Unfortunately they would end up buddy bidding with over 60 guys and get bumped off thus being a good deal for them and ****ing me off even more:eek:

Don't hink it would work that way. They do not have to have a bid to start school in the back seat due to regulatory issues. I'm sure that if the rule changes they will be put in training at some point without a bid.

Past.....

But according to the contract, there would have to be a vacancy bid in order for them (the over 60 diaper wearing crowd) to bid what their seniority could hold. If there wasn't a bid for 2 years most of them would just retire instead of pouring coffee.


Mark

Really, so if you can hold widebody captain and you are any age, you can go to training without a bid and subvert the sacred seniority system? I'll bet even Foxhuter would agree that they will have to "bid what they want to fly" and then be trained in seniority order. Remember, if/when this thing changes, they are just part of the seniority list, no different, no special favors. If Big Wave Dave Webb wants to "request to return to the line" in an expedious manner, all he has to do is to start stacking his over 60 buddies on top of the line holders without a bid. Any recall effort would gain traction, including my support.

Our only hope is for legislation to keep the over 60 guys from getting back up front. We won't be able to keep them from CA if they are allowed to go back up front.

My point being, they do not have to have a bid before they are sent to the back seat. If the regulation changes they may may not have to have a bid to go back to the front seat due to the regulatory change. Not sure how it will play out.
Will be interesting to watch... :)

Don't think it will be Dave's call on how they are trained.


Past...

I think the difference is that they are "forced" to be a SO due to the regs, but a regulatory change to allow front seats up to age 65 will not automatically "force" an over 60 SO out of his seat. He can legally still be able to sit sideways until he can bid out of that seat! ;)

You lose the bet!;) When a managment pilot, LCA, Flex, LOA, MLOA, regained medical individual return they can bump into any position their sysem seniority can hold. While it is not really addressed in the contract it has been an accepted past practice.

There is also the possibility that the change will happen before this next bid. It looks like perfect timing for the company since an excess on the DC10 is coming in the near future they can fill a large number of Captain slots with the excess S/Os that want to return to the Captain seat. The company has one training cycle for each Captain/FO position filled in this manner verse the the multi training cycles generated by the domino effect of filling one Captain slot in more normal times. There is also nothing that I see that says that the company cannot award the Captain slot to any over age 60 S/O until the rule changes. The company just cannot use them in revenue service until the change is in effect. All training up to IOE could be done prior to the change.

In any case I see management sitting back and watching FDX ALPA falling apart from within with a certain sense of amusement.:(

............................

Except that good chunk of DC10 SOs are already 65 or older.

S,

It will not force the guy up front but he was "forced" to the back seat due to regs. I'm betting they are also making the case for going back to the front without a bid.

Don't want them coming back and messing up my vacation and Christmas bids! :)

Past...

No, I don't think so F---hunter. There are still 4,800+ of us, and a small handful of you and some others affected by this situation. And most of them in your age group are handling this with some class, and not jumping up and down singing "It's ALL about ME!!"

I don't think Webb & the rest are fools. They, like us and many others, are in a poker game right now, and in the end cooler heads will prevail. Eventually, yes, change will happen. But I would'nt hold my breath expecting a class date in 30 days when you have 4 government bureaucracies and a President who have to approve this. City hall doesn't open their mail that fast.

Your statement above makes it obvious that you could care less about anybody but yourself.

You've made your point. Several times. Take a break.

And there it is ... someone else that realizes that FoxHunter (aka George) is only interested in FoxHunter.

For years he's complained about ALPA while NEVER volunteering to work at ALPA, now he expects ALPA to do the "right thing" by him.
Now that's just plain hilarious ... :D :D


Regards,


Mark

(If I recall correctly, he even quit ALPA for a while? Yep, he's one of those guys.)

George....start studying...

I might have to down bid to 727 Cap just to see that......:)

That's a -100 panel. They'll be all gone by the time he has to go to school.:D

He's quit more than once.

"Look at all them muthaf@ckin' clocks...."

Although I was looking forward to finally getting my FAA Flight Engineer certificate it looks like that is no longer in the cards. In any case the training department will be busy enough putting those age 60+ S/Os back in the Captain seat. :D :p

Rumor is that the Company HAS at least discussed that.

Juniority does have it's privileges, like who won't have to work with................

