Alpa Fdx
#641
Tony C,
You are missing ther point if the rule changes as stated with no one over 60 at the time of signing comes back, then the back seaters have no contractual right too! They are still regulated from the front. Dave is trying to change the rule making so it becomes a contract issue.
You are missing ther point if the rule changes as stated with no one over 60 at the time of signing comes back, then the back seaters have no contractual right too! They are still regulated from the front. Dave is trying to change the rule making so it becomes a contract issue.
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.
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.
.
#642
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 43
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.
#643
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.
.
.
#644
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.
.
#645
.
#646
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.
.
#647
... I am tired of these condescending excuses about why our MEC Chairman and the MEC is afraid to present their reasons for their position to the members and trust them to vote for what is right.
FDD
"Haven't you been listening? Haven't you been reading?"
Tony C
Well thanks for proving the "condescending" point for me Tony.
.
#648
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,068
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?
#649
ALPA National is thinking way ahead of our MEC by not going for this ridiculous issue!!!
#650
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.
.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post