So is that where the VEBA will remain in place under a different name so insurance can be paid for?

Why does insurance go up near 60 if there is no safety issue?

 

The view is that the legislation certainly isn't a slamdunk, but it is pretty damn close. Senate seems to be the strongest part of the legislature on this subject, the House is a little bit weaker. I'd have to get the latest update from Legislative Affairs on exactly where the bills sit in the House and Senate currently, but as of last update, the Senate Commerce Committee had approved S.65 and incorporated it into the FAA Reathorization Act. It still has to be approved by the Senate as a whole, sometime in June/July timeframe it seems. The House has yet to vote on the Age 65 bill inside it's own committee, but the feeling is that they will do this sometime late May/June timeframe and will incorporate it into the FAA Reauthorization Act as well. From there, it goes to the full House for a vote when there is an opening. After that, if both parts of Congress approve it (which the feeling is that it will happen), then we are looking at a Conference Committee between the two branches to work out the differences. Then the bill goes to the President to sign and 30 days later it becomes effective.

Now as I said, there is never anything that is slam dunk, but this seems to be a fairly accurate view from our biggest backers on Capitol Hill. If you doubt the veracity of it, please try to get it firsthand from our legislative affairs guys.

We feel that it is very important that the FAA be the one to implement this change. The FAA is the place where the aviation experts reside, not in any of the thousands of offices on Capitol Hill that are manned by Congressmen and their staffers. It would be like having Major League Baseball investigate an aircraft accident vice the NTSB. MLB may have some players that are pilots, and may know some pilots, and they may have some lawyers who took a course in Aviation Law in college, but they aren't the experts on accidents. Whether the FAA always makes the best decisions vice ones that have political ramifications, you can debate. But, they are the aviation experts.

Whether or not the FAA or Congress changes their language from being prospective is unknown, but the overwhelming sense is that they won't change their minds on this. The FAA doesn't want it, Congress doesn't seem to want it, and the ATA doesn't seem to want it. They don't want to risk the possible liabilities of bringing back pilots to companies years after they have retired. As a whole, ALPA seems to be against making it retroactive, but they lack members on the other properties that are over 60. Age Discrimination charges have already been filed with EEOC units. FDX ALPA is the representative for all members of the class and craft at FDX, and even though those affected by passover pay issues feel otherwise, we do defend seniority as a cornerstone.

Your last concern about not being represented is a valid one. I would ask you though, do you feel that a leadership group should follow their memberships' majority if they feel it is wrong? Do we elect leaders to blindly follow us over a perceived cliff or do we elect them to make the hard, sometimes unpopular, decisions?

 

I don't debate the perceived ignorance of safety in ICAO's rule about one pilot having to be less than 60 if the other one is older than 60. I don't see how they justify this. But Congress sees this as an age discrimination issue in the US now that foreign pilots are allowed to exercise some ability that US citizens aren't. There have been age discrimination charges already filed with EEOC units over this.

 

When that leadership is elected by the majority it should represent the majority.

If there is a disagreement in views, it is that leaderships' absolute responsiblity to educate their constituents.

 

No, it didn't. Dave is telling us to roll over on age 60 for the POSSIBILITY of mitigating damage. And he is doing it against the will of the majority.

Issue 1. IRS: I doubt the IRS is going to do 5 years of damage to my career. If they do damage it, we'll go to the negotiating table and fix it. Hasn't that been the union line until last week.

Issue 2. Medical Standards: I care about my health more than flying. If I'm sick, I want to know. So worthless physicals have little value to me.

Issue 3. Insurance Rates. As far as I know, neither the FAA nor congress sets these.

We need a brief on the battle plan. We don't need a president blindsiding us with a flip-flop in the middle of a fight. We need a plan and we need to vote on it.