Hmm, what if all the under-60 guys say they don't want to fly with a 60+ guy in the seat? Hmmm..;)

Fellow pilots, ignore George and his undignified behavior. He lost his dignity a long time ago. Better to spend your time letting your LEC Reps know how you feel and making sure everyone else you know contacts them as well. I noticed the Comm Chairman's response left out the part of the MEC Chairman's message concerning those over 60 when the change comes. To me, that was the most divisive part of it. Don't let it go or we will have no say as a majority here. Write your Reps now. Here's what I sent to all of them..



I have appreciated your hard work on our behalf for these many years. There is no doubt we disagree on this issue and I think you will find a large majority of the of the pilots you serve disagree with you as well. There is also no doubt the MEC and I disagree about the right of the membership to vote on issues that involve their careers as opposed to allowing you and the MEC to decide for us. In this case, it is my belief all sides should state their concerns and put it out for a vote as opposed to just making edicts from the MEC. I understand the issue of changing our stance against Age 60 may not allow that time frame, but certainly fighting for retroactivity of any rule change to those over 60 when the change comes does. While I am sure the MEC is in possession of information and figures I may not have seen, the last ALPA member poll I saw said 56% of their members were against an Age 60 change. As the latest Age 60 Blue Ribbon Panel Poll of ALPA's members will not even close until May 10, I find it hard to believe you are quoting those numbers. In fact, as I said in my previous email, I find it mind boggling you would come out with your message before even gathering the facts from that poll that many members like myself took a great deal of time and thought to complete. It seem obvious to me the MEC wasn't interested in my opinion here after all and I wasted the time I took to fill it out.

Just so I understand our current stance per your message last Friday (and email to me), the MEC is saying this is all about being part of the majority and having a say when it comes to reversing our FDX ALPA majority held and long standing Age 60 change opposition. On the other hand, the MEC is also saying we will fight, even if we will clearly be in the minority, to allow pilots who are banned by regulation from flying past Age 60 when the change takes effect, to return to flying. I see rampant hypocrisy all around here and find it distasteful to say the least. Our long standing opposition against a change to the Age 60 rule for safety reasons is now abandoned (against the will of the majority) because it looks like we lost the fight and think it will somehow make us a force in designing this regulation. Of course, if it is now safer all of the sudden for pilots to fly past 60 then why regulate the need for the other pilot in the cockpit to be under the Age of 60? We also now appear to be on board with forced Age 60 retirement as being more of an age discrimination issue then safety concern though we will not fight the new Age 65 discrimination policy? The MEC is also throwing into the mix that they want retroactivity for those that stayed in a back seat, while allowing those that retired to languish even though they may be younger than some current F/E's that will now return to flying under your policy. What a true comedy of errors this has become. We should stick to our principles here and have the dignity to say "We still are against this change for safety reasons and we use the very fact that the new regulation will require a pilot being under 60 in every cockpit as our evidence that it is valid. Having said that we would like to work with you on this change if it is to come to make it as safe as possible for all involved". It also appears we will fight for retroactivity for those over 60 only if they stayed on the panel. It's either about safety or it's not. It's either about age discrimination or it's not. It's either about fairness to all involved, or it's not. That is the stance we should take on these issues in my mind. The approach we appear to be taking leaves us no solid ground to stand on and can only damage the very unity you fought so hard to build.

As far as those ever 60 when the change comes being denied seniority, this is a regulatory issue right now, not a seniority one. The MEC seems to be trying to make it one before they even know how the rule will be written and without caring what the rest of us want. Chairman Blakey made clear there would be no retroactivity and it appears ALPA's input would be for the same. The MEC wants to fight that even though my most conservative guess would be over 70% of the members you were elected to serve would be against it. It is my belief the MEC should seek out the majority opinion of FDX ALPA union members regarding whether or not we want to fight for retroactivity for those pilots already over 60 when the change comes and if that fight should include all pilots forced out at 60, not just current F/E's. If the regulation comes out with retroactivity in it then I would agree that seniority issues need to be addressed. To go into this saying "your MEC is stridently opposed to any regulatory change that prohibits a pilot from exercising their seniority rights" seems to be putting the cart way before the horse and causing unnecessary divisions in our union. If the MEC wants to fight for retroactivity then I think you need to let the majority of the members you serve have a say on that. I look forward to further communications on this issue from the MEC. I will be flying this week away from MEM and unable to attend any hub turn meetings but will find out what I can about how they went. Thank you and it is my hope we can all find a way through this Age 60 mess that is principled, dignified and leaving our hard fought for unity intact. That appears to be a pretty tough task right now.

