everyone.

Dad:

Actually, it appears to me that all of my ALPA "leaders" have quit.

They have thrown in the towel and determined what is best for the majority despite overwhelming evidence that the majority is against a change.

If, as you contend, the change is coming regardless, what difference does it matter who our ALPA leaders are?

When you pay somebody to represent you and they stop doing so, do you blindly continue to pay and support them, or do you change tactics and stop paying them?

Fine Son.............Be a Quitter, that will show' em

I agree with not quitting and calling the reps. However, I disagree with your assertion that bitching on these boards is not productive.

For example, while I was mildly ****ed at webb's email, now after reading what other junior members feel about the shaft, I'm pretty fired up to take some action. It's a way to get people together and let others know there are many that feel the same way. And if these are any indication of the numbers of people that are upset, then there are many times more that number that don't read these boards.

We've PM'd around and a small but active movement is starting. These boards are getting a few of us together, that hopefully will grow, that will eventually act as one body. Heck, almost like a mini-union within a so-called union.

The boards work...... and it's good to *****. Those that are of "like-mind" are getting PM'd to see what the heck we can do to make our concerns ACTUALLY be heard.

On "Quitters":

I am the proud son of a Local 1 member of the red-book variety. And the nephew of a 570'er at UAL. There've been folks in my family in ALPA continuously for 40 years. I've seen the days when ALPA was a union: cargo restrictions on pax planes, mandatory passenger screening, fighting cabotage, fighting foreign control, one level of safety, even FFDO.

My dad loves to tell the story of the SOS - a two-day nationwide stoppage participated in by every major carrier but Delta. And for ALOT SMALLER issues than this.

But not now. The only quitters I see here are the guys that let the EU decide this issue for us. What's next? Foreign ownership? Cabotage? "The EU already has Air Lagos flying point-to-point within its borders. How can we be different?"

Behnke must be spinning like a rotisserie chicken right about now. He would know who the real quitters are.

Don’t believe I’m wading into this one but,

So which is it-- politics or influence the rules process? Sorry, forgot they are the same thing in Washington. And let us not forget that all politics are really local, and our politicians (of all sorts) tend to let ‘local’ slide in the face of ‘national’ pressures.

Maybe I’m just too naïve, but I don’t see the problem with being on the record as opposed to an issue and at the same time being an advocate for responsible [inevitable] change. But I guess you have no credibility if you say: “I don’t like it one bit, BUT, if you are going to make a change then I would suggest [fill in blank] for the following reasons [blank 2].

So what is the offending legislative language?

So the rule doesn’t change until the Effective Date. Seems like a definite date on the calendar to me. So we should let pilots skirt the rule by changing seats for a day/a month/a year and then slide back up front. Sorry, but I don’t see seniority trumping a FAA rule change. If you weren’t there the day before the rule changes, it’s tough luck not abrogation of your seniority. You are simply “disadvantageously grandfathered”. Just like before the rule change, you still have a job and your seniority (if there's a backseat to be had). Bottom line: It is the rule we live with, until it’s officially changed.

And I think despite today’s “statistical dead heat”, that the national May 2005 poll showing 56% opposed versus 42% for the rule change should have a little more credence and weight because it was taken without the NPRM staring us in the face. Anybody remember what the LOCAL numbers were?


.

The FAA is highly unlikely to implement the rule to age 65 all at once. But they haven't decided how to implement it. That's where the voices need to be heard. they will be holding hearings and there will be open comments allowed for the rule change. We need to collectively make sure that the rule change is implemented in steps, slow steps. Remember, unless congress acts to force this, and it doesn't look like they will if the FAA voluntarily changes the rule, the implementation will be left up to bureaucrats. It's up to us to influence the bureaucrats.

Anybody see the results of the survey that said retiree health care was the #1 issue before the last contract.? Or did everybody, like me, take their word for it. The reason I'm questioning it now is due to your points above, plus last nights email, PLUS the fact that at the meetings from the MEC on the TA negotiations most questions seemed to revolve around pay--not many seemed to be concerned about healthcare.

It's beginning to seem that all these survey "results" always point to what benefits a certain few union leaders. And I've taken them at their word--- now I'm questioning it.

I'm ashamed to admit this, but it's true and I was wrong..... but I didn't pay too much attention or care about the elections. I didn't even read the literature at all. I didn't care because we had a new contract and everything was going OK. I learned my lesson, I got the wakeup call.... I should have paid attention.
Now to answer your questions. I don't know if we'd be better suited if all the Alpa leaders quit..... I would have said no, but now I am wondering.
Second question. I think we need to poll the members.... vote on this issue one on one --- no survey but a vote..... recall is probably too early , but we should at least begin to talk about that along with the plusses and minuses

The rule is not being changed by the FAA, it is being changed by a law that Congress will pass. The change is effective 30 days after the President signs it.