Someone over 60 you can trust
 

Probably ought to join ALBIE in the new MEC, he is another voice of reason and honest assessment.
The only over 60 guy who's not drooling in his coffee.....and honestly....I hope to fly with you often over the next few years...of course that means you'll still be sittin sideways....;-)

[QUOTE=Laughing_Jakal;161136]
It is not a F/O vs Captain thing Huck....it is a "Short sighted greedy 'I got mine' bastard" vs everyone else thing.
(end quote)





Served up with a side of "I am MEC leadership and I will change the stance of the collective group no matter what the majority wants."

Sorry but I have lost all respect for our "leaders"

What does the FedEx contract say?

The UPS contract says:

excepted by this Agreement. (There is no exception that limits over-60's from exercising their seniority.)

So can I stop paying my VEBA "tax" for the next five years?

After all, we negotiated this for the benefit of the guys 54 and older - the young guys will bear your healthcare costs on their shoulders. But now you get to work for another 5 years.

I want my VEBA money back, dammit!

(And yes, I know it's not a lot of money to me or anyone personally, but it's the principle)

[QUOTE=BonesF15;161146]
Don't we have a seniorty based system?
For all you new guys who were hired in the past 3 years, lets look at a little history lesson.

About 3 years ago (during contract negotitiations) , the company floated a proposal to the Union. "We will give you this pay raise and these work rules, provided that every NEW Hire Pilot from now on falls under a new retirement cash balance plan"

The Union rejected this, in other words for you newbies, the UNION protected you before you were hired. They could of said, who cares, these guys aren't even on property yet. I suppose they could have sold out new guys but that would not have been the right thing to do.

All the MEC Chair seems to be saying, is that if any rule change in AGE is retroactive, all pilots must have seniority rights when it comes to bidding.
In other words the Union will defend the seniorty rights of its members.

That is the senority system. Yes it could affect all of us in a negative way.............just like a furlough would, but it is the Right thing to do.

Would it be OK with all of you if the company wanted to furlough out of Senority..........i.e. the bottom 5% of each seat?

The Answer is NO, because Seniority dictates and it is defined in the contract.

If the Law changes and is prospective in Nature, then it will all be a moot point anyway.

Incorrect Quote
 

RedEye,

For the record, you quoted someone quoting me. It looks misleading. Also, I wasn't hired in the last three years.

InHoffe...Hasselhof, whatever
 

Anyone see the video of David Hasselhof's 60th birthday party?

:eek:

I say make them wear 2 stripes ... they're not pilots anymore!


Mark

The FedEx contract says about the same thing. The age 60 S/O have not lost their seniority number and bids are awarded on the basis of System Seniority. There is also a provision to bid to relieve an excess. Since the DC10 is going away any senior S/O can go any to any position his seniority can hold.

Read as: ANY S/O POSITION his seniority can hold.

Mark

Having worked for several airlines, I wouldn't be the slightest bid surprised that they are not ready for this thing. Historically they have never been able to accurately predict hiring or pricing during the more normal times, but now all of sudden these same yahoos are tip-top and prepared? Ok. I am simply repeating what the union has said to date and the potential ramifications if this thing is approved first by Congress vs. the FAA which is not a done deal regardless of how many prognostications any of us make. What you are dealing in is speculation spiced with advantageous facts and more importantly want. I could re-write my post based on what I want and pick a few convenient facts/theorems too if you'd like. Standing by for more shouting from you and Clemente.

The S.65 language is now included in the FAA Reauthorization Bill. It has not been attached, nor an amendment, it is part of the Bill. I believe you will find that ALPA, and FedEx are both expecting it to pass, hence the action or inaction of both parties

Actually, the contract never references age 60 in non-front seater context. Only regulated age is mentioned. Sounds like the regulated age is about to be 65. Suck it up, Mark.

deleted........

Let's all sign a piece of paper that states as a FEDEX pilot I agree to retire at 60. Make it legally binding. We all keep our word & this will end all the bickering, finger pointing, & everything else I've read on this post. Age 60 is going away. What form it will take has yet to be determined. Hard feelings & resentment to someone who is senior to you won't fix anything.

I don't think there's hard feelings and resentment towards the people who are senior, as that's a way of life in an airline job. I think the hard feelings and resentment stem from the union making a decision/resolution without the majority supporting it. Posting results from some bogus poll, where ALL of the union members did not get to vote is crap.

There is a significant amount of negative sentiment regarding our MEC in the crewforce right now and this is just another log on the fire.

Tick Tock, Tick Tock, I'll bet you a dollar you don't make it. I know it will drive you crazy just missing a 5 year extention.

Good luck short timer! ;)

hey foxhunter...i hope this link helps.......bye bye!

http://www.paulsrun.org/

Sorry, you lost! :D :p

Correct..........until Congress changes the Law.

Let me preface this by saying I am not attacking the integrity or abilities of any person who may oppose my opinion. The personal attacks on this board shock me at times but don't deter my desire to voice my opinion.
The Age 60 debacle has become an ALPA quagmire. I trusted their intentions all the way up until they announced their support bringing those over 60 from the back seat to the front seats upon the passage of this pending legislation. Despite the smoke and mirrors process used to arrive at ALPA's decision to "support" the Age 60 to 65 legislation; I figured the majority had spoken...kind of, sort of.
However, their decision to also support this aspect of the legislation allowing over age 60 pilots to move back to the front seats has received absolutely no discussion from the general membership.
At no time have I been queried on how I feel about allowing this group of pilots to move back to the front seat. I would think that, as a Fedex pilot; a group significantly impacted by this position; I would have had the chance to voice my opinion before my MEC adopted a position for me.
Why would I quit the Union over this?
I simply feel that this was an issue that was blatantly manilulated to benefit and pacify a very small group of existing pilots with zero concern over how those most significantly impacted would react or respond to this slight. They count on me closing my pie hole and shrugging my shoulders while I place my faith and dollars in their future decision-making. I have zero faith in the integrity of the system or process used to gauge my stance or opinions on ALPA related topics. Why continue to financially support a political institution that ignores the voice of the vast majority of it's membership?

The problem is that ALPA is trying to make the best of a bad situation from it's point of view and the official ALPA position on age 60. The battle and the war over age 60 is over. ALPA is now trying to use what leverage it has to secure a better position on other important issues, Akaka, Open Skies plus others. I agree that the poll was biased in favor of the age 65 change, just as the previous poll was biased against any change. If you think polls should make policy then I'm sure you support removing US troops from Iraq ASAP. There has to be a certain level of leadership in any organization, including those with democratic systems.

I spent many years being junior and on furlough and know how I would have felt. That being said, the world has changed, age 60 today is not what it was in 1959. ICAO made the change after many years of consideration. The FAA approved foreign pilots up to age 65 on November 23, 2006. The FAA recognized that the current rule was not acceptable and announced that on January 30, 2007.

The leadership at both National and the MEC level is now dealing with reality. Many of the posts show that many just cannot bring themselves to accept the change is coming, and it is coming in the very near future. The ALPA and the leadership has an obligation to represent all FedEx pilots. That includes the S/Os that happen to be over age 60. When the regulated age changes to 65 their entitlements will be based on their seniority. There may be training restictions based on how close they are to the new regulated age and hose individuals may not get to return but they should be pay protected.

Are we seeing the train wreck that some have talked about? http://airlinepilotforums.com/showthread.php?t=6491
Or are we seeing a leadership that can see around the bend and is trying to switch tracks so we only have a close call?

I lose when you are over 60 and still flying the left seat. I win when I see you wearing your new three strip epaulets. I know you won't retire as long as there are switches to flip.

Good luck just the same.

If you did, you sure have a case of the Welch's sour grapes. As someone who fits similar shoes, should I look forward to one day ignoring whence I came and grabbing all I can regardless of what is right or what I have believed is right for so long? If your answer is yes, be secure in the knowledge that 5yrs or 10 more, I will eventually have the handle to the guiottine that holds either your A fund, your health benefits or both. Close cover before strike.

i couldn't agree more. make sure you email your lec/block reps and make your voice heard. they need to know the extent of the anger with the chairman's message. we also need to press for a vote on this issue...it can't just be at the whim of the mec chairman.

let's put the mec to the test and see if they respond responsibly, or just spout rhetoric.


pdo

The optimist in me might speculate that by verbally accepting over 60 guys going BACK, DW might be playing poker and trying to win those guys some passover pay. The company WILL NOT pay that if it thinks these guys REALLY WOULDN'T accept going back to training. Therefore--to get these guys the extra pay--the union HAS to take the position "of course they can go back...their seniority allows it..."

However--its a high stakes poker game and I can't read DW's eyes. What I do know is that I have ZERO problem with any over 60 guy getting paid as a captain to plumb whatever jet he's currently on. Hell...its a windfall that doesn't hurt anyone but the company's shareholders in the long run. I think we are profitable enough with the optimizer working as hard as it is to absorb those losses.

If, however...DW "really" wants those guys flowing back...we got a real problem. I know a good poker player can't show his hand to other guys at the table, but he really does need to be more clear about the rationale behind his moves.

Old guy or new hire--we've got to be together in the end. Right now I haven't seen anyone throw the junior guys a bone. I'll I've seen them do is say "....we had it tough....shut up and color...etc..." I'd like to see a way to somehow divide some of the spoils of the 5 year career extension some folks are getting.

Where did I miss the "seniortiy" structure in our union? I thought every dues paying member had the same voice! Seniority only applies with respect to our position on the master seniority list. That is administered by FedEx, NOT ALPA!

If DW thinks I have been paying dues to maintain my "seniority" in the union, he is seriously mistaken! WHAT IS GOING ON! If the majority of us think our union should advocate NOT bringing back over 60 guys, then that's what our reps should be focusing on.

Problem vs. Solution
 

Why would I quit the Union over this?
I simply feel that this was an issue that was blatantly manilulated to benefit and pacify a very small group of existing pilots with zero concern over how those most significantly impacted would react or respond to this slight. They count on me closing my pie hole and shrugging my shoulders while I place my faith and dollars in their future decision-making. I have zero faith in the integrity of the system or process used to gauge my stance or opinions on ALPA related topics. Why continue to financially support a political institution that ignores the voice of the vast majority of it's membership?[/quote]

Stop whining. Have you volunteered for an LEC position?
When the game doesn't go your way do you take your ball and go home?
If you feel you are in the wronged majority then recall the MEC leadership.
Good luck.

Stop whining. Have you volunteered for an LEC position?
Good luck.[/QUOTE]

Some of us have Attempted to volunteer, but for whatever reason, were not invited into the inner sanctum..makes one wonder. Methinks DW and his cronies practiced a "closed shop" prior to obtaining one on the last contract.:mad:

A famous "Everybody loves Raymond" quote......."what contest from hell did I win?"

After some discussion with some MEC folks, here is the basic tenet:'

Seniority is important. It is a cornerstone of contract benefits. If we voluntarily give up seniority rights (i.e. selling out the over 60 FEs) then we weaken our seniority system. This system is critical....what if FDX decided to only furlough DC-10 guys....vice furloughing in seniority order. Unlikely I know, but the principal also applies on strike. Remember pre 98 contract FDX threatened to furlough "out of seniority order" which was a legitimate threat prior to having a real contract. Seniority is important as a negotiating tool....if captains can be threatened with termination out of seniority order we will never be able to accomplish any real "self help".

Now the rub. Our MEC and ALPA national are convinced this is a lost game. :( If we "play ball" and get on the winning side, then we can push for the FAA, not congress, to determine when and how to implement the new rules. These rules, even though they SUCK for junior guys, will be taking place in 18-24 months and most likely WILL NOT be retroactive. Therefore...anyone after that date will NOT be in a position to perform as a captain/FO. However--if we resist...congress will jam it down our throats thanks to APAAD and other interests, and we'll end up with it shoved up our @ss anyway. Then...it will be effective this fall....30 days after signing which means Sept-Oct timeframe. This means our own Foxhunter is right on the bubble.

So--ALPA wants to make nice with congress and "support" this new law. Which means ALPA wants to be on the winning team, then slow leak this for as long as possible....perhaps 18 months...perhaps 2 years.

