I am not “shooting from the hip” in this post. I have attempted to make clear, non-name calling, non-threatening, etc.. post about thoughts of a recall.

If ALPA must flip it’s position to have any influence in the change than so be it, as 66% said we want ALPA have some influence. I’m fine with this, that’s the majority. I have to trust our MEC and ALPA National in their statement that we must change our position to have some influence.

The main question right now is retroactivity. This is NOT a seniority issue at this point. If the law states that any pilot over 60 at the implementation of the rule cannot return, it is not a seniority issue. That is just the way it is. Why is some seniority not as important as others? I’m referring to the MD11 activation out of order mentioned in early posts and threads. Why was protecting seniority not “the right thing to do” in this case?

Before a recall is ultimately petitioned, I believe one question should be answered – what percentage of FDX pilots think Age 60 should be retroactive? It should not be phrased in any other way. The answer to that question should be our MEC’s as well. If the majority, says yes then all’s well. It’s a crap sandwich, but that’s just the way it is. If the MEC still says they know better, regardless of what the majority says, we enter dangerous ground. What if in future negotiations, the majority membership said no/yes to a job action, but the MEC took a different position, what would you do? Would you walk if the membership said no to a strike, but the MEC said to strike? Would you continue to work if the membership said yes to a strike and the MEC said no? What if 70% of the membership wanted a particular contract, but the MEC thought otherwise, saying “it’s the right thing to do…” (I understand contracts go to the MEC first, then to the membership, but I’m making a point). If blatant disregard for a majority is par for our MEC, then what voice do you and I have? None. To me that is a scary situation to be in. At that point our only voice is a recall.

In my opinion, a recall petition is our version of a job action to our MEC. No one really wants it to happen. UPS took a strike vote, but ultimately did not strike. But it made a statement, a contract was signed and everybody went home happy. I have nothing personal against Capt Webb or any of our other volunteers who have sacrificed so much of their time to accomplish something for the good of our pilot force. Lastly I hope that it does not come to a recall vote. Our MEC must listen to the voice of it's union not just the voice of themselves, and I feel like the membership must be prepared to have it’s voice heard.

Retroactivity is returning seniority rights to a pilot that has lost his seniority position because he/she has retired.

The new law makes it clear that a pilot cannot use the law as a basis to reclaim the lost seniority rights. The Senators that wrote the law made it clear that labor agreements will govern in a letter to Ms. Blakey. In the case of FedEx the S/Os never lost any seniority rights that would have to be reclaimed.

On your question about a future contract I haved a question. What if 95% of the membership and the MEC agrees to the contract? Are you aware that the President of ALPA can refuse to sign that contract? Yes, if the Presient determines that our new great contract is a detriment to ALPA and other pilot goups he can choose not to sign it.

So... maybe Albie's numbers ain't BS after all....

There are Bills in the House and Senate. No law yet.

Have you even read them? They talk about retractive rights (as in not allowing) in terms of exercising the right to return to a pilot position based on one's age at signing when they become laws. Not seniority, retired or otherwise. You can even see the word "promotion" after signing as one of the options EXCLUDED. That means from the SO seat or the training department.

The "lawmakers" sent a letter to a civil servant in reference to the rule making process. When you refer to a bill the lawmakers wrote they don't need to reference said letter.

Only ALPA wants rights at signing (signing plus 30 days or whatever) to be retroactive. The bills mention prospective rule making. A compromise to prevent disruption and balance issues in the interest of "fairness".

Or maybe it's just the MEC Chairman, MECs that want to keep their positions and the top 5% "king of the hill" club that want retroactive rights and would even vote down a contract with 95% member support because they don't like it....just like you mentioned. I know that's not what you meant but that is exactly how it would play out.

Are you really a Captain? Because you sound like you can't read this stuff.



Side note--

I had no idea this is what Prater meant when he said "We're taking it back"

He and his cronies are taking back flying over 60 from the pro-safety crowd. Good for him.

Yes sir, I'm aware that the president doesn't HAVE to sign a contract, even if an overwhelming majority support it And that is dangerous ground. I'm no genius, but my idea of a good contract is good for the pilots and good for the company. I want both to live long and prosper. But do you want a president that doesn't support the majority? It's not collective bargaining if only one person makes a decision. So in that instance I don't believe we would have our voice heard in the form of a recall of the ALPA President, I think we would have a petition for another FPA. And I doubt ALPA would want to loose a Group A income. That's a slightly different situation. But back to our company level.

Retroactivity :in law is the application of a given norm to events that took place or began to produce legal effects, before the law was approved

Retroactive:
• adjective (especially of legislation) taking effect from a date in the past.
— retroaction noun retroactively adverb.

These are not my definitions, these are the legal definitions from a Supreme Court case and the OED. Placing a person back into a seat is retroactive. But that's why I think that should be answered by the majority.

Also George, thanks for not adding the rolleyes and other quips. It makes for a good discussion and that is never a bad thing :)

SO the NPRM, or whatever route this new legislation travels to fruition, could take 12-24 months huh? Wonder how many of those who now support retroactivity("because it's the right thing to do") are 60+ ......or within 12-24 months of reaching 60+. Only a 100% polling of the membership on retroactivity would answer this question.

That's your definition!

What's your point?




You never answered me...How much seniority will you lose when you go to the back seat with your new seniority number? I figure you'll go from around 150 something to 650 something. Close? No wonder you're so intent on gaining retroactivity. You don't want to be junior in the S/O seat.


Again, it has nothing to do with protecting seniority rights in our CBA. They don't exist for over age 60 guys wanting to go back to the left seat.

From our CBA:

Section 26.C. General - Applicable Laws and Government Regulations

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is understood and agreed that the provisions of this Agreement are subject to all applicable laws and governmental regulations now or hereafter in effect and all lawful rulings and orders of all regulatory agencies now or hereafter having jurisdiction.

I've made no secret that I'm AGAINST changing the current age limit, I'm against any sort of retro language "if" (OK, maybe when) the law gets changed, and that the later any change might happen, the better ...

I've wondered for some time why ALPA national's position has changed so quickly in apparent contradiction to what the majority of the ALPA membership says they support.

I've decided that this sudden change in leadership direction (perhaps including DW?) is being orchestrated by the ALPA staff (and consulting) attorneys in order to protect the organization from future legal suits? This way they can honestly say, "We did everything we could to protect the interests the interest of the "old" pilots." If that's the case, I wonder what legal liabilities they might incur my not representing the interest of the majority of the membership?

Maybe ... just maybe, this getting on the train before it leaves the station mantra is the "middle ground" to save their own arses? At least that would made some sense of this latest lunacy.

Regards,


Mark

Don't forget that 52% with the 3% margin of error could be as low as 49% (the number our MEC and it's Chair fixate on) OR it could be as high as 55%. Margins of error are plus or minus firgures creating a range, in this case 55% to 49%.

Our leadership has chosen to look only at the lower end.

Why?

I'm very aware of the language in the Bill. It is muddy enough for each side to make their argument. The fact is that the Senators involved clarified their position with the Administrator appears to bolster the position that the S/Os can return to the front seat. My information is that the company intends to return the S/Os to the front seat if they have been S/Os for less than 24 months. The contract says that they can be restricted if they are within 24 months of the regulated age. That is a 12 month difference between the reported company position and the contract.

I'm curious to how you would like the MEC to handle the situation if they remained opposed to the age 60 change and it happened anyway? How would you as a MEC member handle it if the company said they were returning the S/Os under age 62 to the front seats?