You know...putting it to a ballot would be an excellent thing. Win or lose--ALL of us would know our voices have been heard. If DW wins and keeps his mandate--we shut up and color. And we know that we have a voice...

I obviously am on the "other" side of this age 60 issue, but I am more concerned about the ivory tower effect that so many junior guys are picking up on. I'm not trying to draw a line between 42GO, Redeye, and the other more senior guys here. I do hope, however, we can get through this with everyone feeling like there interests have been represented and they've had someone listening to them. THAT is the goal. The process FDX28 has outlined, while painful, will force the leadership to respond and listen. Even if after the process the results are the same, at least the junior folks will not feel so disenfranchised--which hopefully means we'll be able to stick together on the battles to come.

So...here we go...

 

Most of the discontent over retro-activity seems to be coming from the more junior folks. Has it occured to any of you ranting that you just might be in the minority?

We all signed the same contract. You might want to take a look at section:

22.B especially item 2, although ALL of section 22 is important.

In fact, the entire contract is important for ALL of us to follow. You guys are moaning here about your discontent with DW's decision to pursue retro. Seems to me, ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACT, DW has a duty of fair representation to protect ALL members' interests. MY copy of the contract section 22.B.2 says:

"seniority shall govern all pilots in cases of vacancy posting awards, bid period schedule awards" and so on.

Advocating something that VIOLATES the contract makes you nothing more than an independant contractor. You sound like the guy who is genuinely mad when the fellow crew member (same seat 10 years your SENIOR) bids "your" line. He's senior to you, and it's not YOUR line till EVERYONE senior to you DOESN't bid it.

The seats work the same way.

Just a thought.
Flame on, I hope it helps.

 

Now stop right there. There is no call to be using reason and rational thought on an internet forum!!

 

Question:

Do the current over age 60 guys now have seniority rights to the left seat? NO!!

Do the current under age 60 guys have seniority rights to the left seat? YES!!

It has nothing to do with the contract. It has to do with regulations and law. As in, the "regulated age" as definied in our CBA. Our MEC is now pursuing a change in the upcoming new regs/law that will give the current over age 60 guys new rights, that they don't currently have.

I'm not junior. And, I'm not ranting. I just think that the real and current seniority rights of the "junior" people here are being disregarded.

 

Again...the anger isn't over age 60. It is over the apparent being "ambivilent" towards age 60 changing to being suddenly not only PRO change but going beyond what the current FAA adminstrator is even asking for...all without any input from the body.

Even if you agree with the decisions--the manner in which this was presented to the membership comes off as arbitrary and without any input. Even if you support the message--the way is was delivered was abrupt and insensitive. It would not have been that difficult to have done a better job of explaining the hows and whys verses just making their own mind up and announcing it to the body.

I was one of those guys who told Zman "chill--and call the union" about the whole passover issue last year. I've championed the unions's mantra on these boards many times. I'm not a rabble rouser or a malcontent. However, if you can--put yourself in some of the very junior guys shoes a second. You were denied passover pay and contract enforcement didn't go to mat for you--and told you "keep the big picture". Senioirty, while important, could be tweaked or affected by LOAs and previous precendents. As soon as senioirty issues affect the senior membership, however--WHAM--senioirty is critical.

Now--before you explain the situations were "different"--I know they were. Remember--I was one of the guys who said "Zman--shut up and color on this one". However--I can see how he feels jacked around by his MEC on this issue. A little better bedside manner and education by our own MEC would go a long way on this.

Also--with agency shop--the perception is our MEC might be feeling invunerable. I have always said we hold the union to a higher standard than we do the company...because the union is US. We have to be transparent, lilly white, and open to input. The perception--right or wrong--is that a cadre of of senior guys is selectively fighting for principals which only benefit the senior members. Guys...the union belongs to all of us...and we HAVE to find a way to make sure even these "ungreatful whippersnappers" feel like the union has their back too. If we don't--the erosion of support will hurt all of us...junior and senior alike.

And again--wherever you are on the issue--we need to stick together on the back side of this.

