Alpa Fdx
05-13-2007 | 07:40 AM
#451
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 653
Likes: 0
From: MD11 F/O
Minimize How?
The below is some background information on why the MEC feels as it does. I know most of you are very emotional on this issue, and that you may not be willing to accept this information at face value. That is up to you, my intent is to merely provide some background information on how this decision was made and show that there is no secret agenda.
1. ALPA has successfully defended the existing age 60 repeatedly since 1980.
2. Two seismic events have taken place in the last several months which are leading your union’s leadership to decide on a change in our position: (1) the President allowed foreign pilots over 60 to operate in U.S. airspace pursuant to ICAO policy, and (2) the announcement by the FAA of its intention to mirror ICAO policy and allow pilots to fly to 65. These two events essentially nullified ALPA’s position arguably based on safety concerns.
3. Senators Inouye, Salazar, Lieberman, Feingold, and Representative Rangel who have traditionally supported ALPA’s opposition to changing the age 60 rule now support a change. Senate Bill S. 65, which would change the law, now has 25 sponsors, and House Resolution H.R. 1125, which would do the same thing, has over 70 House sponsors. Additionally, senators and House representatives who now support changing the law have come to view it as an age discrimination issue.
4. If ALPA is to minimize the impact of a change to age 60, a change we feel is imminent, we have to be players in the political environment in Washington. We currently are not; Congress and the FAA are telling us they will not discuss the issue with us until we change our position. The potential currently exists for contractual changes to become legislated, not negotiated.
5. We feel changing the venue of this issue to the NPRM process and away from the legislative process will afford the best opportunity for us to minimize downside implications of a change.
With regard to the prospective nature of pilots currently flying past age 60, a read of our contract may be in order. Specifically, under Section 2, the definition of Regulate Age states:
The age at which FARs do not permit a pilot to continue flying as a Captain or First Officer.
When you look at Section 22 you will find under paragraph B. Seniority Accrual and Application:
1. A pilot who has established seniority shall not lose his seniority except that a pilot shall forfeit all employment and seniority rights and his name shall be removed from the Master Seniority List under the following conditions:
a. Retirement.
If the regulated age changes to age 65, this MEC believes that under no circumstances should those pilots currently working past 60 be denied the right on any subsequent bid to exercise their seniority in accordance with their contract . To do otherwise compromises our integrity at its foundation and as such should not be a part of any resolution coming from our union.
This issue has the potential to undermine the unity of our membership ALPA-wide. We did not initiate this change; ICAO and the President’s decision to allow foreign pilots over age 60 to fly in the US did.
ALPA President Captain John Prater will be in Memphis on May 14 and May 15. This is a great opportunity for all pilots in the Memphis area to come out and ask questions. Refreshments will be served during both of these events. Please make plans to attend one of these road shows.
Monday, May 14
10 a.m. - 2 p.m.
MEM Airport
* Conference Room A
* Security Checkpoint A
* Terminal A
Tuesday, May 15
11 a.m. - 2 p.m.
Germantown Centre
1801 Exeter Road
Germantown, TN
When you objectively evaluate these arguments, I trust you will agree that your MEC is doing the right thing. If you do not, please feel free to call your rep.
See you on the line.
1. ALPA has successfully defended the existing age 60 repeatedly since 1980.
2. Two seismic events have taken place in the last several months which are leading your union’s leadership to decide on a change in our position: (1) the President allowed foreign pilots over 60 to operate in U.S. airspace pursuant to ICAO policy, and (2) the announcement by the FAA of its intention to mirror ICAO policy and allow pilots to fly to 65. These two events essentially nullified ALPA’s position arguably based on safety concerns.
3. Senators Inouye, Salazar, Lieberman, Feingold, and Representative Rangel who have traditionally supported ALPA’s opposition to changing the age 60 rule now support a change. Senate Bill S. 65, which would change the law, now has 25 sponsors, and House Resolution H.R. 1125, which would do the same thing, has over 70 House sponsors. Additionally, senators and House representatives who now support changing the law have come to view it as an age discrimination issue.
4. If ALPA is to minimize the impact of a change to age 60, a change we feel is imminent, we have to be players in the political environment in Washington. We currently are not; Congress and the FAA are telling us they will not discuss the issue with us until we change our position. The potential currently exists for contractual changes to become legislated, not negotiated.
5. We feel changing the venue of this issue to the NPRM process and away from the legislative process will afford the best opportunity for us to minimize downside implications of a change.
With regard to the prospective nature of pilots currently flying past age 60, a read of our contract may be in order. Specifically, under Section 2, the definition of Regulate Age states:
The age at which FARs do not permit a pilot to continue flying as a Captain or First Officer.
When you look at Section 22 you will find under paragraph B. Seniority Accrual and Application:
1. A pilot who has established seniority shall not lose his seniority except that a pilot shall forfeit all employment and seniority rights and his name shall be removed from the Master Seniority List under the following conditions:
a. Retirement.
If the regulated age changes to age 65, this MEC believes that under no circumstances should those pilots currently working past 60 be denied the right on any subsequent bid to exercise their seniority in accordance with their contract . To do otherwise compromises our integrity at its foundation and as such should not be a part of any resolution coming from our union.
This issue has the potential to undermine the unity of our membership ALPA-wide. We did not initiate this change; ICAO and the President’s decision to allow foreign pilots over age 60 to fly in the US did.
ALPA President Captain John Prater will be in Memphis on May 14 and May 15. This is a great opportunity for all pilots in the Memphis area to come out and ask questions. Refreshments will be served during both of these events. Please make plans to attend one of these road shows.
Monday, May 14
10 a.m. - 2 p.m.
MEM Airport
* Conference Room A
* Security Checkpoint A
* Terminal A
Tuesday, May 15
11 a.m. - 2 p.m.
Germantown Centre
1801 Exeter Road
Germantown, TN
When you objectively evaluate these arguments, I trust you will agree that your MEC is doing the right thing. If you do not, please feel free to call your rep.
See you on the line.
05-13-2007 | 07:49 AM
#452
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Sleepy,
We have heard the union's drivel about why the environment has changed. Blah, blah, blah. If you haven't noticed, our government can't agree anything right now, so why do you assume this legislation is a slam dunk?
And what is so wrong about the Age 65 coming through legislative means? Why is a NPRM any better? The only thing I can think of is that it might take longer. A change is a change. And what if Congress allows retired members the right to come back? As you guys say, "we want to what is right."
Maybe if ALPA gets to shape the rule in the NPRM process we can have retroactivity! Great! Our retirement, both A and B fund are protected. We will have to give up some contract improvements next time just to allow for a normal retirement at 60, but what is the NPRM process going to do about that?
I can't see ALPA doing squat to "shape" the process. And, for me, the beef really isn't with ALPA national. I have a problem with FDX ALPA choosing to vote against our wishes. We know we are overwhelmingly against a change to the rule, so DW should vote his membership's desires. I still see the ALPA Executive Board approving a change to their stance (as if it wasn't Prater's wish all along), but that isn't the point.
I hope a recall is started, I will certainly vote to recall DW......
We have heard the union's drivel about why the environment has changed. Blah, blah, blah. If you haven't noticed, our government can't agree anything right now, so why do you assume this legislation is a slam dunk?
And what is so wrong about the Age 65 coming through legislative means? Why is a NPRM any better? The only thing I can think of is that it might take longer. A change is a change. And what if Congress allows retired members the right to come back? As you guys say, "we want to what is right."
Maybe if ALPA gets to shape the rule in the NPRM process we can have retroactivity! Great! Our retirement, both A and B fund are protected. We will have to give up some contract improvements next time just to allow for a normal retirement at 60, but what is the NPRM process going to do about that?
