What does the Contract priovide? It says that if I have no legal restrictions, I can bid any seat that my seniority allows. One legal restriction is a medical restriction. Another legal restriction is the regulated age. If I can hold a Medical Certificate First Class and I am younger than the Regulated Age, I can bid any seat.

A prospective implementation of the Age 60 rule would change the Regulated Age to 65, and it would have the effect of taking away a contractual right that a pilot has. If I were to turn 60 before such a change, there's a catch. If I can still hold a Medical Certificate First Class, and if I am still younger than the Regulated Age (now 65), I cannot bid any seat, even though the contract says I can. The restriction is imposed not by the contract, but by the prospective implementation of the law.




It's possible that you haven't heard anything about this until lately because of the recent changes in the political climate that make the change to the Age 60 rule now inevitable, and the problems that ALPA is running into on Capitol Hill by virtue of the fact that we are now viewed as obstructionists to this Age Discrimination issue. The governmental affairs experts at ALPA are reporting that in order for us to participate in any meaningful way in issues that are important to us (not just the Age 60 rule, but Open Skies, cabotage, and on and on), we need to change our position on this issue. Capt Webb could have very easily gone quietly to the Executive Board Meeting and voted to change the ALPA policy, and we might not be hearing about it still. I know I've been hearing about it at least since the April 18 joint Memphis LEC meeting. I posted his position on the issue on this board shortly thereafter.




In the first place, no "deal" has been made, no concessions given, and no honor and dignity betrayed. Captain Webb is communicating his position to the membership in advance of his participation in any process where he might vote. When I asked him Tuesday (at the "We're Takin' It Back!" Roadshow at the Germantown Centre) if he was going to be voting for a change to ALPA policy at the Executive Board meeting, he stated that he was not committed yet to do so. I believe that if there's reason to believe that we can wait until the October Executive Board meeting, or even better until the next Board of Directors meeting, he would prefer it. However, indications appear to be in favor, at this time, of voting for the change during this meeting.

That's a far cry from publishing a message line one night commending the pilots for their steadfastness and reassuring them that our efforts are paying off, and then watching the morning news to learn that "we" have caved.

Captain Webb is not acting alone, and he's not acting as the puppet of a manipulative Vice-Chairman (or Vice-President, as it were). He's being up front, and he has the support of the entire MEC.



I thought you could draw from the example a concept without thinking that I was calling you a toddler. I was using a tool of language to explain the concept I was trying to convey. I apologize if I offended you with the example. I don't think you're dumb.



I reviewed the job description for MEC Chairman in the ALPA Constitution & By-Laws. It doesn't say he has to determine a majority opinion of the members, and that he is bound by such a majority. He is obligated to represent our best interests -- all of our interests. Clearly we disagree on how he should do that, but I don't believe he is abdicating his responsibility, the one we pay him for, by taking this stance.





.

It is my understanding that supporting the Age 65 rule will allow us too influence the process/implementation ... I think that all it will do is allow Congress/FAA to poke us in the eye later on ... After the fact ... "You supported this change and here it is" ... I cannot understand why we cannot state how we feel (Majority of FDX) and still influence the process/implementation. I don't think anyone (For/Against) will be happy with the change, but at least we have made our respective voice/opinions known.

By fighting tooth and nail for Retroactivity he will fracture this crew force and this union, all for a "handful" of people--is that "the right thing to do"?

What do you mean by "ALPA leadership"? If you mean the national officers, it doesn't matter. Their job is to support and defend APLA policy, which is currently to oppose change to the Age 60 rule.

If you mean the Executive Council, it doesn't matter either. They convened, heard preliminary results of the Blue Ribbon Commission's work, and forged a resolution recommending that ALPA policy be changed. While they dealt with several variations of prospective and retrospective language, they settled on a form of prospective language. But again, they don't determine ALPA policy.

The Executive Board, of which our MEC Chairman is a voting member, can change ALPA policy. Captain Webb believes that he has the support of other members of the Executive Board for retrospectivity of current seniority number holders. Only time will tell whether that view will carry the day. And to go one step further, even if ALPA policy changes to support a retrospective application of a Age rule change, there's no guarantee such an interpretation would come out in law.

There are a lot of moving parts in the process.




.

No pilot has a contractual right to do that today. Such a process would amount to "super" seniority. Captain Webb does not support such a process.




.

I'm glad somebody else was thinking money when I said fiduciary. ;)

First, I didn't call anybody "junior varsity," and I'm offended by the term used in reference to anybody on our seniority list. We're all on the varsity team, from seniority number first to seniority number last.

Second, I don't see how a retrospective application of an Age law change will drain union funds. The economic impact on my future paychecks will be the result of change in the Age law -- nothing comes out of union funds.





.

Apparently I'm not getting the message you're trying to send. What have you heard from the MEC Chairman and the MEC that you consider to be "condescending"?




.

http://www.eyeforaneyetv.com/

This could solve the whole thing. On the subject of lawsuits though, my assumption is that any potential lawsuit against ALPA at least would be for duty of fair representation. If so, why wouldn't the door swing both ways, ie why couldn't the majority who don't support what FX ALPA is trying to do sue for the same cause? Before heads and gaskets start blowing, that is not what I am advocating as a course of action, rather what I am getting at is why is this such a big concern to FX ALPA over a few people when the other side would represent far more $$$ in any potential litigation?

When the over 60 guys at other carriers don't get what our over 60 guys that went from being a S/O back to being a Captain got, ALPA National will be getting sued big time!!!
ALPA National is thinking way ahead of our MEC by not going for this ridiculous issue!!!

The NPRM process has been used to change rules, and it requires that any change to the rules be "as safe as" the original rule. One such NPRM that has been hanging out unresolved for many years involves flight times / duty times. The Air Transport Association would like to increase flight time limitations for a day to 10 hours (a 25% increase) in exchange for a decrease in Duty Time allowed for that same day. We would prefer that both Flight Time and Duty Time be decreased.

If Congress changes the Age 60 rule, bypassing the NPRM, it will circumvent the "as safe as" standard, and it will set a precedent. How long do you think the well-funded ATA would take before they'd be back to Congress lobbying for help to "resolve" the Flight Time / Duty Time issue?

That's one issue. Another issue is expertise. Where do you suppose the experts on aviation work, in the FAA, or in Senate staffs? On the issues that surround the implementation of a rule change, we want experts involved, not congressional staffers.




.