Albie,
I contacted my rep ( well before today) and received a great response. I indicated that I trust my rep and the union but disagree with the position. Not because guys will fly until 65 or seat progression but that this will impact our benefits no matter how much unity we have. Maybe I'm paranoid but an A fund, B fund, 401K, Veba, pay raise and 5 extra years of flying and the company ( industry) is going to say okay? If I'm wrong find me in 2010 and the booze is on me.

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.[/quote]

OK, I'll bite, who is worrying about you? Our over 60 F/Es? DW and the MEC? Who exactly do you think is worrying (and concerned for your well being) about you?

Hdawg,

If it all goes to hell I'll still be looking for stable hands. We'll find a way to eat. We'll do pony rides for tourists on the beach in the morning and stay drunk all night on the beach at night...

But no doubt--the airline career we watched when we were in college is gone. If there is a silver lining to 9/11, its that I didn't wait until I was 50 or older to figure out I probably better have a B and C plan.

So far, FPA and FDX ALPA have done a pretty good job in looking after my interests, although like everyone else on the property, I have one or two oxen that have been gored by the current and previous contract. DW and crew have certainly done more for me than anyone at any passenger carrier ALPA ever did. And yes, I talk to my Block rep , if not frequently, at least from time to time. Like the MD guys who felt screwed on passover, I have also been told my issue is not worth a greivence, as it affected too few people, or that I was reading what I thought was obvious in the contract wrong. But on the whole, yes, I'm happy with D Dub and crew. Sorry your not, even though, based on your advertised seat, you are fairly senior and should be out of the angry young demographic..

fdx727pilot.....do you mind of I ask you how old you are? I'm 47 and I admit my age impacts my position on Age 65 Legislation. Is 47 in the "angry young demographic" you speak of?

"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."

I was responding to a poster who said the union was supporting retroactivity, (even though ALPA National, the FAA, Congress, and likely a majority of their own members are against it) because the company would try and use their non support against us later in regard to seniority issues. I was pointing out that no matter what happens, the company will try and find a way to try and exploit any outcome and gave an example using a furlough scenario. My point is I did not agree with that justification of the MEC's stance. Sorry to confuse you.

I'm not sure if I know exactly what results you are accusing me of desiring!!

I am not calling you a hypocrite or anything else for that matter. I guess I was thinking that the last part of your other post must have been a quick remark you hadn't considered - but apparently you have. I was hoping you would see that saying things like that makes all of your posts for the "right thing to do" (some have been persuasive - and you have obviously spent a lot of time on this thread) seem like you are just spewing BS to win the point. I wasn't attacking you or flaming you. Thanks!

The remark was added in response to a question about supporting our over 60 guys vs other carrier over 60 guys, i.e. retired, and a lack of concern for them.

I'm not sure what you want out of this, either way (was trying to stay neutral for that specific remark, as I realize both sides are passionate,) but, if while you work for whatever result you desire, you want to worry about National ALPA unity or other carriers pilots, good for you. Personally, I don't think concern for FDX ALPA ever even came up at any other MEC or their pilot groups.
I just intend to stay a local issue man in my worries about right and wrong, and what I should support. So that keeps me in the confines of FDX ALPA, union-wise. I have some heartburn over ALPA in general, based on previous experiences, but FDX ALPA is what I've got, so I have to go with it. Would never go to the dark side (non-member.)

BTW - For hamfisted, I just turned 50. And most of the guys I fly with are new guys in their 30s and early 40s, so that is the demographic I was referencing. AerisArmis certainly doesn't fit that. Neither do you.

Sorry -- didn't mean to slight you or ignore a question.



OK, first let me make sure I'm using the word "fiduciary" correctly. Merriam-Webster has three definitions, the third being "depending on public confidence for value or currency." I was thinking along the lines of value and money, but a more correct use I believe emphasizes public confidence. Considering that, I think I chose a poor word, but it still leaves a good question.

What I should have said is that the union has a financial obligation to grieve cases that can be won, and to carefully consider, and probably not grieve cases where we have no chance of prevailing. It costs a great deal of money to take a case through the grievance process, and spending the money where we know there will be no return would be financially irresponsible. (And maybe there's a place where "fiduciary" belongs in that process, too, but I'll get back to that.) The same financial responsibility doesn't really come in to play when considering the position of retrospective versus prospective for the implementation of a change to the Age 60 rule. Since it doesn't cost money to support one view or the other, the comparison to the Domicile transfer/Passover pay issue doesn't work.

Does the MEC Chairman have an obligation to hold the confidence of the members in his trust? Absolutely. While admittedly it is a risky business to promote a position that is not popular, I don't think he is disregarding what he honestly thinks is in the best interest of all members of the Class and Craft which he represents. In fact, in order to represent all of them, he has to support a position that will not leave a segment of them behind. To implement a rule prospectively will tell those already over 60 that they cannot benefit from the rule change, while all other members of the Class and Craft can benefit.





.

The problem with this argument is that the position he is supporting DOES NOT benefit the VAST majority of us, and to waste union dollars to FIGHT for it is insane when we will have numerous other fights in the future (retirement penalty for leaving prior to 65, B fund spinoff, medical issues, etc.).
There has got to be more to this than just some Seniority thing...lawsuit prevention, hooking up some pals, etc.
If it's lawsuit prevention then come on out and tell us, if it's something else, have the guts to do the same!