I am not sure of your point. You sound as if FDX ALPA or ALPA National waves a wand and makes it so.

Just so it is clear. Nothing has changed......................................yet.

The ALPA Exec BOD meeting will be in a few days. There is a chance that ALPA National could change it's policy on AGE, in other words the Exec BOD might decide to change it, they might not.

If they do decide to change it, all the MEC chairs have a vote and the majority vote wins. Sound Democratic enough?

One way or another if ALPA changes it's position, it will be merely ALPA National's position. Then realize this is only a POSITION.

ALPA's position ( even if it changes) isn't going to change any laws.

If the law does change to allow over 60 guys to fly (SO's to return to the fromt seat in your example). If they will be allowed to return, it is not like it will be only FedEx over 60 2nd officers will be singled out.........they would be able to do it at UPS, Gemini, NWA, Kalitta Polar , Southern Air or any other property that has over 60 Engineers.


If you are saying that already retired over 60 guys can't return that will be true. An already retired guy can't return now to be a 2nd officer if he changes his mind.........can he?

And BTW ALPA National, FDX and other properties are already being sued over the age 60 issue. That nothing new, it has been going on for years.

 

If you're talking about a poll, you must be talking about the ALPA policy on changing the Age 60 rule. That's the topic of the polls, not the Retrospective/Prospective issue. So, let's talk about the polls.

According to the polls, FedEx pilots are opposed to changing the Age 60 rule. There is no dispute on this point. If it's up to FedEx pilots, we should not change the rule. Guess what? It's not up to FedEx pilots. The rule will change, regardless of our opinion. If we were unanimous in our opposition to the change, it would not prevent the rule change. The issue has been changed from a Safety issue to an Age Discrimination issue, and our staunchest supporters have now switched sides. The rule will change, and we need to get ready for it.

According to the polls, 66% of those opposed to the rule change want ALPA to be involved in the process if it does change. You may argue that's like asking "If your house is on fire, do you want us to call the Fire Department?" Frankly, I don't know why the answer isn't 100% in the affirmative, unless respondants simply refused to accept the premise that the house is on fire. Regardless of that speculation, the 66% represents another majority. Which majority should be ignored, the majority that oppose the change, or the majority that want ALPA to be involved if it changes?

The majority that opposes the change is rendered moot if the rule does change, and I believe that to be the case. It is the responsible thing, then, to become involved in the process for the benefit of all members.



The Union should not represent the majority of its members, nor should it represent any minority of its members. The Union should represent ALL of its members.





.

 

"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"?"

Are you serious? I have been told the MEC Chair and the MEC know better than myself and the membership what is good for us. They don't trust me to do the "right" thing so they decide for us. If that's not condescending then I don't know what is. I sure as Hades know it's wrong..

 

In case it might have been missed in one of my previous posts, allow me to reiterate. The issue of Passover Pay for domicile transfers was not an issue that was supported by contract language. To grieve that would have thrown hard-earned dues dollars down the drain. Did it suck? Yes. Did it seem unfair? Yes. Was it legal by the contract? Yes. It's foolish to grieve something that's legal by the contract, and that has been established by precedent.

When I was an ANC MD-11 FO, I bid the Memphis domicile. Prior to my transfer, MD-11 FO's junior to me were trained and activated in the MEM domicile. Was that fair? I don't think so. I had to commute to ANC for 3 months while junior pilots bid on the lines I wanted. Was it legal per the contract? Absolutely. Same concept. The contract was followed.


Retroactivity prevents a segment of our seniority from being assigned a second-class status. It protects the seniority of all pilots, not just a few.




.

 

Does anyone remember the saying:

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK,
IF WHAT YOU THINK DOESN'T MATTER!!

 

Tony I am in agreement with you. Suppose in this current Senate Bill
S-65, has anammendment at the last minute ( @ 0300 AM ) which includes a little Blurb to change Flight time duty time or license haromization or yet another increase in Foreign ownership?

I think (at least I hope so) we can all agree that it will set an extremely bad precident if Congress is allowed to circumvent the FAA NPRM process and become the new Aviation Rule making committee.

 

That was before anyone, that was past the current "regulated age", was allowed to go back to a seat that was not previously legal for them to go to.

I think we'll see the lawsuits take on a whole new life, if the FAA allows our current over 60 guys back in the front seat.

 

Who told you that?




.

 

Yeah probably, you will also see lawsuits if an over 60 guy is allowed ( say 8 months from now) to continue to fly but yet another who guy retires in say 6 months from now is forced to retire. There will always be lawsuits no matter what.

 

My point is that if our MEC fights for Retroactivity (Retroprospectivity or whatever you want to call it) and then it is included in the final language, it may come back to bite ALPA National.
If they (ALPA National) do not fight for the "rights" of those individuals that turned 60 during the NPRM process (and they are left hung out to dry) like our MEC is apparently doing for our "old backseaters" it will most likely lead to much more litigation against ALPA.
The fact that our MEC is seemingly fighting so hard for so few when there are so many other important aspects to this Regulation/Legislation process is mind boggling--that is where I'm coming from (I'm biased without a doubt).