First off I don't think there is anyone on an Leave of Abseance (LOA) who is over 60 and I also believe if you are over 60 working as a SO and have medical issues , you must retire instead of a medical LOA as you say.

Second, with respect to the FAR's our contract allows for Pilots to work over 60 albeit as SO's currently. Our contract does not allow for Retired PIlots to return to active status. The Union isn't trying to open a pandora's box.
The Union (your MEC specifically) is only saying we intend to protect current
ACTIVE line members of the class and craft.

UAL and DAL do not have any 3 man cockpits or in other words any over 60 Second Officers.

Sleepy, while I know that's how things work in the real world of Washington, it is a sad comment on how corrupt our politcal process really is.

Although Tony did not answer my question about fiduciary responsibility of not taking on retro when others are against it - and the MEC claims they probably won't win - I will agree with him that they are not hiding!

I listened to DW in the crew room. Nobobdy was really disagreeing with him in the room for the few minutes that I was there - though the demographic skewed pretty old. My rep answered first call and was available for a very long call.

All of that said, FDD also has a minor point because I would bet that a lot of the meetings were set up due to all of the unhappiness.

We(FDX) do have guys, over 60, on LOA.

You missed my point on DAL, UAL, etc...Those are the over age 60 guys whose lawyers would love for us to bring back our over 60 S/O's to the front seat. Their argument would be that they did not have the option to stay in the back, nor were they allowed to go on a LOA. Thus, they were forced to retire. The only difference between them and our guys...Is we had S/O's. They should still have the same capabilities to operate an airplane.

I'm just playing the devil's advocate here. This reasoning, I believe, is why ATA, ALPA Natl and everyone else but FDX ALPA doesn't want retroactivity.

To add to what Busboy said, almost all airlines have people on LOA who are over 60 for various reasons. There are guys at pax carriers who have been gone for years still listed as L1011/DC-10/727 pilots. Each carrier is slightly different, but in general these pilots do not appear on what you and I see as the seniority list, but that list is basically an active pilots seniority list. That is one of the reasons it takes so long to 'verify' a seniority list in a merger, because the real list has a lot of extra folks on it.

First off how many Pilots over 60 are on a leave of Absence?
And what are the circumstances of that leave?

Secondly, I did not miss your point.

We have had Pilots retire here at FedEx early, i.e. before 60 and once they retire, they can't come back even though they are still legal to fly. Our contract doesn't allow for it. ALPA is not fighting for anything not already adrressed in our contract. Our contract stated "FAA Rgulated AGE' in terms of being able to fly. If the Regulated age changes, the Government is doing that not ALPA. ALPA is only stating that seniority rights currently allowed in our contract must be preserved for ALL active pilots.

So...What happens at UAL, DAL, USAir, etc. doesn't matter to us?

I am not sure I get your point, They do not have over 60 Second officers on their Actiive Seniority list and I assume it is not addressed in their contract, so they do not have to address the issue.

FedEx does have Active dues paying memebers over 60 Second officers on our list and it is addressed in our contract and it is the right thing to address the issue.

[QUOTE=TonyC;165672]


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.

Tony C,
You are missing ther point if the rule changes as stated with no one over 60 at the time of signing comes back, then the back seaters have no contractual right too! They are still regulated from the front. Dave is trying to change the rule making so it becomes a contract issue.

I read what the union sends out and I had not noticed anything about Dave web actively seeking to change the rule making process to allow the back seaters a return until first of last week.

Also, since you touched on this, how is this any different than the parking lot deal with the leaders going against the majority? O I know the contract was voted on unlike this issue.

Also, I do not think the professional airline pilots I work with like you comparing us to kids playing in the street. I think we are much smarter than you give us credit for.

I really respect conviction if Dave really has a moral issue with the majority then he should step aside or do what we the majority pay him to do.

I'm talking about the DAL, UAL, USAir, etc. guys suing to get their jobs back if the new reg/law allows our over 60 guys back in the front seat.

How bout this...Why would ATA, ALPA Nat'l and every other airline not want retroactivity for active over 60 pilots? Why would they care?