Folks Follies.........:)

[QUOTE=machz990;165631]I think this issue of retroactivity has more thorns yet to be uncovered. Many pilots have recently retired when they reached their 60th birthday and it was mandated that they could no longer fly in a front seat. Most retired as captains and left at the top of their game. The age 65 issue seemed distant on the horizon and not really an option. Others stuck around and went to the back seat for various reasons.........maybe high 5, retirement multiplier or maybe too many ex-wives and high overhead. Plus not all pilots have the option to stay due to manning limitations.....their are only so many engineer seats and the number is declining every day. Just because a pilot stuck around for whatever reason and this NPRM goes into effect how does that make him more rightfully eligible to bid the front seat than say a pilot who retired less than a year ago and is only 61? I can see more lawsuits coming out of this and a lot of money spent on litigation. It wreaks of discrimination if you have a retroactive clause. Now I know some will say you give up your seniority number when you retire but this age 65 thing has had the burner lit and gone into the mach to get passed. 12 months ago it was presumed that there was not going to be any retroactivity and the process looked like it was going to be lengthy. Now congress steps in and all of a sudden there is this rush to push this through. I'd like to be a fly on the wall in some of these back door meetings to see what the real imputus is to getting this passed so quickly and who are the major players pushing this through.

Marion Blakely stated there would be no retroactivity due to all of the potential problems it would create. ALPA has been against raising the retirement age for many years and now is saying we need to jump on this fast moving train. QUOTE]

First of you are incorrect, any Fedex pilot who turns 60 andcan pass a 2nd class physical and his S/O Check rif=de can go tot he back seat. There is no requirement for a vacancy bidding, he/she merely informs FedEx of the intent to do so before turning 60 and by the contract is allowed to go to the bak seat. No over 60 pilot who was physically qualified one has ever been denied
the opportunity to train as a S/O.

Now your second point is is incorrrect too. Once a pilot retires he retires.
It doesn't matter how old.
We have had many Pilots who have elected to retire early say 59 or 58.
They are still legal under current rule to continue to fly but once they say
"I retire" and they resign thats it........they are retired. They can't come back right now even if they changed their minds. They could have stayed if they wanted. Same goes for for anyone else.

As for what Marion Blakey said.........that is the main point of all this.
Apparently congress is saying we ain't waiting for the FAA to implement this!

ALPA leaders are telling us there is a very real possibilty that this deal won't go through the FAA. That is what we should all be worried about.
We would much prefer it get implemented through the NPRM process.

Office Copiers and Contract Ratification

Once upon a time, our contracts were approved by the MEC. One pillar of faith for the FPA was membership ratification of contracts, and that policy was incorporated in the "new" ALPA. As important as we now hold that procedure to be, we still have hundreds of pilots who have not and will not read the contract -- ever. I'm not trying to trivialize the importance of the Age 60 issue, but it's a bit puzzling why so little interest could be shown by way of attendance at LEC meetings, and then such demands made that individual votes be taken and honored. Captain Webb clearly stated his position during the April 18 meeting, and there was no outrage. A couple of people made passionate pleas to continue to fight against Age 60, and that was to be expected. I recapped Capt. Webb's remarks in a thread here (Does ALPA get a "say"?), and it got little feedback. (Perhaps I should have put it in the Cargo forum instead of the Age 60 forum?) What has changed now that makes it necessary that we abandon the representative democratic process that has been serving us so well to take a vote on just this issue?


3 vs. 497

I only mentioned the three most glaring errors to make a point. I could have made a list, but what purpose would that serve? It's not my intention to single people out for ridicule. Even people with honorable intentions have demonstrated a lack of knowledge about how our organization works. Most of us would have trouble locating a copy of the Constitution and By-Laws, and many seem to lack an understanding of how an MEC Chairman is elected or how he might be recalled. My point is that we pay people to become subject matter experts, and we should use their services to our benefit. When the legislative affairs committee says that our most staunch supporters have now switched sides in the battle, should we ignore them? Administrator Blakey hasn't spoken to me lately. Sentor Inouye doesn't recognize my face, but that won't matter when he introduces legislation as the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. I'm not the expert in those fields, but we have experts on our side. Who do we want making decisions that rely on this expertise and information? We want people who actually have access to the information, and the breadth and depth of experience to properly apply that information. Most of us on this forum, including me, aren't qualified to fill those shoes.


