Search

Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines

Alpa Fdx

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-11-2007, 12:46 PM
  #351  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: 767 Cap
Posts: 1,306
Default

Originally Posted by hamfisted
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? .
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.


Originally Posted by hamfisted
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?
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.)
fdx727pilot is offline  
Old 05-11-2007, 01:00 PM
  #352  
Gets Weekends Off
 
KnightFlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,433
Default

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?
KnightFlyer is offline  
Old 05-11-2007, 01:07 PM
  #353  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 397
Default

Originally Posted by FoxHunter
And your opposition to the change is all about you! I'm shocked to hear that.
Actually not really, cause I'll can fly til I'm 65 as well.

The glass is half full not half empty.
FDX28 is offline  
Old 05-11-2007, 02:03 PM
  #354  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Laughing_Jakal's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,338
Default 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.
Laughing_Jakal is offline  
Old 05-11-2007, 03:08 PM
  #355  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: B757 Capt
Posts: 177
Default

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?
Gooch121 is offline  
Old 05-11-2007, 03:09 PM
  #356  
...Whatever It Is!
 
MD11Fr8Dog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
Default

Originally Posted by FoxHunter
What can I say??
Nothing would be a good start!
MD11Fr8Dog is offline  
Old 05-11-2007, 04:27 PM
  #357  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,068
Default

Originally Posted by MaydayMark
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
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!
Daniel Larusso is offline  
Old 05-11-2007, 04:33 PM
  #358  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Deuce130's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 777 FO
Posts: 931
Default

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?
Deuce130 is offline  
Old 05-11-2007, 04:41 PM
  #359  
...Whatever It Is!
 
MD11Fr8Dog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
Default

Originally Posted by Daniel Larusso
Hey in a 35+ page thread, we can expect just a little thread drift!
Only 18 pages for me! I get 20 to a page!
MD11Fr8Dog is offline  
Old 05-11-2007, 04:49 PM
  #360  
Trust but Verify!!
 
FreightDawgyDog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD11 CRA
Posts: 684
Default

"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.
FreightDawgyDog is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
rjlavender
Major
26
10-19-2006 08:48 PM
RockBottom
Major
0
09-14-2005 09:52 PM
Diesel 10
Hangar Talk
4
07-20-2005 05:22 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices