SKYKN6

Its 4th and 23 on your own 10 yard line, your receivers all have injuries and chain smoke. I believe our MEC is doing the best it can do and going for the punt. A Hail Mary right now has pretty poor odds. I took both polls and remember a question on the "secret" poll about what to do if the change to 65 WAS going to occur: Do we cover our ears, close our eyes and scream "LA,LA,LA,LA,I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" or do we participate? DUH! I am VERY much against the change. If we can influence the outcome by participating we are better off in the long run. Retro won't happen (got the word from Carnac)and most of us nearing retirement will go away nearer 60 than 65. The BIG issue is unity on the contract to prevent any penalty to retire at 60. DW and the MEC did not create this problem...loss of pensions, etc at pax carriers, enabled by the geezer gang is where we should vent our frustrations. (Gimme a sec to get in the bunker...OK flame on.)

RedeyeAV8r

For a guy who has been on the Junior side of things before and experienced
something similar I would like to offer another opinion.

ALPA, (FDX MEC) in this case can not control market forces nor can they dictate what the company does or doesn't do..............as long as it is in the confines of the contract. The contract already has a clause that says before a furlough occurs, all VLT flying must stop and all monthy Minimum line gaurantees will be reduced. That is Built in Concessions " to prevent or delay a furlough"

Lets just say Armageddon like you suggest happens.

First if the COmpany needs to Furlough, it will furlough and nothing ALPA can do would probably stop that. But MGTs always try to exploit it. I suspect FedEx MGT would be no different

If the company needs to furlough they will also try to extract concessions out of us. Having been through this twice before (on the receiving end) I would say right now if the company ever comes to the Union and says "We need concessions or we will have to Furlough"

The Union will need to say "lets live by the contract." and this is why iMHO. Everytime this has happend to me (and to others I suspect) here is how it played out.

The company said "Business is slowing. Profits are down, we need to tighten our belts and we need to Furlough". The Union said, "we really don't want you to Furlough". "The company responds with a "Well to prevent a furlough we need X Y Z"
After much debating in the MEC office the union says, "OK will give you X Y Z to prevent a furlough." Concessions are given, but 6 months later the Company comes and says, "sorry business is still slow, we need to keep tightening our belt, we still need to furlough " and Furlough anyway but now the whole group just agreed to concessions to stop a furlough, but instead gave concessions which will lengthen the furlough of the unlucky JR folks,So what did they stop.???

...........Think I am wrong, talk to any USAir guy hired after 1986. Talk to the Furloughed NWA, DAL and UAL pilots.

Now over to PART 2

RedeyeAV8r

FDX is lucky because knock on wood we have never furloughd or seen financial troubles........"KNOCK on WOOD"

I tell everyone I meet here, do not think it can't happen.

Now back to Fr8 dawgy's theory.

Lets say nothing changed right now and the company had to furlough.
5 % of crew force is a pretty realistic number....250 folks for example.

They still have to Furlough in Seniority order, or reverse seniority order to be more accurate. Yes we have 161 Over 60 guys on the DC-10 and 727 FE seat that can't be up front, but we still have close to 350 very JR SO's still on the 727 and DC10 combined. Those JR SO's would certainly be the 1st to go. . NEXT would be Purple Nuggets. ANC MD-11 FO's and so on Up the list until it hits the total # of furloughs targeted by the company. and Yes if the company had a BIG furlough there is the potential that some over 60 (more senior guys would be furloughed before a JR FO..........

I really don't see FR* Dawgs point. I think we all agree furloughs suck.
Furloughs suck. When the rule changes.......there are going to be over 60 guys flying and these guys will be senior too.

Now tomorrow if the rule changed tomorrow and Poof they were all immediately MD-11 CAPs.

Yeap it would sure bump all of us down the list........NO question
But if the company still said we need to furlough don't you see that the same # of Junior Pilots would more than likely be still be furloughed and Unless the over # 60 SO's changes dramatically
Furloughs affect everybody negatively.

ProfessorJoeVee

The ONLY WAY age 65 has a real impact on the industry (I mean a devastating impact) is if it destroys the unions.

The real irony in this fact is that most of the over 60 crowd have demonstrated time and again here and elsewhere is that they only care for themselves. Most of them have shown themsleves to be anti-union leanings their entire career.

If ALPA and other unions are destroyed over this issue yet they get to fly for five more years they have accomplished two goals.

RedeyeAV8r

Concur on your First point, if we allow this to fracutre us, we will be slaughtered.

As to your second point I disagree. Some of the over 60 crowd might exhibit some of the behavior you mention, but not most, in my opinion.

Most of over 60 Pilots, not all, are strong ALPA advocates and have paid dues for many years.

You could make a point that just as many "Junior" guys are also playing the "ME, me, me" game.

hamfisted

As some have seen, I can be hard on the Union at times but; it's not at all accurate to point the finger at the elder statesmen in the industry as having "shown themselves to be anti-union leanings". I'm mid-40's(not quite elder statesmanlike yet)and I recognize and appreciate and benefit from the sacrifices made by those who came before me as they walked picket lines, faced furloughs and even career suicide as they supported our Union goals. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong but, they did it in support of our Union goals. Until you've been furloughed a couple times your perspective on "supporting the Union" can many times be just slightly rose-colored. Like it or not, without a strong Union, we'd be flying those nut-buster days and nights the guys at the "other" airlines fly every day just to stay in this industry.

fdx727pilot

Yes, those are the arguements. I will add, the over 60 guys are still on the list and paying dues (retired people are not) Both views come down to money in someone's pocket. The junior folk think they must be right, if nothing else, because there are so many of them. I think the over 60 guys have a case, because they are on the property and on the seniority list. (Note- I don't say senior folks, as I know several of the over 60 guys are junior to me, which means they could hold WB FO or very junior 72 Cap at best.) Obviously, our Union leadership thinks they have a case, and are willing to speak up for them. I don't expect the rest of ALPA to do so, because we are the only major ALPA presence with a large number of over 60 guys. My view is, do we want our leadership to do what is right, or what is popular? Obviously, there are a lot of folks who think their view is not only popular, but right. However, disagreeing with that stance is not a crime. I realize that I might lose a few bucks if retroactivity manages to come through the rule-making proccess (I'm nowhere near 60) but I still support it, as the right thing.


BTW - Some folks have asked about other carriers and their over 60 retired guys. I'll worry about them when they worry about me. I know UAL and DAL ALPA never worried about me in the past.

nightfreight

Our union will fight for the "slight chance" of getting retroactivity, but wouldn't flight for the "slight chance" of helping those MEM based MD-11 FOs. Kind of a double standard....

fdxflyer

In this post you talk about doing the right thing vs. popular thing and then in the last paragraph say "I'll worry about them when they worry about me." I know these were different topics, but it seems to show different rationalities for arriving at decisions. What do I mean? First paragraph you argue for doing the "right thing". Seems to imply there is a correct decision - a moral decision - without regard for the individuals involved or others that may be effected. Second paragraph you blow off whole groups - in apparent disregard for right and wrong.
If we are going to move forward as FDX ALPA and ALPA NAT'l, then we need to have a logical, fair discussion.

HDawg

But seniority must be protected at all costs for the good of all pilots on the master list!!! Unless you are the 100 or so who deserve passover pay, you are junior or your in the majority opinion on age 60 then just shut up and trust your "leaders".

In the mean time pay your VEBA dues, send money to the PAC and read up on the new FX 401k retirement we'll get in 2010.