"Fuk em" is harsh, but going out of your way to get them back in the left seat is ridiculous...

The NWA rep., in my opinion, is reflective of an overwhelming sentiment of the majority of guys and gals here at FDX. Good on him for speaking the truth as he felt it, unlike I suspect, our MEC members who have differing opinions on this subject; whose opinions are mirrored by the discourse reflected right here on this board, except without the courage of speaking their convictions.

Hey Tony --

You commented that the union had a fiduciary responsibility not to grieve the ANC 11FO thing because they couldn't win. Is there any fiduciary responsibility not to fight for retro when the national is against it and (according to my LEC rep) FDX ALPA doesn't think they can actually achieve it?

And I suppose if Fedex ever has to Furlough, we should just say F^^K those furloughed guys.................right

just like the Guys at NW have done
Just like the Guys at USAir have done

Yeap the FedEx MEC should use just follow their example..........

FYI - NWA still has several 747-200 on their cargo side - all the pilots are on the same seniority list. I'd imagine about a dozen or so - and then I believe there are still a few on the pax side.

NWA currently (3/31/07) has 16 747-200's.

At 8 crews per aircraft(just a wag for int'l), that would be 108 S/O's. How many over 60? Who knows.

http://ir.nwa.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=111021&p=irol-fleet

What?? Where did you get that??
 

My impression, this entire thing is about "I got mine." I don't see the connection between furloughed pilots and guys who have hit 60 under the current rules and have to leave the window seat. These two issues aren't even close. And I think if you read the guys post it actually said "F--k em is kinda harsh, but bringing over 60 guys back to the left seat is ridiculous." But hey, you don't care about my opinion anyway-----I'm one of the junior guys.

Tony, I've re-read you post recapping the April 18 Joint Council Meeting, (ref the link above) and draw a different conclusion. Your first line of the recap reads: "Captain Webb recognizes that ALPA policy is to oppose any change to the regulated age. There is no compromise or equivocation on that point. He also recognizes that the change to Age 60 as the regulated age is inevitable."

Based on your recap notes why should the overwhelming majority be outraged? Nothing threatening in above three sentences. Nothing threatening in the MEC Chair's stance onj the subject. However, the overwhelming majority is outraged when the MEC Chair did a 180 on the subject.

A lot has been made of the phrase: "change is inevitable". The MEC hangs a major portion of its position on this phrase. Heck, death is inevitable too and I don't imagine the MEC would race to catch it before it left the station.

Beginning the second para of your recap: "Having said that, Captain Webb is committed to vote against any change to the ALPA Age 60 policy at the upcoming Executive Board Meeting. While that is possible, he feels that it would be unwise for such a decision to be made at that level, especially given the widespread opposition to change."

What pray tell, caused the change in Captain Webb's position from a no vote to a yes vote? Oh and bye the way lets invite everybody back into the cockpit who is less than 65.

Just a few quick thoughts after reading the first part of your post. Had to respond in a hurry, hub turning tonight. Hope to meet ya at tommorrow's meeting.

We're probably in the same room right now -- this would be easier over a bag of pocorn, no? ;) I saw some guy walk by me with Tuck on his ID a few minutes ago -- maybe we should have our own meeting in the TV room.


I believe the change in his outlook has been precipitated by the inertia on Capital Hill. When he said in April that he thought it would be better to let the Board of Directors direct the change in ALPA policy, I think he thought (that's dangerous, isn't it?) there was enough time. His opinion hasn't changed on the issue, it's just a matter of who should direct the ALPA policy change. It's looking like that needs to be done sooner rather than later, and the Executive Board (where he votes) will be the likely vehicle.


He stated his opinion on retroactivity then -- not much of blip.:rolleyes:






.

Jolly,

Yes, I do think ALPA is wrong at times. Though I don't always agree with them, I think they do a good job. My position is that age 60 is going to change. Maybe this year, maybe next year, but definitely before I retire in the next 20+ years. I also believe that ALPA saying they need to get on the train is the right thing to do now. They will get more input by saying we want to help with the change rather than fighting the change to the bitter end. As for seniority rights, that is a slippery slope that the union should not go down. Once they start supporting one group giving up seniority, where do they stop. I would like age 60 to stay as it is. I would also like all of the 60+ guys to have to stay in the back WHEN the rule changes because that helps me more. However, I don't think it is the right thing to do.