I keep hearing "this is the right thing to do" or how "It's hard to not do what's best for the membership" when it comes to these issues we have been discussing. The hard thing, and IMO the best thing to do is convince others you are right. I see no courage in refusing a majority their say and continue to be insulted when told that I don't know what is right here. I think I work with a lot of pretty darn capable and fair minded pilots at FedEx. I don't think we are wrong for having a different opinion than the MEC about what is right. I don't think I am taking the moral low road if I disagree (since they are certain they are on the moral high road here) and I am tired of these condescending excuses about why our MEC Chairman and the MEC is afraid to present their reasons for their position to the members and trust them to vote for what is right. It may be smart to not allow a vote you are not sure you will win, but it isn't hard and it isn't courageous. In fact, one could make a case it is just the opposite. We are all educated, hard working, dues paying professionals that are paid for the decisions we make. To have this MEC Chair and the MEC tell me I can't be trusted to make the right decision here is an insult. To continue to say only they can be right here, which means anyone not agreeing must be wrong, is arrogant. Not taking the time to make their case to this educated pilot group and allow them to participate in their future is wrong no matter how you try and justify it. This MEC Chair and MEC have lost my confidence. I don't know who Capt Webb will be speaking for next week at the Exec meeting, but I do know he won't be speaking for me and many others on this board. I hope Capt. Prater is aware of that.

 

FDD,

Sorry if you feel insulted by my posts. We obviously have opposite opinions. I am simply stating "my" views. Only time will tell who was more correct. I only hope that the more vocal group decides to run for a leadership position the next time we have an election. Most of our elected reps run un-opposed and the voter turn out is dismal. On a final note, the block 8 rep has a letter on the ALPA web site that should be read. He states his reasons for his position quite well.

 

Pinseeker,

Thanks for the answer to my question. I concurr that this is a done deal for the over 60 legislation to go thru. When or how soon, who knows. We are talking about the US Govt here, so it could take years and cost millions of lives.

I think most of us feel seniority is very mportant, but most junionr guys feel like ALPA could give a flying BLEEP about us. Just look at how the passenger guys have left thier young hung out to dry during all this post 911 down turn. In the case of FedEx ALPA, it's seems like they have gone physco, because when a majority of membership wants one position, and our MEC takes the opposite---well it just don't make sense. In the end, the junior guys get screwed once again.

I still think that for ALPA to change it's position on the age 60 legislation shows weakness. Let's hold the line and fight the good fight, not give in because we think/know we will lose. For FedEx ALPA to flip flop on this, and then go hard over rudder for retroactively bringing guys back makes absolutely no sense. Hey, did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Jolly

 

Don't look now, but they already did get slaughtered. I guess they are unified now because for the most part, they now have a "******* em" attitude towards just about everybody....Mgt, pax, red book, green book, blue book, yes voters, no voters, junior FOs, senior FOs, junior CAs, senior CAs, international airline, domestic airline, widebody, narrowbody, you get the drift. Bring a bat and join the "party."

 

What sucks is that I grew up in a red book house in the seventies up in MSP. Man, that was a union back then. I have no idea what happened.

 

Jolly,

I'm not saying give up, but the battle has changed. Why committ suicide here when we may have an opportunity to effect how the change comes about. I say fight the battle we have a chance of winning. I also don't think we should bring guys back, but those who chose to stay and work in the FE seat should still have their seniority rights protected. Once you retire though, you are gone. JMO.

 

Don't you think that retroactivity for the current over 60 S/O's, and guys on a LOA, will open up a pandora's box in the courts?

I think it will just make the case even stronger for the other over 60 guys that are going to sue to get their jobs back. Not all of them were able to go to a back seat and were forced to retire. Why shouldn't they be allowed back in the cockpit, too? Many of them did not want to retire...They had to. I'm sure there are many at UAL, or DAL or whereever that asked for a LOA, but were denied.

It seems to me that "the right thing to do" is either, all of them or none of them. I vote for the latter.

 

I'm typing on my phone so be patient with me here.

People ask why it is important to change positions with respect to the Congress. One of our people was meeting with a Senator the other day about US-EU Open Skies stuff. Said Senator said, sorry, can't help you. Then we went on to rant about his personal projects, how his state needed more funding, then proceeded to read our guy the riot act over how we were being obstructionist on Age 60. Our rep then told the Senator that we had placed Age 60 up for reconsideration. This made the Senator take a pause in his rant, and then he said the following. "So when do you want that hearing on US-EU Open Skies?"

So our opposition to Age 60 does affect our efforts in other areas that are important to us as well.

I'm not saying that the above should change your mind on how you feel on this issue personally, I'm just trying to answer the question on why it is believed that a change in ALPAs stance is important to ensure that we have continued input on the things that can affect us.

 

I don't think you're wrong for having a different opinion. I just think your opinion is wrong. That's what makes for a good debate, right?



Haven't you been listening? Haven't you been reading? Capt Webb made his opinion public a month ago. We have received correspondance from him, the Communications Chair, and all the Block Reps. They've been in the hub, they've been available for phone calls, they've been receiving and answering e-mail. How could they possibly be hiding? While we can argue about the volume and content of the message, it's clear that they haven't been trying to hide anything. Capt Webb could have very well pranced off to Herndon and voted his opinion without ever telling us, and there's a pretty good chance none of us would have ever taken notice. That's not what's happening.

Log on to the ALPA website and read the BLOCK 8 UPDATE from the LEC Rep of the most junior block - - PLEASE. That's Block 8, First Officer Dave Risch.


It's time to head for the Germantown Centre now for the "We're Takin' It Back!" Roadshow with Capt John Prater, ALPA President. See y'all there.

(Oh, and I'll see you at the hubturn meeting at midnight-thirty tonight, too.)




.

 

Pinseeker, Good post. I too, want the age 60 rule to stay where it is. But outside forces seem to moving that way. The crucial interest for us is in its implemention. In particular, Retro. If this is written to allow our ROPEs to return to front seats (not a lot, in my opinion), it will open the the door for everyone displaced by the age 60 rule, regardless of the carrier. The "windfall" will go to the Labor Lawyers. (Oh yeah, they're on our side, for sure). Later Dude, gotta run.