"If we take a position that is willing to sell out a subset of the Master Seniority List, we give the company and/or lawyers a crack in our armor to work later - on this issue, and other untold issues"

Well I think thanks to Capt Webb's and the MEC's position an enormous crack has already opened that will likely not be closed soon. The company thanks them very much I am sure. Since everything we have been discussing is hypothetical, here's another possible result of retroactivity we should consider: The company is forced to absorb those over 60 back into the crew force. Let's say 120 make it back past the medical (Let's not forget that if the age change does not come for another 2 years, and there is retroactivity as part of it, there could be 200 more names added to that list on LOA or in the back seat). Then, a downturn in the economy coupled with continued optimization of our scheduling leaves the company with extra pilots. Think they have a chip to hold over our head then? Think they would remind us that it was our own MEC that helped create this surplus by forcing the issue of retroactivity? Think they would offer to not furlough if we gave them something else in the CBA to offset the cost? Think the guys at the bottom of the list will think they had their seniority rights protected by Capt Webb and this MEC? The point is they should not be taking a position here unless it represents a majority of their dues paying members. This is too big, and too important to ignore that. The company is going to try and exploit whatever happens for their own good regardless of how this plays out. That's their job. Either way it will be up to us to fight them on that. With a union split right down the middle because of this MEC's current stance, that will be much tougher IMO.

"i don't think that our union has a clear idea of the numbers of us opposed to retroactivity."

Oh I think they have a very clear idea which is why they refuse to give us all a say here. If they thought we would support them, you could bet they would find the time to get our backing as a majority for their stance.

Actually, from reading the 30 or so pages of posts, a lot of people don't seem to care what the law might say. They are ready to screw over the "currently over 60, but still working" crowd, as it will delay their own career expectations.

At least some posters will admit it is about them, and their possible earnings, while others act as if only the over 60 guys are concerned about cash, and they are opposing it for some higher purpose, beyond their wallet.

Good thing "the big O" hasn't seen my cruise clothes:D

Credibility
 

OK... I will buy into the whole "if we oppose the change than we can't play in the change game." However, when it comes to retro.. The FAA, Congress, and ALPA national have taken a stance to not support it so FEDEX's MEC has decided to take a position for it... How is this any different than us opposing the Age 60 rule in its entirety??? If that isn't a contradiction in policy or proposed policy.... :confused:

Thanks for choosing to post.


Got my 3rd e-mail this week from 727 (block 7) rep on retro. Last one is very lengthy on how they intend to back up their position. They have gotten a ton of e-mails. They claim retro is good and moral (their words).

We believe prospective is not a chink in the armor. It's been done with other age issues and is nothing new. Congress did not pull it out of thin air just to mess with pilots. The FDX MEC does not agree. They don't think that, maybe, the NWA and IPA MECs might be doing the right thing and not them.

I believe FDX ALPA is and ALPA national may cause their own irrelevance on this issue. By not polling and going with the poll they are telling the President, congressmen and the FAA administrator that they are going against their membership.

When organization leaders lobby and try to influence political decision makers without the backing of their groups....well...it encourages those politicians to politely or otherwise ignore their input.

Am I totally clueless due to my 18 months @ FedEx (11 yrs @ ALPA) ???
 

Am I looking at this too myopic? The Union (FedEx ALPA) takes a poll, the votes are counted, the majority of the members overwhelmingly have a clear say on the issue. And the Union leadership votes against the majority??? Age 60, cabotage, open skies, duty rigs, disputed pairings.....I dont really care about the issue itself....the problem is fundamental. In a democracy, when there is a vote, the majority wins. YOUR airline took a vote, if you voted against the issue YOU won, but wait... YOUR union chose not to support the majority.

What good is a Union that does not support the majority...right wrong or indifferent. Gentlemen, the flaw is fundamentally that simple.

At this point I dont know how much longer I can afford ALPA looking out for my best interest.

OK snipers....Fire for Effect !!!

What do you think about the retired guys coming back? Should we push for that too?

And you can bet the lawmakers crafting the final legislation will ask about that too.


I don't think DW is the political master he thinks he is. His Don Quxiote charge has a good chance of backfiring on us all.

How can someone effectively lobby for the interests of their members when most of the membership wants to kick the guy out of office before he can influence anything else? Democracy, Republic or whatever.....Dysfunctional is the better word.


For those of you wanting to make sure the top 100 get whats moral and fair...This argument will last forever for you. You'll take it to your grave if it goes against you.

When legislation is crafted fairness and compromise are big considerations. That's why everyone hates political solutions and calls them "dirty". It is almost never the "perfect" solution. The rights of both sides are taken into account and both are often rewarded at the detriment of the other.

The argument-

The over 60 guys will cry foul without a retroactive clause. They will claim the rule has been wrong for too long. Maybe it was right at one time (maybe it was always wrong) but no time should be lost in helping those being wronged RIGHT NOW. Anything less is immoral and selfserving for those not in the over 60 situation.

The well under 60 crowd wants prospective. They have seen the same fall in income, yet they still oppose a raise in the age anyway. At least until they turn 58. Don't give me the BS about more time to make up lost wages. Those wages aren't coming back...ever and the younger guys still have to pay for ever higher mortgages and college tuition. The high wages of the previous generation have been a great windfall for them. We all have to deal with the reality going forward.


This is why ALPA national is against retired folks from coming back. You want morality? Then the retired folks should have the option of coming back. They are the ones hurting the most. UAL, USAir, etc. Anything short is not the "moral" option.

Was being against raising the age above 60 ever the moral way to go?

I submit to you no it wasn't.

It was what ALPA polled and decided to support. ALPA has a history of supporting safety, but not moral values. Correct me if I'm wrong. Do you think congress wants to hear the ALPA lobby talking about morality?

I think this morality claim is another excuse for the MEC to exercise "leadership" without member input. When the MEC chair or the entire MEC think they can get away with doing what they want to do, they claim it. I'm not falling for it.

I would like to use the time honored system of polling and safety considerations to rule our union.

Actually, I have seen plenty of posts claiming something very different. FDD and Albie have posted some well considered feelings (whether you agree with them or not) and have both concluded that they will fight for the guys IF it is in the legislation. I think their point - and they can be the ones to articulate it better I think - is that a majority opinion (their claim) is being disregarded in an attempt to get this in any final rule.

After 60 pages, I believe we need to at least seek to understand the other person's argument. Their will be no agreement when we argue without knowing what we are arguing about.

Here is the point to which I think the thread has evolved.

DW is going to try to influence ALPA national and their position on RETRO (as they change their official position on AGE 60). Some believe this is what is right. Others argue it is against the will of the majority. Others believe it is against the best interest of the collective group.