Let's fix our own house now. We can kick the $hit out of each other, and we'll make nice in 3 years before the next contract. If we've learned anything, its that our leadership can and will stick together for financial reasons.

We just need to make sure our MEC is OUR union, not just a "senior captains' union". I have utmost respect for the job our captains have done on the line, the success they've helped create, and the job they continue to do. However, we cannot let 500-1000 (or less) of our own dictate terms to the rest of the body or we will NOT be in a position to stick together down the road. (FJ has said this many times....)

 

IMHO,

Everyone needs to tell ALPA to stick to no on age 60 and say no to SO's going back up front.

Hearing how DW is going to help ALPA "work" the issue by fighting for retroactivity, I would rather ALPA have less of a say in the legislation. Congress is not keen on retroactivity now and I wouldn't mind it staying that way.

 

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You mean an over 60 year old person can currently find employment in the US as a pilot!

Did anybody bother to tell APAAD?

So there really is life after FedEx. What a concept.

 

sleepyF18-
Where are you?
Pay attention to Albief15's last post before this one...
this is how most of us feel!!
BTW-talked on the phone w/you, my block rep and wally...
still feel like I am taking w/out vaseline...
I am junior and I should know when to keep my mouth shut and should know that the "leadership" knows better.
Start the recall!!!!
Los1

 

Just think ... you could collect ALL of your retirement AND find employment elsewhere? That has to pay more than being a 727 s/o and you could sleep at night time when normal people sleep ... I'm surprised more "old" s/o's don't see it that way?

I REALLY don't inderstand the fly past 60 (at FedEx) mentality ... it's kind of sad.



Mark

 

Quoted from the FDX 7 meeting minutes email,

"Our CBA protects us and keeps “normal” retirement at age 60, even if the regulated age changes. Additionally, our Defined Benefit Plan (A-Plan) and Money Purchase Plan (B-Plan) remain unchanged. It should also be pointed out that Money Purchase Plans are not exclusive to airline pilots. They are a type of Defined Contribution plan and thousands of employers offer them. Even if the regulated age changes, we see no threat to the continued existence of such plans."

Does anyone know for sure if this is true?

 

I know medtronic is memphis offers a defined contribution plan.

 

The main point to take away from this is that while our A and B fund are defined by the contract the contract CAN CHANGE. Who here thinks that the company will not come after these plans next time? When we try to argue that the "normal" retirement age is 60 (ie no penalty for retiring between 60 and 65) the company will say "Screw you - FDX ALPA was FOR the change to age 65" and here comes 65 as the new "normal" retirement age.

If the MEC is so worried about how much they will be able to influence how any change is implemented, why don't they consider our contract? The company will have a field day with us during the next negotiations, specifically because our MEC came out in favor of a change. Expect to fight tooth and nail to maintain what we have in the A-Fund, and who knows what will happen with the B-Fund. While we are spending so much time and "negotiating capital" to preserve what we already had, we won't have any left for, say, pay raises or work rule enhancements.

This will come back to bite us in the collective arse many times and from many different directions, and to change our stance now weakens any position we might want to take in the future.

Another thing - hasn't ALPA's official stance been that the Age 60 rule was a safety issue? Someone correct me if I am wrong on this.

So (if I am correct) are we now to believe that a "changing political climate" can change our official stance on a safety issue? What's next - increased duty up to 20 hours? Is it safety or is it politics?

 

[quote=HazCan;162989]You're not and it makes me sad. They are going to ruin the unity we had over this bull**** and then the company is going to run roughshod over the top of us while we are busy circle jerking over this.

Ruining our unity was the "right thing to do".

 

I think the MC is elected by the MEC, so they can only be recalled by the MEC. MC is a position often borne of horse trading between various factions within a MEC. The loser in the horse trading often doesn't bother to run officially once they realize they won't get enough votes from the MEC. To get rid of a MC, you have to find out who on the MEC agrees with you and mount a recall effort against the MEC members who don't agree. You also better have a new MC in mind who isn't part of the current MEC and isn't part of the political process to recall the other MEC members or it's unlikely that you'd get many to stick their necks out on a recall movement. This is why recalls tend to occur more often at smaller carriers with smaller MEC's. By no means an impossibility and it has been done at carriers with larger numbers than FDX, but it has to be a very coordinated process. The machinations of the process are one the reasons MC's can sometimes feel that they can say whatever they wish without impunity.