 

Actually, they are acknowledging that the change is inevitable and going to happen no matter what, and as such is pursuing protection for all of those people's rights that they are required, by the CBA, to look out for - anyone on the seniority list! Its been a long week, but I have come from where most on this board are, to my current position. I don't like it, but it's reality!

 

Albie,

No arugment here. Had a long talk with my rep on the phone last night. I was told that this was not a unilateral DW decision, but the result of a number meetings/tele-conference calls, some times very contensious! Even he agrees that the way it came out sucks, and he wasn't happy with how that happen. But it is where we are, and regardless of how it appeared as DW telling us all to "shut up and color", it simply wasn't that, at least according my rep.

I just want the best opportunity for ALPA to be able to infuence the inevitable change in the "regulatory age", and if that means protecting the seniority rights of all those on the seniority list, so be it. I'm saving my energy for the real fight, when/if ALPA officially changes its postion and then the real work (letters to Congressman?) to look after our retirements, and tax issues!

:flame retardent shield up:

 

MD11Fr8Dog,

Unlike you, I am not convinced that age 65 is a done deal. Hell, getting George W. and Congess to agree to anything is next to impossible these days. I wouldn't say any legislation is "imminent."

And for the NPRM, as you know, this process is expected to take 18-24 months. If ALPA pushed hard on this and actually spent some of our money, this could be a difficult sell. Just think of ads stating that 65% (or whatever the number is) of our nation's airline pilots think that flying over 60 is unsafe and we wouldn't want our children flying with these guys. We certainly have more spending power than the APAAD or whatever they call themselves.

And just what is ALPA going to do to shape this legislation? Let over 60 engineers come back as captains? Gee thanks.

Prater has wanted this all along, and when survey results don't come out the way he wanted them, they are using false logic to sell us some bad stuff.

"If the change was imminent, would you want ALPA to help shape legislation to help all of us?"

Sounds kind of like, "if I was having a heart attack, would I want a doctor to help me?" Or maybe, "if my house was on fire, would I want the fire department to come to my house?" First of all, you have to believe the assumption that the rule IS going to change. I think it is a long way from changing and that using our union to really fight this would certainly help. Our very weak, fragmented stance sure hasn't sold anyone that we think the rule is unsafe.

The bottom line is this: The overwhelming majority of Fedex pilots are NOT in favor of changing the age 60 rule. I want them to listen to the membership and for DW to vote his membership's position. Why in the hell did they ask for our opinion if he isn't going to listen?

As far as ALPA national goes, I am not overly concerned about their position. If the executive board votes their membership's position and we lose, then so be it. Also when the Group A members (the ones that pay 80% of the dues) are 64% against changing the rule, well maybe that is telling you something. It looks as if NWA is openly against the rule, what are the other carriers positions?

Again, I am really pi$$ed about our own union leadership going against the wishes of the "overwhelming majority." This is the real problem.

 

Albie,

This is no different than the nature of politics in the country today. Either you're for X or you're for for Y. It matters not if you are a rabble rouser or a malcontent-If you're for Y when X is the rule of the day, they will find a way to put you in a box to discredit your opinions. The box you(we) are being put in is juniority. Inherently this has a natural hint of lack of respect for those senior to us which is offensive to even those who might disagree with what is going or are neutral. The ultimate effect is that our voice is lessened because it is deemed not credible by reason of the source being suspect. Give APAAD credit, they got their issue on the table and are now successfully exploiting our natural tendencies and views on the seniority system to great effect.

 

The easiest way to put all questions aside on how the senior vs junior vs old vs young feel on the retroactivity issue is to put it to a democratic vote. If you disagree with me, what are you afraid of?....coming out in the minority and not getting your way? If the majority comes out in favor of supporting retroactivity...I'll be a loyal member and this issue will quickly become a thing of the past. It's the blatant disregard for what could be an overwhelming majority opinion that I find most distasteful and causes me to lose faith that OUR Union speaks for the pilot group as a whole.
I've been a junior guy fed to the wolves as fodder during contract negotiations in a previous airline life.....coincidentally also a closed shop...so please spare me the junior varsity and whippersnapper diatribe as you rebut my opinion.