The "up yours" in the post wasn't aimed at the over 60 SOs. It was aimed at DW, who unilaterally decided that promoting the retroactive clause was a good idea. My translation of his letter was he was not "rolling over and accepting the change", but promoting it. To translate--DW says WE HAVE TO ROLL with age 60 changes. I don't like it, but I can buy it. The next step, however--promoting retroactivity...is a huge move PAST that mandate. So--again--the "up yours" was "up yours you presumptious MEC chairman who didn't ask me anything", not "up yours your old over 60 guys..."

Unlike some, however, I have not hidden from the fact the law change hurts me in a lot of ways. It slows down upgrades. It slows down moving up the seat seniority and enjoying better lines. And it slows down industry hiring--which hurts our business. FedEx is chump change for us...but if SWA, CAL, DAL, UPS, and a host of others quit hiring or slow down then we feel it there too. I can name at least 20 great guys over 58 I'd love who I'll enjoy flying with if they stay past 60. I can see the real benefit for them. However--this is a ZERO sum game, and the extra money they accrue now is money guys in my age group won't make. Why is it greedy if I point that out but okay if someone senior makes more coin by staying on?

Sorry you think I'm a jerk. I think a better statement is I honestly am articulating what MOST of the guys that are still on FO seats feel. This is a very bad BUSINESS decision for most of us. We can roll with it. The resentment comes when we think some of our elected leaders are deliberately working against our interests then telling us its for our own good.

Again--"up yours" singular....not "up yours" plural. And you weren't the target.

Cheers.

 

Actually, I feel for anyone who wanted or needed to keep flying, and was forced out of the cockpit. If the government would let them back in, more power to them. On the subject of our over 60 SOs, they are on the property, on the seniority list, and should be able to bid Captain if they can hold it, seniority and medical-wise. What a lot of the junior (I can't say old, because some of them are my age or older) people don't realize is a lot of those over 60 guys can't even hold WB captain, and many no longer have a 1st class medical. Some are not even under 65. So to screw over a whole group of people, based on a loss of your "perceived income," is patently unfair. I say "perceived," because if experience in this industry has taught me anything, it's that until you can hold it, are train for it, and are activated in it, it ain't yours. Just ask the guys who were on DC10 Cap IOE just before the first contract, and were pulled out and sent back to the Boeing. The US could get in a trade war with China, and then all of us Fedexers are screwed. Sh@t happens, and expectations get dashed. Blaming another group and screwing them over doesn't make up for it, and won't make it right.

 

Thanks for the explanation. I apologize for taking it the way it looked on the forum. I still agree with DW on the over 60 guys though, as mentioned in the post above. And, yes, I know it will probably delay my eventual WB Capt slot.

 

Either way...I'll be pulling gear for you for a while or asking your advice when I do get to upgrade.

It ain't personal...and I'll be a professional whatever the outcome.

Just realize a lot of young guys feel very disenfranchised by their leadership and and pretty hot. That doesn't mean any of us wish personal ill will on anyone--except idiots like rjlavender. Rubbing someones nose in a 5 (or more) year setback is pretty bad karma.

 

For clarification purposes...... has OUR Union decided that the majority of it's members do not know what is best for them individually or ALPA as an entity? In his empirical wisdom, has DW decided to singlehandedly make a decision that negatively impacts a large body of the membership he is SUPPOSED to represent; without giving them the opportunity to have their single or collective voices heard on the subject? The Age 60 legislation is a train he has decided we ALL should jump onto without the clear support of the membership. I still fail to see the rationale for spearheading the advocacy of affirming the retroactivity issue. WHO exactly does FDX ALPA represent on this issue? I don't believe any of us can honestly answer this question unless it is put to a vote for the entire membership body. Until then, any claims of greed, shortsightedness or selfishness don't hold water. This is a MAJOR issue to a lot of careers; let the membership have their voice.

 

Then why hasn't the age 60 crowd not taken the fight for the guys under 23. ICAO allows pilots to become ATP's at 21 not 23. That's age discrimination. And it has been that way much longer than ICAO's age 65 rule.

 

I thought all you young ALPA guys were taking care of them.

 

I sent the following to my LEC rep with copies to the three MEC officers and the other LEC blocks reps. We can burn up the chat forums all we want, but staying in touch with your MEC and especially you LEC reps, in my opinion will have the greatest chance of success. Hey, I'm not asking to keep the Age 60 policy or asking to overturn it. All I want is a collective stance from this union arrived at through the procedures published in our By-Laws. Have a recorded vote on the issue and let our MEC Chair take that info the the big meeting at the end of the month.

Why are they afraid of having a recorded vote?

"DUMP THE PAC"

My email follows...

Thanks for taking the time to chat over the phone yesterday. I hope some headway has been made towards having a recorded vote by our MEC on the proposed change in ALPA's Age 60 Policy for three reasons:

1. I feel it is very important for our Chairman to have the results of a vote in his pocket prior to his leaving for the Executive Board meeting later this month. How he votes as compared to how our MEC voted will say a lot about how this MEC operates.

2. It is important for our rank and file membership to experience an occasion where the MEC arrives at an important decision using established procedures as written in our By-Laws. This is to important an issue to be determined by a voice vote, hand count or head nod. It needs to be a recorded vote, with the results made public. Our membership needs this...our membership deserves a recorded vote.

3. Finally, a recorded LEC vote on this issue will allow the rank and file to see just how responsive the LEC block reps are to it's respective members. As with the first reason, we need to see who the LEC reps work for, their block members or others.

Without a change, the current method of operation is beginning to look and smell like "back room politics". Please continue to press for a recorded vote.

 

You're right, I've got mine so who cares about "what's right" huh.

I wasn't up on the Hill, ****ing and moaning to administrators about how unfair things were in the industry. I paid my dues (to get my experience), got the job I wanted, and accepted the rules for what they were.

To me it just shows that this age60 group is all about themselves, others be darned.. I wish I was wrong. Enjoy your weekend.

 

And your opposition to the change is all about you! I'm shocked to hear that.