If you have taken any of ALPA's polls(Wilson/phone/web) on a variety of issues before, you know they have a tendency to box you into certain issues by the way they phrase the question and the answers they give you to choose from. Most people just fall for the trap and give the 'best' answer of those offered-just like the SAT's or the newhire interview test. Some choose not to answer to make their point, and yes a few probably believe that the house isn't on fire but I bet it's more of the former than the latter. I haven't seen too many people around these days who think that this is just going to go away easily.

I'm one of the 34%. I do know the house is on fire.

With DW's position I would rather he not fight the fire.

So when is the recall ballott coming and how many of you guys are running. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, fresh ideas are a good thing. There is a difference though in talking a good game and playing one.

Your point is valid. I think you will see some activity next time from some guys who in the past have been content to sit on the sidelines.

I've been wrong before, and may be wrong on this one. We'll see...

Thoughts
 

A couple of questions/comments:

From earlier 'Tony C' post:

"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."

From 'Roberta' Post of the proposed S.1300, Section 706 titled "Modification of FAA's Age-60 Standard":

(d) GAO Report After Modification of Age-60 Standard- Not later than 24 months after the effective date described in subsection (e), the Comptroller General of the United States shall report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives concerning the effect on aviation safety, if any, of the modification of the age standard contained in subsection (a).

I have not verified either source document, but assuming that both the NPRM comment, and the representation of the proposed wording, are correct, it would appear that the FAA's own standard of safety for a rule change has not been adequately proved to the Legislature. Otherwise, no report would be needed about any effect on aviation safety caused by the rule change, even if only to verify that no change in safety occurred. Thoughts?

Question - where in the contract does it allow a crewmember, when reaching age 60, to automatically be awarded a S/O position when no vacancy bid exists? Section 23, A, 1) and 3) contain the closest discussion I can find on the subject, but I don't believe they accurately address the question. The wording "no second officer crew seats" might imply no vacancies, or might simply mean as written - no three-crew aircraft on the property.

I know it has has been policy since I've been here. And, the policy has been against previous "manuals". Many may remember the excess bid of 25 S/O's in the DC10 around 1989/1990. The GFT process was used, and only reached the first stage. My understanding was that the successful argument was that over-60 guys were being allowed to go to the back in violation of the FCH.

If it is fact not contractual, but only, say, a 'JL-policy' (which I've been told), consideration may need to be given to the fact that this "policy", which in the past really did not have an impact on other cremembers, now could do so. assuming the expected age change will occur. Consideration, maybe, by the union?

Or, might it be allowed only in that is is not addressed adequately in the contract?

r/

The only place I see it is in 23.A.2.c:

A restricted pilot who cannot move to or be accommodated as a second officer from another crew position because his relative seniority is less than the current population of second officers or there are no second officer crew seats, shall be offered the opportunity to retire as provided in the Agreement. Following a pilot's rejection of the offer, the pilot shall be released from employment as provided in Section 22.B.1., and shall not be considered as having been furloughed in cases where the only crew status the pilot can occupy is second officer.

Seems to me there must be a vacancy...

CBA SEC 24.E.6

A pilot who has a legal restriction that prohibits him from flying in his current crew status shall be accommodated in another crew status, if any, from which he is not legally restricted consistent with his seniority and standing bid.

[Captain Webb does not support such a process.]

Tony, we once had an F/O as our FPA president so I don't think his seat position is relative. However, I'm leaning toward Generalisimo Webb as an appropriate moniker although, El Presidente' Webb has a certain ring to it.

It's his title. He's earned it. I notice you have the same thing under your Avatar.



It would also be appropriate to call him Chairman. He also answers to Dave.



Does this mean you've run out of arguments? ;)




.

Actually, I'm not sure he answers to anything. He sure doesn't answer to the majority of MEC members.