Why did "they" poll us, anyway?

Good question. Dave Webb mentioned that he thought the poll was poorly timed. Dave Webb didn't commission the poll. The ALPA FedEx MEC didn't commission the poll. Capt Prater's Blue Ribbon Panel commissioned the poll as part of its information gathering process. It makes more sense to me that those polled should be supplied with the best information available and given an opportunity to form opinions and then answer a poll, rather than to be asked opinions and then be given information that might change those opinions. Be that as it may, it's not the MEC Chairman's charter to take polls and follow them. In this case, the poll seems to be more of a distraction than a tool.


Doing what's best for the membership, or doing what they want?
- - Or, Why can't I play in the middle of the freeway?

How can the leadership do what they say is "best for the membership" if they know it's not what the membership wants? That's been asked here in few different ways, and I heard it asked of Capt. Joe Fagone today at the We're Takin' It Back! roadshow at the Passenger Terminal. (Less than a dozen FedEx pilots took advantage of this opportunity to speak face-to-face with Capt Prater, the focus of so much hatred about the Age 60 issue. That's another puzzle, or disappointment, depending on your perspective.) Capt Fagone's answer? It's hard to not do what's best for the membership.

A pollster would have an easy job of deciding what to do. Take the poll, follow the numbers. It wouldn't matter whether it was the best thing to do. It wouldn't matter if those polled had all the right infomation, or the expertise to interpret it. It wouldn't matter how the decision would affect the lives and careers of the members, because the blame would be entirely on their shoulders. It would be easy to do the wrong thing. What father in his right mind would let his child play in the middle of the freeway simply because the child wants to? I'm sorry if that analogy offends some because of the oversimplification, but that's what it really boils down to here. As MEC Chairman, Captain Webb has a moral obligation to do what is best for the membership, even if it's not popular.


Enamored?
- - Or, Can he do no wrong?

If you think I'm enamored with Captain Webb, or that I think he can do no wrong, then you have never seen his face when he sees me coming. :) I don't think he's perfect by any stretch of the imagination. I spoke with him after the Joint LEC meeting in April and told him that he might get more people on board if he would tell us what we need to "have a say in" with regards to Age 60 legislation. He said we need a say. I said, "In what?" I started a thread on that topic here on APC and on *************. I've spent a lot of time and energy studying the topic. I wish he would have made my job easier by providing the information up front. I just read the Block 8 Rep's Update letter today, and he spells out a pretty good list of such issues. Could Capt Webb have done a better job communicating some of this? Definitely. I told him then that I looked forward to hearing more about this from him in the days to follow. I didn't get as much as I would have liked. That's disappointing. It's doesn't diminish, however, the moral ground on which he stands to take this position. The Communications Chairman has provided much meat with which to feed the debate, as have the LEC Reps. Regardless of how it got here, the information is here, and it supports his position.


Bad Math?

Yikes. Since I left the glass for round dials, I thought I'd brushed up my public math enough to not be thoroughly embarrassed. Going back to my hypothetical example, there's no way that the music can stop for more than five years. Even if something bizarre were to occur and all the Over-60 Second Officers were allowed to bid window seats and push us backwards 141 numbers, they'd still be 65 in 5 years and we'd be back to where we started. Nobody (I don't think anybody) is supporting a position that would allow Over-60 Second Oifficers to get anything other than what their seniority allows. In other words, unless there's a vacancy posting, they would have nothing to bid on. No, I don't support a retroactive vacancy posting or bid. Being over 60 is not a medical condition, so changing the rule would not be like a guy getting his medical back and going to any seat he could hold. If there's a vacancy posting, he can bid. If there's not, he can't. So, there's no way that giving the Over-60 Second Officer the right to bid on vacancies would slow anybody down for more than five years. Realistically, I would guess that actual retirements, deaths, disabilities, and system growth would result in career stagnation of about 2 years. Capt Prater said today that the polling results showed that most pilots would plan to retire around age 62 if the Regulated Age were changed to 65. Of those that plan to retire at 62, some won't make it. So, just using the 62 number as a reference (I think the age at FedEx would be lower since we have a solid "A" Fund, but I'll use it anyway), I can't imagine 141 Over-60 Second Officers being able to stagnate my movement another 3 years. In fact, that looks more like part of one good-sized vacancy posting at FedEx. Is that a negative effect, going from 2 years of stagnation to 3? Certainly. Is it so negative that it's worth sacrificing the seniority of a small segment of our group? Certainly not.