I can't see ALPA doing squat to "shape" the process. And, for me, the beef really isn't with ALPA national. I have a problem with FDX ALPA choosing to vote against our wishes. We know we are overwhelmingly against a change to the rule, so DW should vote his membership's desires. I still see the ALPA Executive Board approving a change to their stance (as if it wasn't Prater's wish all along), but that isn't the point.
I hope a recall is started, I will certainly vote to recall DW......
05-13-2007 | 08:37 AM
#453
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,184
Likes: 0
From: leaning to the left
Sorry, I just posted this on another thread.
Foxhunter? Can you please tell us the answer.
I just thought of something...I think the French didn't go along with ICAO on the age 65 thing. And, who says they don't have a backbone? But, does that mean our, soon to be, over age 60 F/O's and Capts will not be allowed to operate from a CDG domicile? Or even into their country?
See:
http://www.jaa.nl/licensing/pilots.html
Foxhunter? Can you please tell us the answer.
I just thought of something...I think the French didn't go along with ICAO on the age 65 thing. And, who says they don't have a backbone? But, does that mean our, soon to be, over age 60 F/O's and Capts will not be allowed to operate from a CDG domicile? Or even into their country?
See:
http://www.jaa.nl/licensing/pilots.html
Last edited by Busboy; 05-13-2007 at 08:55 AM.
05-13-2007 | 08:41 AM
#454
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Do you really believe that removing ALPA and returning to FPA is a logical response to this issue?? Is this about lack of trust in DW and company, or is this issue of retroactively so important that is worth risking the unforeseen, potentially damaging aspect of going back to an in house union?? Maybe you weren't here, pre contract or pre ALPA two or One. Do you remember FPA and the travisty it became?? Clearly the issues involved in the age 60 debate has created a major fissure in the way it has been dealt with by FDX ALPA. Is it about the leadership or the issue?? If you believe the fact of retroactively (pilots returning from SO to Capt) will really adversely affect your career progression, I think your way off base. There are a lot of negative issues related to increasing the retirement age, impeded seat progression at FedEx is minor relative to the legacy pax carriers. Growth has always been the major driver to upgrades at FedEx, retirements, while increasing (or did until recently) will for the foreseeable future play a smaller part in seat movement than at slower growing (or contracting) pax carriers.
Again regarding the issue of age 60 legislation or FAA action. ALPA has not been at the forefront of this impending change. Thank the Europeans and your fellow pilots (outside of the ALPA structure and within at SWA) for helping bring this issue to our door steps. The solution is political, ALPA has determined that change is going to happen and is trying to mitigate damage to it members while respecting the rights of all members regardless of age.
This is not an issue where seniority triumphs over the less senior. I voted with the majority because I see this as a loss to all pilots. Assuming the change happens, we all will have the opportunity to shorten our retirement by five years. Thats the real loss.
Again regarding the issue of age 60 legislation or FAA action. ALPA has not been at the forefront of this impending change. Thank the Europeans and your fellow pilots (outside of the ALPA structure and within at SWA) for helping bring this issue to our door steps. The solution is political, ALPA has determined that change is going to happen and is trying to mitigate damage to it members while respecting the rights of all members regardless of age.
This is not an issue where seniority triumphs over the less senior. I voted with the majority because I see this as a loss to all pilots. Assuming the change happens, we all will have the opportunity to shorten our retirement by five years. Thats the real loss.
My main goal is to have a MEC that listens to you, me and the other 4800+ pilots they represent. That is a logical response. If our MEC would do that, I would completely shut up. I might disagree with them but if a disagreement is the minority, that's the way it is.
Read my post prior to the one you quoted. True this issue could create a fissure. The real issue is how is it handled and it has touched enough people that is has created this debate.
05-13-2007 | 08:55 AM
#455
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
From: MD-11 F/O
2. Medicals for those over age 60 or possibly even earlier. Many foreign carriers impose executive-style physicals on their pilots to ensure that their cognitive and physical issues are fully up to snuff. Biking during an EKG, mental testing, etc.
