Noon on the 22nd, you in?

 

Sure. Just RMG my r days!

 

your services are too valuable to do that

 

You used to have my respect, based on your posts and the words of those who know you personally. Now I realize you're just a greedy little **ick.

If I understand it, your premise is, if the new rules are written so that it is at all legally possible for a current over 60 to return to a window seat (which even DW thinks is a remote possiility,) screw him, he's old so keep him out of the front seat. Well, up yours right back attya. And no, I'm nowhere near 60, but I'm am a lot more senior than you, and find your attitude towards the top of the list enlightening. For all your talk of unity, you are more than willing to ****** over someone if you think it will gain you a few seniority numbers or a couple bucks.

 

Problem is that he is correct though. If you actually but the people who figure out what compensation amounts to negotiate/accept at any given airline you will find that there are tradeoffs. These tradeoffs are far more obvious at regional airlines and low cost carriers like airtran and Jetblue. While the lcc's typically have better FO wages than the regionals both tend to be pretty low, graduate slowly and have almost zero growth after year 4-5. The justification from their unions is that 'everyone one should be a captain by then, so why waste money on good FO scales when we can add money to where the pilots should be by then?' Everybody plays along happily as long as there is growth. Ever wonder why Mesaba, Comair, Am. Eagle, Horizon FO types seem a whole lot grumpier than their counterparts at places like SkyWest, Mesa, and Republic/Shuttle Ameirca/Chautaqua? Check out the upgrades and payrates and you'll find a big piece of the puzzle. Look at the FO's starting to percolate over at jetblue and airtran as they start to realize that every one isn't going to get that quick upgrade. The majors do the same rationalizations but it typically has centered around age 60 retirement. Most companies that had or still have a DB plan have more side letters and loa's covering every senior special interest group that held power at one time or another. The A scale deal over AA where only they can vote on changes to their A plan is a classic-don't be surprised when that one pops up again here in the future when more seniority segment deals and 'multiplier' greed eventually catch up with the plan. The pax airlines tend to have a much smaller percentage of widebody a/c than cargo carriers making those aircraft more senior. Check out UA's old contract 2000-it gave 28.5% pay raises to what were considered widebodies(777,747, DC-10) and 21% to narrowbodies(757/767/737/A320)-it even went so far as to come up with 'special' payrates for newhires that weren't the full 21% raise represented in the contract. The justification given was that it was the right thing to do because of the forced retirement at age 60. The multiplier increases make up for the 'loss' and the reason for the spread on the widebody v. narrowbody payrates was twofold: to help the senior headed to retirement who needed those few higher paid years as widebody capt. for their fae credit and to correct a supposed injustice because they felt previous contracts sacrificed what the widebody pilots felt were fair raises via Decision 83 in order to secure better narrowbody rates. Incidentally that will happen again since all of the pax carriers rolled their junior narrowbody guys back to the dark ages in the last few years. All of this stuff is fine and dandy until you change the assumptions it was based on which age 65 most certainly does. Changing the FO payscales to reflect the new world under age 65 isn't a grab, it's in-line with what got the payscales to the point they are in the first place. They may not admit it unless you press them, but ALPA national costs out every little piece of these contracts for their carriers and individual carriers often employ additional consultants to do the same during times of negotiation for new contracts or worse concessions. They know exactly how much they've taken from FO compensation to beef up Capt. compensation and what it would take to even everything out so that everyone's career projected earnings will remain roughly the same. I am not saying the scales were wrong to date, obviously the majority of us felt they were fair, but as long as DW is talking about doing the right thing he should follow through in an area that is admittedly tough because we as a union and profession have a tendency to make all things Captain holy and readjusting the FO payscales to reflect 65 flies squarely in the face of that. Does make for an interesting cockpit conversation though.

 

As for Albie - you speak of that which you know nothing of. Most generous guy I know.....

 

Am I missing something here? (Did you forget to take your medication this morning?) I'm not sure what any of the above has to do with the subject. The subject being FEDEX ALPA (not the commuters/lcc's or legacy airlines?) and how FEDEX ALPA doesn't seem to be representing the desires (and interests) of it's members.


Mark

 

Got this off flightinfo:

SUBJECT: Opposition to Any Change to the Mandatory Retirement Age 60 Rule

NWA MEC RESOLUTION #07-7

WHEREAS the current ALPA policy supports the Mandatory Retirement Age 60 Rule in the interest of public safety, and

WHEREAS the new ICAO age 65 standard arbitrarily replaces one age limit with another, and

WHEREAS ICAO did not conduct a safety risk analysis to evaluate the impact of the change in the standard on safety, and

WHEREAS the new ICAO standard would reduce the current U.S. airline safety standard, and

WHEREAS no mitigations have been offered that would provide for an equivalent level of safety if the ICAO standard were adopted over the existing Age 60 Rule, and

WHEREAS before initiating a rulemaking that could change the Age 60 Rule, ALPA recommends the FAA conduct a safety risk assessment with the participation of ALPA, airline, and Aeromedical representatives, and

WHEREAS the FAA will be in compliance with the new ICAO standard, without changing the existing regulations because the standard does not preclude the FAA (or any ICAO State) from setting a lower maximum age limit, and

WHEREAS the membership of ALPA was extensively polled and clearly rejected any change to the current ‘age 660’ rule by a 55/45 margin overall, and

WHEREAS the Group A carriers, including NWA, who comprise more than 80% of ALPA’s overall dues income, rejected any proposed change to the Age 60 rule by a 64% to 36% margin, and

WHEREAS the pilots of NWA rejected any proposed change by more than 70%, and

WHEREAS there is no evidence to suggest any significant change in the perspectives and opinions of the membership in regard to this issue, and

WHEREAS any change to the current Age 60 rule could have far reaching and significant negative consequences for the majority of NWA pilots,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the NWA MEC opposes any change to the Mandatory Retirement Age 60 Rule in the interest of public safety, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the MEC directs the MEC Chairman and NWA Executive Vice President to submit resolutions to the Executive Board and Executive Council, respectively, requiring the explicit support for the Age 60 Rule and prohibiting support of any public or private effort to change the Age 60 Rule by all representatives and employees of ALPA International, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the MEC directs the resolution request a $2 million grant from the MCF to initiate, organize and lobby for legislation to oppose any change to the Age 60 Rule and active opposition by ALPA International of any waivers to the Age 60 Rule,

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED the MEC directs the Executive Board and Executive Council resolutions prohibit any expenditure by ALPA International in support of changing the Age 60 Rule including, but not limited to, FPL, polling and lobbying.


Interesting reading.....

 

Although I am very much AGAINST changing the current "age 60" rule, it's important to realize that the NWA pilots did NOT lose their pensions as a result of the bankruptcy process.

I'll bet the carriers that lost their pensions have a different perspective on this issue ...


Mark

 

As it stands now the only way our voices will be heard is to do something as individuals. Our FDX MEC doesn't seem to have the guts to call a vote of LEC's on this issue, thereby providing our Chairman with direction when he faces a vote at ALPA's Executive Board meeting later this month.

I, for one refuse to be ignored. Somehow the message has to get through that I, a dues paying member, do not like the heading this organization is flying. I am not quitting the union, however I am revoking my ALPA-PAC checkoff today. The PAC even provided the postage paid envelope necessary to send them the message. And to make it really official, I'll send a letter to crew pay.

$$$$ always speak louder than words.