|
Originally Posted by HDawg
(Post 166619)
".
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. If thats your attitiude we are all screwed |
After reading all 63 pages, here are some thoughts:
As everybody has said...some are going to get screwed by the over 60 change. Right now we should look at minimizing the a** pain for as many as we can. If the law is going to be passed as quickly as everyone says, and there is no verbiage that allows the over 60 S/O's back up front, they can go to court and change the law for age discrimination... Which leads to the next point: what is the difference in age 60 vs age 65? Both are setting an arbitrary number for when you are no longer able to fly. No matter what side you are on, it really is all about the money. It has nothing to do with the joy of flying, being told when you can or can't do something...just money. As soon as everyone agrees on this, we can then work on making some real progress. The senior Capts will see they are getting more money and that maybe next contract we can work on increasing the senior F/O pay rate and maybe even the New hire payscale. The old saying of it was good enough for me won't work anymore because the 60 isn't good enough now... |
Originally Posted by angry tanker
(Post 166661)
After reading all 63 pages, here are some thoughts:
As everybody has said...some are going to get screwed by the over 60 change. Right now we should look at minimizing the a** pain for as many as we can. If the law is going to be passed as quickly as everyone says, and there is no verbiage that allows the over 60 S/O's back up front, they can go to court and change the law for age discrimination... Which leads to the next point: what is the difference in age 60 vs age 65? Both are setting an arbitrary number for when you are no longer able to fly. No matter what side you are on, it really is all about the money. It has nothing to do with the joy of flying, being told when you can or can't do something...just money. As soon as everyone agrees on this, we can then work on making some real progress. The senior Capts will see they are getting more money and that maybe next contract we can work on increasing the senior F/O pay rate and maybe even the New hire payscale. The old saying of it was good enough for me won't work anymore because the 60 isn't good enough now... Discussion Letter We support raising the age limit for Part 121 pilots to age 65 for a specific time period as a reasonable interim step in the process of eventually eliminating age as a determinative factor in the employment of airline commercial pilots. As with age 60, there is no credible medical, scientific or aviation evidence to suggest that concerns for safety require a mandatory retirement age for pilots of 65. Raising the age limit to 65, however, will serve as a useful transitional step, allowing commercial pilots to continue flying beyond age 60 while the FAA plans a full transition to individualized testing of the skills and health of all pilots, regardless of age. |
Originally Posted by FDX28
(Post 166662)
Age 65 is only a start. Read this article from the EEOC chair.
Discussion Letter We support raising the age limit for Part 121 pilots to age 65 for a specific time period as a reasonable interim step in the process of eventually eliminating age as a determinative factor in the employment of airline commercial pilots. As with age 60, there is no credible medical, scientific or aviation evidence to suggest that concerns for safety require a mandatory retirement age for pilots of 65. Raising the age limit to 65, however, will serve as a useful transitional step, allowing commercial pilots to continue flying beyond age 60 while the FAA plans a full transition to individualized testing of the skills and health of all pilots, regardless of age. |
Originally Posted by RedeyeAV8r
(Post 166658)
If thats your attitiude we are all screwed
No big deal it's good to be king and sucs to be the pis boy. |
Originally Posted by fdxflyer
(Post 166608)
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. I gave up on ALPA national as a force to treat all it's members the same back in the early 90s. So if you want to consider me a hypocrite, do so. I am however advocating for a group of our pilots whom I have no connection with, other than knowing a few of them. So at least I'm not advocating something to line my own pockets, or to prevent some "future loss of money and seniority." Just the opposite, I'm going against my own personal interest because I feel retro is right. However, if in your quest to get the results you desire, take all the time you want to worry about all those other airlines. I'm sure they are worried about your fate, too. |
Hdawg,
I'm as irritated as most at the apparent transmit/receive disconnect as anyone. We can raise holy hell on the board. You can sign a recall petition. (It will make you feel good--but that's about it due to the way the by-laws are written). Go to [email protected]. However--the chairman is elected by the block reps, and therefore is more or less insulated from direct action by the masses. However--you--and a bunch like you--can run for block rep next round. Our guys did pretty well on supporting our negotiating committee, etc this last round. But I think what happend earlier this month was wrong. Contact your block rep...and consider running for block rep. "Takin' it back" isn't just Prater's motto. Perhaps this is the wake-up call to get those of us who have been content to make a few calls here and there to our union buddies that if we aren't satisfied we need to put up or shut-up. Its put up time... Unity and solidarity are important, but so is open door communication. Open door comm in my opinion isn't just "...this is why we are doing this. You need to understand..." It also involves some listening. It involves explaining how you plan to mitigate future problems. The silver lining in all this pain and angst is it should get everyone more involved--regardless of their position. That won't be a bad thing... |