3. Insurance rates are certainly a concern. If you have looked at a chart on insurance rates, you can see that they increase rather steeply as you reach an age closer to 60. At what point does insurance become cost-prohibitive.
These are just a few concerns of ours that we feel that Congress does not have a full grip on and/or doesn't care about, as long as they get their goal of changing the age in order to "protect" their older constituents.
The MEC feels that without having a say in these issues, that these concerns won't be adequately addressed. So the plan is to trust the legislative affairs guys who tell them/us that, if we want to have any input in these issues, that our policy has to change first. They (Congress) are only taking the input of those that are for the change at this point. That is what we are being told.
Hope that answered your question.
05-13-2007 | 09:04 AM
#456
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
From: MD-11 F/O
Sleepy,
We have heard the union's drivel about why the environment has changed. Blah, blah, blah. If you haven't noticed, our government can't agree anything right now, so why do you assume this legislation is a slam dunk?
And what is so wrong about the Age 65 coming through legislative means? Why is a NPRM any better? The only thing I can think of is that it might take longer. A change is a change. And what if Congress allows retired members the right to come back? As you guys say, "we want to what is right."
Maybe if ALPA gets to shape the rule in the NPRM process we can have retroactivity! Great! Our retirement, both A and B fund are protected. We will have to give up some contract improvements next time just to allow for a normal retirement at 60, but what is the NPRM process going to do about that?
I can't see ALPA doing squat to "shape" the process. And, for me, the beef really isn't with ALPA national. I have a problem with FDX ALPA choosing to vote against our wishes. We know we are overwhelmingly against a change to the rule, so DW should vote his membership's desires. I still see the ALPA Executive Board approving a change to their stance (as if it wasn't Prater's wish all along), but that isn't the point.
I hope a recall is started, I will certainly vote to recall DW......
We have heard the union's drivel about why the environment has changed. Blah, blah, blah. If you haven't noticed, our government can't agree anything right now, so why do you assume this legislation is a slam dunk?
And what is so wrong about the Age 65 coming through legislative means? Why is a NPRM any better? The only thing I can think of is that it might take longer. A change is a change. And what if Congress allows retired members the right to come back? As you guys say, "we want to what is right."
Maybe if ALPA gets to shape the rule in the NPRM process we can have retroactivity! Great! Our retirement, both A and B fund are protected. We will have to give up some contract improvements next time just to allow for a normal retirement at 60, but what is the NPRM process going to do about that?
I can't see ALPA doing squat to "shape" the process. And, for me, the beef really isn't with ALPA national. I have a problem with FDX ALPA choosing to vote against our wishes. We know we are overwhelmingly against a change to the rule, so DW should vote his membership's desires. I still see the ALPA Executive Board approving a change to their stance (as if it wasn't Prater's wish all along), but that isn't the point.
I hope a recall is started, I will certainly vote to recall DW......
Last edited by SleepyF18; 05-13-2007 at 10:31 AM.
05-13-2007 | 09:06 AM
#457
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Should this even be a concern if the age change is soley based on age discrimination and not safety?
05-13-2007 | 09:17 AM
#458
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Sleepy...appreciate your feedback and standing by your decision. Since ALPA has for years been opposed to the Age 60 increase for "safety reasons", how can they oppose more stringent physical testing for those over 65 if this legislation comes to be allowing Age 65 becoming the standard? That makes no sense at all. Also; how and why can ALPA FDX justify not only going against what would probably be an overwhelming majority of their own pilots but ALPA National as well?
It is not practical to cite previous agreements that use the possibly soon outdated age of 60 to justify retroactivity. Age 60 was the Law of the Land when pilots understood it was their time to either retire or go to the back seat; with no expectation of possibly moving back to the front seat. As such our bylaws reflected the lack of difference between Age 60, seniority and moving to the back seat. They moved to the back seat, lost their "front seat seniority" and began using an FE seniority number. It is disingenuine for FDX ALPA to fight this fight for those in the back seat who are over 60 and not for those who retired upon reaching 60 who now may want to come back to the front seat.
The only way to get the membership to not feel completely left out of this process is to put the whole retroactivity question to a polling of the entire membership. If that doesn't happen, our union leaders will have permanently lost not just the support of a large numbers of their members but; many careers will be damaged without pilots having been given the opportunity to address the issue which caused the damage.
The generated sense of panic that ALPA may have lost control of this issue is not valid. The NPRM vs Congressional Law process has always and always will take longer than ALPA FDX is perpetuating right now. What makes them think this one issue will move to the front of the line that includes funding the war in Iraq et al that continues to drag on?
Retroactivity should be put to a vote..period.
It is not practical to cite previous agreements that use the possibly soon outdated age of 60 to justify retroactivity. Age 60 was the Law of the Land when pilots understood it was their time to either retire or go to the back seat; with no expectation of possibly moving back to the front seat. As such our bylaws reflected the lack of difference between Age 60, seniority and moving to the back seat. They moved to the back seat, lost their "front seat seniority" and began using an FE seniority number. It is disingenuine for FDX ALPA to fight this fight for those in the back seat who are over 60 and not for those who retired upon reaching 60 who now may want to come back to the front seat.
The only way to get the membership to not feel completely left out of this process is to put the whole retroactivity question to a polling of the entire membership. If that doesn't happen, our union leaders will have permanently lost not just the support of a large numbers of their members but; many careers will be damaged without pilots having been given the opportunity to address the issue which caused the damage.
The generated sense of panic that ALPA may have lost control of this issue is not valid. The NPRM vs Congressional Law process has always and always will take longer than ALPA FDX is perpetuating right now. What makes them think this one issue will move to the front of the line that includes funding the war in Iraq et al that continues to drag on?
Retroactivity should be put to a vote..period.
05-13-2007 | 09:19 AM
#459
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
"how can they oppose more stringent physical testing for those over 65"
what a had meant to say wuz .....60.
what a had meant to say wuz .....60.
05-13-2007 | 09:40 AM
#460
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
Likes: 1
The MEC feels that without having a say in these issues, that these concerns won't be adequately addressed. So the plan is to trust the legislative affairs guys who tell them/us that, if we want to have any input in these issues, that our policy has to change first. They (Congress) are only taking the input of those that are for the change at this point. That is what we are being told.
.
A lot of our training guys were upset with being "sold out" in the last contract too. Again--I supported the MEC, but do you think any of those guys feel DW is supporting them?
If the answer is "if you don't like it--go fly the line", then I think the same principle applies to the MEC leadership.
Explain to us again slowly why supporting our current MEC's vision is a good thing for anyone on the bottom half of the seniority list or who isn't a wide-body captain already.
Specifically...
WHAT does DW want for physicals? More or less stringent? Don't tell me--let me guess....
WHAT does DW want to do to protect pensions? I have a vision of a sliding scale...ie....protect those guys NOW but in the future the tax man will have a bigger hit on those pensions. Guess who that cuts? Again--the same guys.
Sleepy--the junior guys have lost faith that DW cares about anyone but the very top crowd. "No free passes, nobody left behind" is a good mantra, but right now folks aren't seeing it.
I'll be at a surgeon when Prater and the show are in town, so I'll have to get some of the message second hand. I'll reserve judgement until some more info rolls in. However--if its more of the same--I wouldn't be surprised to see a recall effort begin next week. I'm not sure DW returning to the line and putting someone else in there with a clean slate wouldn't be a good thing for everyone. He's been a solid soldier. He's done great work. But you cannot tell me he's our only Savior on the hill right now, and we could find someone willing to do the job that might appear to be a little more interested in protecting everyone's best interests.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