 

The medical issue boils down to this I believe. Just as in grievances and punishment by management, we want medical testing to be based upon reasonable and valid thought. We definitely don't want such stringent medicals that become too invasive or are too far-reaching in their scope. One of the main concerns is not so much the testing for those over 60, as it is that we are concerned that if these "executive" level physicals are instituted, that they will be in effect for those under 60 as well. So, while we may have pilots that are under 60 that pass the current physical just fine, we worry that if the more indepth physicals were to be made the norm, many more of our members would lose their medicals either for physical or mental/cognitive reasons. So one day, they're perfectly safe, the next day they're not. Clear as mud??

The issue of leadership is a contentious one, I agree. I personally feel that the age should remain in place. But, I also have heard all of the input as to why/how/when it is going to change. Leaders are elected to lead by the membership, not to follow necessarily. While it always nice if the leaders are following happily along in the wake of a trail blazed by the membership, there are times where leaders have to make hard, unpopular, decisions. They only do this if they have the input that some other way is the best way by far. If this issue was still relatively undecided in Congress, there would not even be a discussion on this because we would still be fighting it tooth and nail. But the issue seems to be all but decided in Congress, with only the timeframe when it becomes enacted up in the air. We have been the little kid on Capitol Hill, screaming for, demanding that our way be the way. But Congress has decided otherwise it seems and they have told us to keep holding our breath all we want, that until we decide to breath and relax, that they want nothing to do with us and aren't going to listen to our issues. So that is why our MEC has chosen the position that they have.

As I posted earlier, the only time that you give up your seniority number as a member is when you elect to retire (or are fired, but that isn't your choice). The over 60 S/Os still have seniority numbers, not just FE seniority numbers. There are a few with FE seniority numbers but that relates to the Seaboard/Tigers merger I believe. Bottom line is that if the age changes, and if prospectivity isn't the decision, then those S/Os seniority number is just as valid as yours and mine. How they choose to exercise it is up to them. Any other way, and we have moved from a seniority based system to one where a new hire can be given superseniority over you, me, foxhunter, anyone. I know that no one wants that kind of system. And just so this is clear. There is no push to allow these over 60 S/Os to exercise their seniority outside of a standing bid situation. So until there is a bid, after and when and if the law changes, then they will keep exercising thier seniority rights in their current seat.

So unless people want a system not based upon seniority, one that supports age discrimination, one that violates our Duty of Fair Representation responsibilities under the RLA, then keep on trucking.

The panic from our Legislative Affairs guys seems real. If you don't think that they are accurate, then I suggest that you offer your services as one of our legislative affairs members. We have committees that cover certain areas of our lives because we need experts in those areas. We trust those members and their opinions unless we have been given past information that shows them to be untrustworty. Unless you are willing to suggest that our Legislative Affairs members are untrustworthy, then we have to believe them and accept their input in their area of expertise.

Last sentence, finally. You and everyone on here doesn't have to agree with the MEC or myself, and you can be emotional on this issue as much as you want to be, that is your right as a member. But how would you address the issue of a vote on Retroactivity? How would you propose the question be phrased to our membership? By ignoring legal liabilities and seniority rights responsibilities of the class and craft? Or by protecting all of your fellow members, and following discrimination laws?

 

VEBA is for those pilots that are older then 65. The HRA is 60-65.

I'm not an accountant/actuary/insurance expert, I was just stating a concern. How it is handled is not my bailywick. I'm sorry that I don't have an answer on this subject that is better.

 

They are working and trying to educate. It's why there has been a couple of letters come out this week and why I spend so much time on this board and talking to some of you on the phone. We are trying, I will assure you of that.

 

Someone asked for issues and I gave them. The Blue Ribbon Panel is working on the issues and some plans, and that should be out shortly.

 

So, I should file a lawsuit against ALPA because I missed the age 53 VEBA fund payout by 16 months? Dates with discriminatory age limits are all over our contract.

Besides, I thought the whole idea of congress enacting legislation, including proactivity, was supposed to protect ALPA, ATA and everyone else from lawsuits concerning retroactivity.

Happy Mother's Day!

Player's Championship is on. I may have an easier time trying to talk some reasonableness into my wife. I think we should sit, watch it and drink beer. She thinks...WHO CARES!!!