Whoa, go easy on Don. He probably forgot to wear his toupee (and an almost realistic one it is) and got a little too much sun on the old chrome dome.

hamfist,

Why take a democratic vote? Even if the overwhelming majority of us vote a certain way, why would you think that DW would decide to take that position?

["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.]

Marion Blakey has publicly stated that the over 60 group will not be covered by this FAR change. If it turns out that way will she be violating our contract? What Webb wants to do, and will do, is to spend union resources to try and change the FAAs stated position. So..our 64 year old engineer goes back to #1 on his A/C of choice, and a Southwest Captain who is 60 years and a week with no pension is SOL. Sounds fair.

I am convinced that DW will not let this come to a vote because he's in the lead car driving the train that left this station long before we knew they were boarding. Odd how even most of the over-60 guys I have flown with really didn't believe they had a chance of getting back to the front seat and then wham....out of the blue....DW says HE has decided WE will support retroactivity. Now the guys who said they stayed around because they loved to play racketball on the road, travel, visit old friends and get out of the house are proclaiming the front seats again as their birthright....due to seniority. Poor b@stard at Delta, United etc etc who is 60+ one day doesn't have DW representing them to retain their rightful position again in the front seat.......but hey......it's all about seniority, right??

Yeah ... what he said!

Mark

MD11FR8Dog,

"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!"


What influence do you want? Our defined benefit is set by the CBA not by the IRS or other. Furthermore we're one of the last carriers in ALPA to have a pension, you really think ALPA National is going to spend any time or money on defined benefits?

I'm with Hamfisted - have a vote and then go with the vote. I'll stand in line like a loyal member if I'm truly in the minority here but I get a chance to voice my opinion in a democratic process. Anything less than that - where we are now - marks of tyranny.

So how is it, that protecting the current over age 60 guy's rights, under the CBA, the "right thing to do"...But, abusing the under age 60 guy's rights not the wrong thing to do?

I agree, the age 60 thing is most probably a done deal. But, actively trying to influence the new reg to include retroactivity, is wrong. That is not protecting the over 60 guys seniority rights. That is attempting to give them new rights.

[quote=AerisArmis;Marion Blakey has publicly stated that the over 60 group will not be covered by this FAR change. [/quote]

The problem with a lot of things said here is that a lot of them are not accurate. What Blakey said was:

…would you consider making age 65 retirement age retroactive?

…no, we do not plan to do that… people who are already out of the system, who have already gone on, the questions of trying to bring people back in, and at that point would be for a very brief period of time, the training, the skills, are they up on the specific equipment, et cetera? I think that this would be a very disruptive thing to do, and at the end of the day, I do not expect that this would be a part of the final rule.

Really?

This is from her Nat'l Press Club speech:

The rule we intend to propose will be parallel to the ICAO standard — either pilot or co-pilot may fly up to age 65 as long as the other crewmember is under 60. It is our intent that this new rule will apply to pilots who have not yet reached 60 by the time the rule goes into effect.

Sounds reasonable to me.

1st, do you think DW, and I don't believe he made a unilateral decision, just a horrible presentation of the MEC's decision, is going to turn the tide and get ALPA NAtional to support Age 60+ ropes retroactivity.

2nd, most everyone, including most on the MEC, according to my rep, don't believe that retroactivity for anyone will happen - read Blaekey and the ARC's position/suggestion.

3rd, right now ALPA's position hasn't changed, yet, and it might be too late, even if it does. But it probably should, IF we want to infuence the NPRM in ANY way - you chose the way, or would you rather Congress, in the words of the famous philosopher Frank Zappa, ram it, ram it, ram it, ram it up your poop chute?:rolleyes:

4th, I'm just a bit more pragmatic than others on this issue! I'm still going at 58 and 7 months! :cool: