Right now I would take Mutt and Jeff as suitable replacements.

I will agree that despite FDX's vote that a majority will most likely take place at the Exec Board. In principle, I would like them to vote for the overwhelming majority and then let the chips fall as they may. If the vote is then in favor of changing the stance, so be it. This change in stance is Prater's desire and he wants this to happen.

I, for one, don't want ALPA to have any say in the process. If congress wants to pass a law, so what? I am not sure why this is such a bad thing. It would be enacted faster than a NPRM and if it is the right the thing to do, then let's do it. Not sure why the aviation experts at the FAA can do any better, if it is 65 it is 65. This isn't an issue of Terps or duty day limitations where a knowledge of aviation is a requirement.

OK it is clear you are now flamebaiting.

You don't want ALPA involved the process at all.

You want Congress to legislate this change without Pilot input on Medical issues, I see

If this is how you really feel than I really don't see what you beef is with anything??:confused:

"Quote:
Originally Posted by FreightDawgyDog

I have been told the MEC Chair and the MEC know better than myself and the membership what is good for us.



Who told you that?"

Tony,

I am not interested in a game of 20 questions with you, nor a semantic's debate. The actions of this MEC speak louder than words here: The majority of pilots cannot have a democratic say because the MEC knows what is right for this pilot group and the membership doesn't. Of course, I feel the need to reiterate again that they are the only ones advocating retroactivity here. ALPA, the FAA, and Congress do not. I guess we will never know for sure whether a majority of pilots here are for it because we have been denied a vote, but I think that very fact speaks volumes about what the majority thinks. The thing that will forever stick in my craw is Dave Webb and his MEC's always seem to spend extra focus on helping out the same small group of people here. Scope penalty payments, VEBA, extra cash in benefit funds for those over 50, the best retirement in the industry (that will be wasted for the next 4 years by those who will now continue to fly over 60), and now an Age 60 stance change plus demanding retroactivity in a law that has not even been made yet. If you are not approaching 60, or already there, I think you have reason to feel a little underrepresented here by the MEC's that Dave Webb has been Chair of.

Look Tony, you have made your position clear here. I have stated my concerns as well. You have tried to make a case for the MEC Chair and the MEC for not seeking out and following their membership majority wishes here. Some have agreed with you, most have not. I have yet to speak with a fellow pilot, in person, that agrees with the retroactivity, nor agrees that we should not be allowed a majority say in what our stand shall be. I have no problem disagreeing with you here, just as I have told my MEC and LEC Rep's that I disagree with them as well. I am still waiting for someone to justify a change in our stance on Age 60 on one hand (even though it is against the majority wishes) because we need to side with the majority of ALPA here to have an effect on legislation, and at the same time say we need to fight as a small minority for retroactivity in said legislation. Do we need to be united with them or not? I have actually been convinced on the change in our stance, as putrid as it is to me, but have yet to be convinced about fighting the rest of the world on retroactivity. We should either be united with ALPA's stance on these issues or not. Isn't that the point of changing our Age 60 stance in the first place?

Anyway, everyone knows how I feel here and I'm tired of covering old ground and playing word games. I have received emails from 2 LEC reps concerning allowing retroactive bidding on a bid closed before the Age change, in the event they win their fight on retroactivity. I was happy with both responses and hoping to hear from the rest of them, including Chairman Webb, on their position. I am trying to get ahead of the next fight the MEC may have for this group of pilots I mentioned earlier in my post if they get their way with retroactivity. That is where I am focusing now. See you all on the line..

FDD ----- Go over that Retro Active bidding before the change thing. I got lost.

Redeye,

What kind of input on medical standards do you want? More or less stringent? You want treadmill tests? What? I don't think there is a need to change the system that currently exists. Blakey doesn't see a need to change the system, do you? I see the current medical standards as sufficient. Not sure what you want here..

Like I said, the way I see it, the only think I see ALPA's influence would be to grandfather the over 60 second officers. Please tell me how their influence shaping this legislation (or NPRM) would benefit us. The FAA isn't going to deal with B plan issues, our contract, etc. It seems quite simple, raising the upper age to 65. And for that matter, if they change it, they shouldn't require another pilot to be under 60. If ALPA and the FAA think it is safe, just raise the age.

My beef is simple, I want our MEC to listen to the overwhelming majority of it's membership. I want DW to vote "no" on the Exec Board vote. My beef is that while FDX ALPA won't go to bat for the junior pilots due (those MD-11 FOs) but will bend over backwards trying to allow the over 60 S/Os the chance to come back. I want the representation that we deserve. That is my beef.

Here is my take. ALPA will change it's stance and say that all of the talk about safety and Age 60 was a mistake. With the one major barrier to changing the rule gone, a NPRM will be out in 3-6 months. It will mirror ICAO standards (while keeping our medical standards in place). The rule will be proactive and the S/Os will not be allowed to move back to the left seat.

Mutt and Jeff may be options, but if you are that irritated then run on the platform you propose. I don't throw that out there as a retort or a smart alec comment, but a legitimate proposal.

Here's who signed that POS letter:

Dave Webb
Wally Huggins
Chris Baker
Jack Anzur
Vic Tansey
David Risch
Mike Arcamuzi
Derek Martin
Jeff Stark
John Grones
Sean McDonald
Scott Schwartz
Guy Lopez
Edgar Irizarry
Scott Lohman

Most of these folks have been working for us for a long time. I don't think they are communist, God-hating horrible people. I think by in large they've done the right thing.

But if you look closely--you will notice a lot of those names have been FPA/ALPA leadership for a long, long time. Some have argued that we need to TRUST these guys based on past performance. Others have argued that these guys have become insulated and lost touch. I think some of Wally's notes indicate a long vacation or a small does of lithium here or there might be in order...but that's just MY take.

Personally--I think there is some truth to both sides. However, if you EVER had an interest in serving your bros on the MEC, I think you just got an opening. Recalling the block 7/block 8 reps would not be that tough right now. Its been pointed out that replacing DW isn't really an option, and even if you tried he'll be in Washington before you can do anything about it. Good or bad...ALPA insulates its leadership from the day to day whipsaws of emotion.

So--which one of us bitchin', loud-mouth SOBs is gonna send one or more of these guys back to the line to read positive rate, donate money to the PAC, and never again have the chance to vote against the majority?

Pony up or shut up... I've got some names in mind. Anyone know when the next election will be? Any by-law experts know how to request another one? I'm just a dumb FO who doesn't know civics...so one of you experts pipe in.

Heck--if we had another election--maybe J.F. could even get more than one vote this time...

You're right Albie, they're not God hating communists, and they're not out to get you. I am a block 5 Family Awareness Neighbohood Nazi. This too, will pass. Let's allow it to happen on our terms. 'nuff said", Block 5. Its time to end this thread. Agreed?

Not Nazi, not dictator, but communist isn't too far off.
 

What do you call a form of government where a few decide what is good for everyone against their wishes? What form of government hides information that disagrees with their propaganda? Have you seen the results of the May 10th poll or have you just been told the results? Have you seen the results of the Wilson poll?

I'd call it.........The Bush Administration!

Touche' :D