The irony in this is huge. Either way...the junior guys loses. If we support ALPA, which "publically" supports the change...we might mitigate some damage. If we fight our union...or force it outside the discussion...we end up not having any say, and perhaps having implementation this fall (the sound you hear in Foxhunter and his bros clapping). By supporting your union and turning the decision of implentation details over to the FAA, you have a better chance of kicking the implentation date eighteen to twenty four months to the right. While I have no personal beef with George, he benefits from a fractured ALPA and a congressional APAAD sympathetic decision. We gotta eat some sour medicine, but we'll eat it later (and minus another 50-100 dudes) if we support our union....Dave Webb be damned.

I dont' like either choice, but we are between the devil and the deep blue sea. I've never been furloughed or merged, but my turn at getting ********d by events beyond our control is coming. :mad:

What I do know is age 60 is not an issue ALPA can fix. However, our company, however great, has some issues that ALPA can help. The optimizer needs to be turned down...or else requests for fuel savings can be blown out the window. The deviation issues mentioned on another thread could use some work. We need a union. I'll support ours. I'm not happy, however, with the TONE of the correspondence we've gotten, and I've expressed that. I expect to hear a bit more news on those issues in the next few days.

In the meantime--senior or junior...I'm on your side if you want a strong union. Our union, however, could use a bit of charm school in how it presents its case at times. Perhaps I need to sign up some of the MEC reps for one of my interview coaching sessions....:)

If the contract allows over 60's to bid their seniority, no amount of voting will undo that. The ADEA and the EEOC would trump any vote.

c) It shall be unlawful for a labor organization-

(1) to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to
discriminate against, any individual because of his age;

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify its membership, or to classify
or fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual, in any way which
would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment
opportunities, or would limit such employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect his status as an employee or as an applicant for
employment, because of such individual's age.ADEA of 1967, section 623.

That's all fine and dandy. I agree. Sadly, the age 60 rule is soon to be a thing of the past. I'll learn to live with that.

However, I don't recall our MEC fighting for the seniority rights of the herpes S/O's, in the past. Why? It was part of the regulations.

So, why not allow the FAA to make it a reg. that anyone over age 60 when this happens is SOL? That's not giving up anyone's seniority rights. Anymore than what they've been doing. It would just be part of the regs.

Webb is not only not listening/caring what we think of the reg change. He's actually advocating going beyond what we've said we don't want. If he gets his way, it won't matter whether Congress passes a law or the FAA goes though their motions. That point will be moot, as all of the age 60 guys will have the opportunity to go back to the left seat. That's the problem I have with this. While they're at it, maybe they should fight to get back all the 60-65yr old guys that have retired, too?

If this is his idea of getting on the train and having a voice...I'd rather he falls off and gets run over!!

RSO

Keep them in the right seat only!!!!

The only option that spreads the wealth beyond those chosen few who will get 5 more years of widebody captain pay.....

What sucks in all this is that the over 60 crowd had one whale of a lobbying force hitting capitol hill.

I had ALPA... and I'd like to know how hard they were fighting that initial over-60-foreign-pilots rule. Real hard I'm sure.

Attempted to volunteer?
 

Some of us have Attempted to volunteer, but for whatever reason, were not invited into the inner sanctum..makes one wonder. Methinks DW and his cronies practiced a "closed shop" prior to obtaining one on the last contract.:mad:

I would be shocked and upset if someone told you you can't volunteer to do something, especially at the LEC level.

If you went into the MEC and told them you wanted to be on the negotiating committee you might get a neutral response.

Most LECs have vacancies in different committees and would appreciate more volunteers.

Remember, ALPA is us. ALPA is not the MEC. The MEC is not ALPA.

You obviously haven't taken your "workplace violence" training yet. :D

Except in this case. ALPA is not US. ALPA is what Dave Webb and the rest of the "leaders" think is best for us.

I was a diehard ALPA advocate. I am now a reluctant member disgusted with the MEC and its "leadership".

If the company wants to avoid paying passover pay to the over 60 crowd, just have a big bid 2 weeks prior to the effective date of the change. Say for instance, with a two year training cycle. Even if they are allowed to bid back, they will have to wait for a vacancy bid. Also, if there is an excess bid soon, that will mean that every DC-10 S/O is over 60 and letting all of them come limping back all at once would pretty much ground that dwindling fleet. Something that ain't goonna happen in a short time.

Ummmmm....Pretty sneeky....I like it.:p