From the proposed legislation:

[I](c) Applicability- The provisions of subsection (a) (ie. allowing age 60 to 65 back into the pilot seats) shall not provide a basis for a claim of seniority under any labor agreement in effect between a recognized bargaining unit for pilots and an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, that is made by a person who was a pilot and who attained 60 years of age before the effective date described in subsection (e) and is seeking a position as a pilot with such air carrier following that person's termination or cessation of employment or promotion or transfer to another position with such air carrier pursuant to section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the day before the effective date described in subsection (e).[/I]

I think Maltese hit the nail on the head. The verbage is fairly specific with those over 60 at the time of enactment seeking front seats AFTER they have been transferred to another position (ie., back seat) - they have no claim. Have I been reading the language wrong?

I hope this helps.

http://www.age60rule.com/docs/2007%2...o%20Blakey.pdf

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I talked to my POI (135) today and for what it's worth he said it would be 4 or 5 years before age 60 is changed. No rules are changed quickly with the FAA.

george...get familiar...

Oh, you mean Congress won't hold a special session just for Curious George? I figured they'd recall The House of Representatives by Thursday, get a bi-partisan vote by the Senate by Friday, bring "W" in from Crawford for a nod over the weekend, let the ATA have their inputs by Monday morning, send a form letter to the other 121 carriers out there saying "here it comes", get Marion-baby to run it thru the FAA minions by lunch on Wednesday, and hold a press conference that afternoon. Then, Fed Ex will leap to the forefront since it's going to cost money, and cut a bid by Friday Happy Hour.

And 30 days later George will be in class. I got it now...

I think what that means in legalese is that the statute itself will not provide a basis for a claim. This would not, however, preclude the use of an existing collective bargaining agreement as a basis for a claim of seniority...

I'm glad we got the DC8 S/O legal interpretation on the subject ... :D

George,

LMAO ... That document has no more weight now than it did the last time you posted it. Political appointees get letters like that everyday and they know the senders are only sending them because some constituent asked them to. I highly doubt Ms. Blakey is the slightest bit afraid of this "paper tiger."

Good try though, it looks very official ...

Regards,


Mark

Not at all, MaydayMark, and I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience.

George, I flew with you when I was an F/O. Except for that grating Boston accent, you were an entirely decent guy. How did you become such a pr1ck?

That has just got to make you feel good huh George, seeing as you've been all about maintaining unity all this time. You were really worried about our unity when you were a non member weren't you?

You only come out from the dark when you think your side has the upper hand, like the cockroach you are.

Yeah, George wasn't too worried about unity when he was calling everybody who disagreed with him on the age 60 issue a scab.

Real class act.

FJ

This list of Senators that sent the letter to the FAA encouraging a change to the Age 60 rule:


James M. Inhofe
Johnny Isakson
Mike Enzi
Larry Craig
John Warner
Rick Santorum
Charles Grassley
Wayne Allard
Sam Brownback
Ted Stevens
Conrad Burns
John Ensign

Every one of them a Republican. So ask yourself, how can you be a viable member of a Union and be a Republican? Answer - you can't. Vote your conscience in all things - are you a Republican or a Democrat? Don't waste time in telling me how you support the idiot in the White House or whatever - what are your beliefs about unions and this rule? What party do you support? Do they support you?

George, reading what you type is like having a conversation with my 6 year old. (when she was 3):rolleyes: even she doesn't repeat herself with such nonsense as you do.

Instead of reading more and more of George's drivel (AKA FoxHunter),

we could just....

Attachment 781

(Kidding, of course)

Of course I am NOT suggesting shutting off discussion.

I am just saying that on the intarweb the loudest and most annoying voice gets more attention than it should. How about we ignore George, and focus on dealing with ALPA on this.

I've talked to my block reps and gotten the same response as everyone else. While I think we will be tilting at windmills regarding the change to Age 60, we might have some traction with the over-60 guys going back to the left seat.

Make yourself known. If you are reading this thread and haven't e-mailed or called your block rep, then DO IT. Call your friends and have them do it. You career will most definitely depend on how this shakes out.