As DW said at the meeting, his decision won't impact us at all, as the Age 60 ship has sailed, and nothing we do can change it. All we can do is minimize the associated affects to our benefits.


FDX ALPA is representing the only large group of over 60 active pilots in ALPA, who are still dues-paying members (at least most of them.)

Albie: Shack. Right again.

PAC: I thought about yanking my contributions, but I'm going to hold off for now. What would Mgmt want you to do? Contribute or not?

Actually not really, cause I'll can fly til I'm 65 as well. :)

The glass is half full not half empty.

I've got it!
 

Since the age 65 is an ICAO thing, then let them fly from Zurich @ Narrowbody pay and Guangzao on Widebody pay and dim sum.
This ought to help their strained finances.

What follows is my communication with some members of our MEC in light of the 11May07 MEC Message line and email replies.


That was a quick reply, though it was probably due to my choice of words versus
substance of the communication. Some issues raise the level of passion higher then
others, this is one for me. To be heard above the clamor and get the requisite
attention, sometimes a 2 x 4 is the appropriate tool, metaphorically speaking.
The phrase "backroom politics" seems to have struck a nerve, I apologize
if you were offended and to others on the addressee list similarly afflicted.

I read with great interest today's MEC Message line, unfortunately, not until
after I had transmitted my last email asking for a recorded vote on the Age 60 policy.
Am I to assume today's (11May07) MEC Message line is the recorded vote on the
Age 60 issue? Or, was it really a referendum on whether to support the Age 60 policy
change through Congressional actions or the FAA NPRM process?

If the vote was to determine the instrument of change (Congress vs the FAA), then
aren't we putting the cart before the horse. Gentlemen, shouldn't we first
establish if this MEC is in favor, officially, of changing the AGE 60 policy before
we debate the merits of the Congress versus the FAA implementing the change? I
still haven't seen the recorded vote on whether the MEC is in favor of changing
the Age 60 policy...or not. If I missed the vote, please point me in the right
direction and I'll read the results. All I have seen concerning the Age 60
policy change question has been published in MEC communications, the most recent
of which stated:

"The most recent poll data, with an error rate of 3%, indicates that an overwhelming
majority of FDX ALPA members do not favor a change to age 60..." (11May07
MEC Message Line)

If this statement is correct how can our MEC and it's Chair override the desires
of the "overwhelming majority"? Overwhelming majority were the message
line's words not mine.

What I have seen and heard these last few days is a lot rhetoric from both sides
of the issue. One side discussing the subject as being a done deal, trains leaving
the station and we need a place at the table. The other side discussing the loss
of just about everything except children and the family dogs. As I understand,
the ALPA Executive Board is comprised of the larger airline MEC Chairs. So it's
not just the ALPA President and our Chair sitting at a table making the Age 60 policy
change decision. Our Chair is part of a larger group of MEC Chairs, each representing
the wishes of their members.

If our Chair is part of a group of Chairman, why is it so important for this MEC
and Chair to override the wishes of it's members. Certainly other airlines
see the issue differently and may wholeheartedly embrace the proposed new standard
of Age 65, as is their right. I understand as a major cargo operator, we are in
a minority when sitting at the table full of PAX carriers. Each group has a different
agenda and after all cargo and PAX, why they're as different as (dare I say
it) night and day. So I keep asking myself, why the push on this issue, why is
the MEC and it's Chair so ready to override the overwhelming majority of its
members?

I wonder...why now?

Nothing would be a good start!:rolleyes:

No need for the red highlighting, I know what we are talking about here(practice). This industry and in this particular case this union does not exist in a vacuum. Intrinsically, we are no better or worse than any other pilot group out there-none of us have the patent on making mistakes or re-inventing the wheel. I was responding to one of the responses made to Albie by someone else on this thread. All contracts and payrates have give and takes for one reason or another and the ones made for age 60 need to be revisited if the rule change(doubt they will, ALPA in general is a senior 4 stripe world-or 'shut and color' in more simple terms). I used the example of the regionals and lcc's because it's far more obvious to the casual observer than it is at the majors, but the principles are the same. Hey in a 35+ page thread, we can expect just a little thread drift!

Speaking of thread drift, does anyone have any insight as to what the Company thinks of this? Is Fred in favor of the age change? I envision an army of bean counters furiously crunching numbers to figure the cost of salaries, training, sick leave, vacation, expansion, hiring, retirements, medical, contract changes, etc etc and I'm sure they've got a plan to either mitigate or exploit the rule change. Any thoughts from the smarter guys on this board?

Only 18 pages for me! I get 20 to a page!;)

"Speaking of thread drift, does anyone have any insight as to what the Company thinks of this? Is Fred in favor of the age change? I envision an army of bean counters furiously crunching numbers to figure the cost of salaries, training, sick leave, vacation, expansion, hiring, retirements, medical, contract changes, etc etc and I'm sure they've got a plan to either mitigate or exploit the rule change. Any thoughts from the smarter guys on this board?"

While not claiming to be a "smarter guy" on the board, I will, as always, offer my opinion.

When you want to know what the company will do the old rule of "follow the money" almost always works. I am sure they will both mitigate and exploit this issue for their profit. As training is a pretty big expense, it is unlikely they will want to train anyone who can not give them at least 5 years or more of productivity. Considering those older among us have the most vacation and highest usage of sick time I am sure they will not want to retrain anyone over 60. Having said that, if they can find a way to get something else that is of more value to them to facilitate the MEC policy of retroactivity (say PBS as an example) they may agree to an LOA regarding displacements to allow just that. Unlikely, but after what we have witnessed with the MEC ignoring the membership wishes to help out a small minority, not as unlikely as I once believed. As usual, the company has taken the wiser road here of remaining quiet until they see how everything turns out. When it comes to retroactivity I think the MEC should have done the same instead of causing such needless discord amongst their membership, especially since they now say it probably won't happen anyway.