(So, 13,970 characters is too long, huh? OK, I'll split this into two posts, then.)





.

Speaking of Seniority, How about those MD-11 First Officers?

Not fair. I mean, it wasn't fair what happened to many of our Memphis based MD-11 First Officers. Pilots who were junior to them were trained in the MD-11 for the Anchorage domicile, and were then transferred to Memphis before they could be trained. Why did the Company do that? More importantly, HOW COULD the Company do that? In my opinion, you can thank one Capt Frank Fato for that deal. In what has been since referred to as the famous Dark Parking Lot Deal, FedEx pilots were sold out, and had a contract dictated and rammed down our throats. "The Agreement" was a poorly written document, hastily assembled, and ratified by fear. As the contract, it allowed the Company to do what it did, even though it is clearly unfair, and abrogates seniority. We were stuck with the language, and could have never won a grievance over it. The union's decision in that case was based on a fiduciary responsibility to the membership, in not fighting a battle we could not win. Does that make it any easier to swallow? Not one bit. I got involved early on with that issue, digging through the contract to see how we might fight it. As unfair as the practice was, there was simply no way to fight it using the contract. The union did not abandon the seniority rights of the individuals affected -- they simply had no contractual footing to support a fight.


What about IPA?
- - Or, can't we just be neutral?

So, the leadership at United Parcel Service has determined that it's too close to call, so they won't adopt a position one way or the other. The members are on their own to support one side or the other. The leadership at Northwest has publicly stated that it opposes raising the Regulated Age, and has joined with their company in petitioning Senator Corker. Our MEC Chairman has stated he supports a change to ALPA policy, even though he opposes changing the rule. Who's right? It has been siad that flexibility is the key to airpower. I had a Wing Commander who personified the corollary that indecision is the key to flexibility, and I can't help but be reminded of him by the IPA's position. You might argue that it doesn't hurt anybody, but I respond that it doesn't help anybody. They're entitled to their view, but I don't think it's right for us. I don't want to sound harsh or critical of NWA, either, but it takes no courage to stand up and support what is currently ALPA policy. It takes courage to stand up for what is right, even when it is not popular. Clearly, there are different opinions of what is right.



I'm sorry if that didn't flow like most other posts. I tried to answer the questions raised in your responses to my first post as best I could. If I missed your question, I sincerely apologize. If you'll please restate it, I'll try to answer it as best I know how.

More than anything, I invite you to attend the "We're Takin' It Back!" Roadshow event tomorrow at the Germantown Center (whoops, I forget -- they're kinda snooty in Germantown, they call it a "centre";) ) at 1801 Exeter Road in Germantown. (Germantown Centre) FedEx pilots should be familiar with this location, as we have held numerous rallies and LEC meetings in their facility.

If you've somehow missed out on all those opportunities, head for the intersection of Poplar and Germantown.

ARRIVING FROM THE WEST: Go 1 Block past Germantown Road, and turn left (north) on Exeter Road. Go north past Farmington, and then left into the parking lot of the Germantown Performing Arts Centre and the Germantown Centre. The Germantown Centre is on the left (south side) of the Performing Arts Centre. Enter through the door on the left (south) side and walk all the way to the back (past basketball courts, etc.) to arrive in the Great Hall area.

ARRIVING FROM THE EAST: 1 Block prior to Germantown Rd, turn right (north) on Exeter Road. Go north past Farmington, and then left into the parking lot of the Germantown Performing Arts Centre and the Germantown Centre. The Germantown Centre is on the left (south side) of the Performing Arts Centre. Enter through the door on the left (south) side and walk all the way to the back (past basketball courts, etc.) to arrive in the Great Hall area.

ARRIVING FROM THE SOUTH: Turn right (east) on Poplar, then go 1 Block east, and turn left (north) on Exeter Road. Go north past Farmington, and then left into the parking lot of the Germantown Performing Arts Centre and the Germantown Centre. The Germantown Centre is on the left (south side) of the Performing Arts Centre. Enter through the door on the left (south) side and walk all the way to the back (past basketball courts, etc.) to arrive in the Great Hall area.

ARRIVING FROM THE NORTH: Turn left (east) on Neshoba. (Neshoba is an intersection with a traffic light, and it as at the bottom of the hill before you ris up into the "heart" of Germantown.) ½ block later, turn right into the parking lot of the Germantown Performing Arts Centre. Continue through that parking lot into the parking lot for the Germantown Centre. The Germantown Centre is on the left (south side) of the Performing Arts Centre. Enter through the door on the left (south) side and walk all the way to the back (past basketball courts, etc.) to arrive in the Great Hall area.


(For those of you who know there's a closer entrance on Watkins Alley, hush! If you know how to find that, you don't need my directions, anyway. And the more people that park on the east side of the building, the more chance I'll have of getting my parking place on the west side! :p )


[EDITED TO INCLUDE LINK TO MAP]

Here's a map: Germantown Centre Map


.

Tony, Does NWA have any ROPES working there today. If not, it seems like their position on the Retro issue is a no brainier.

If they had no ROPES, that would make their position on prospective vs. retroactive a no-brainer. As I understand, they still have 2 747-200s that use engineers. I don't know what the status of those engineers is (over 60, under 60, professional engineer?), so it's hard to say how that might affect them.


Their position on the Age 60 rule change is more difficult, as it is for everyone. It all depends on the number of pilots who feel like they have suffered sufficient setbacks in their careers (furloughs, pension grabs, contract concessions, etc.) that they have to fly to 65 to make it back. I'm not familiar with their demographics, or how the ages are weighted, so I can't say if their position is predictable or not. If they are predominantly young pilots, then their position fits.





.

I think they have a few on the cargo whales.

I spoke with a guy who was at the meeting two weeks ago in Denver. He asked the NWA representative about the fate of their F/E's over 60. The guy's precise response was, "fuk 'em."

And I think you'll also find, if you speak with "THAT GUY" that the NWA MEC is more dysfunctional that ever.
Their MEC isn't unifed let alone their Pilot group.

Show me a group of Pilots with the "******* em" attitude towards a certain group and I'll show you a Group of Pilots who will get slaughtered at the Negotiating Table.

Just watch what happens to the new USAIR. They are so divided over this seniority integration. I personally feel the East guys got the short end, but that is niether here nor there. These guys are entering the tertiary stages of their Joint Contract negotiations. With the current state of Dysfunction over there.......Parker will eat them for lunch, unless by some miracle they can some how find collective resolve,

Tony,

Another good post, yet another that I disagree with much of it. This issue is polarizing, no doubt.

Your analogy of FDX ALPA leaders compared to national leaders or Wing Commanders is not appropriate. On issues of vital importance, like a contract or Age 60, we want our representatives to back our position (particularly when it is an overwhelming majority). They asked our position (and since they didn't listen, it was a mistake) and totally disregarded it. If the overwhelming majority was pro-change, we might not like it, but we would accept the majority's wishes.

You seem to believe that ALPA, which appears to be completely powerless, can now be a power broker in the process if we announce that we favor a change in the law. Why is that? And what are we going to do to make it better? B plans are protected and our A plan will be negotiated with management. The only "shaping" I see is a desire for retroactivity.

You are hung up on "standing up for what is right." This isn't a question of "right," it is simply an individual choice or favoring (or not) a change to the rule. I have no problem with anyone wanting to fly past 60. Personally, I don't see a change to the rule as being beneficial in any way to my career. You don't see NWA ALPA's as courageous? I see NWA ALPA simply voting their members wishes. This coming from a company that has a frozen pension, a temp 5% B fund, and some of the worst work rules in the industry (after a concessionary contract.) Nothing courageous or weak, just doing "the right thing."

I guess NWA ALPA must be getting their information from other sources than ALPA since they are going to continue fighting against a change to the rule. Why are they wrong?

Tony, the bottom line is that DW's vote is probably irrelevent anyway. I think the issue will pass the MEC Exec Board despite a nay vote by Fedex. I just want them to vote the way the overwhelming majority want and let the chips fall where they may.

Despite this rule changing or staying the same, the sky isn't falling at Fedex. Luckily, we are in a strong industry and working for a strong company. That said, I want my union to support it's members, just like they did at NWA.