Originally Posted by angry tanker
(Post 166661)
After reading all 63 pages, here are some thoughts:
As everybody has said...some are going to get screwed by the over 60 change. Right now we should look at minimizing the a** pain for as many as we can. If the law is going to be passed as quickly as everyone says, and there is no verbiage that allows the over 60 S/O's back up front, they can go to court and change the law for age discrimination... Which leads to the next point: what is the difference in age 60 vs age 65? Both are setting an arbitrary number for when you are no longer able to fly. No matter what side you are on, it really is all about the money. It has nothing to do with the joy of flying, being told when you can or can't do something...just money. As soon as everyone agrees on this, we can then work on making some real progress. The senior Capts will see they are getting more money and that maybe next contract we can work on increasing the senior F/O pay rate and maybe even the New hire payscale. The old saying of it was good enough for me won't work anymore because the 60 isn't good enough now... Do you have inside info on what the Congress wants? If so, lets here it |
Originally Posted by Albief15
(Post 166710)
Hdawg,
I'm as irritated as most at the apparent transmit/receive disconnect as anyone. We can raise holy hell on the board. You can sign a recall petition. (It will make you feel good--but that's about it due to the way the by-laws are written). Go to [email protected]. However--the chairman is elected by the block reps, and therefore is more or less insulated from direct action by the masses. However--you--and a bunch like you--can run for block rep next round. Our guys did pretty well on supporting our negotiating committee, etc this last round. But I think what happend earlier this month was wrong. Contact your block rep...and consider running for block rep. "Takin' it back" isn't just Prater's motto. Perhaps this is the wake-up call to get those of us who have been content to make a few calls here and there to our union buddies that if we aren't satisfied we need to put up or shut-up. Its put up time... Unity and solidarity are important, but so is open door communication. Open door comm in my opinion isn't just "...this is why we are doing this. You need to understand..." It also involves some listening. It involves explaining how you plan to mitigate future problems. The silver lining in all this pain and angst is it should get everyone more involved--regardless of their position. That won't be a bad thing... Albie, if you or anyone else becomes rep, you may find yourself in the unenviable position of defending the retro provision your new master (DW) advocated. Not to discourage anyone from doing so, but I forsee it to be a totally thankless job. So man up with the proper mindset...this would be a combat situation, as you could expect to be taking fire from all sides. |
I don't think whoever takes the point next time will be alone or unsupported. Its not a single issue that has folks like coffeebitch, FDD, and others so upset. It is the indifference to dissent. It is the appearance of revealing information only when the timing is advantageous to the position adopted by the MEC leadership.
I don't claim to have walked in their shoes. They have a very tough position. But nobody held a gun to their head and made them sign that letter either. Who do you serve? Your block? Your bros? Or the union leadership? I know there will always be grey areas, and this isn't a personal attack on anyone who's had a long, tough job the last few years. I just get the perception, however, that a few fresh faces wouldn't be a bad thing. Did I say burn down the house? No. Did I say the current guys are awful? Heck no. But I have been very guilty of running my own life and letting "that union stuff..." be handled by "...those guys who were into that..." I think if we want to crack the ivory tower that means we're gonna have to put up a little more effort and get more involved. As someone pointed out to me--my civics analogy was wrong as congressmen don't run for office every 4 years...and I am woefully short of SA on ALPA by-laws and procedures. I don't think I am "the guy" to step up here...I've already tossed a few other names around. (Steve Glenn Steve Glenn Steve Glenn) (subliminal attempt here...) But I'll support anyone who offers a pledge to improve communications and add some fresh insights into the current mix. And for the record...the Lord is my master. My AF buddies are my bros... And fellow ALPA block members should be the customers for whoever steps up to the plate. I don't think anyone takes a blood oath to DW, or Derek, or any other heir apparent. I honestly believe the guys in office truly believe what they are doing is right, and cannot understand why we "just don't get it..." They aren't evil. I just think they are wrong on this one. Apparently a lot of other folks do too. Time will tell if that will lead to some fresh perspectives in those offices. If it doesn't...we got what we got. And I'll support the team. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:58 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands