Jetjok

Just as a point of reference, when I turned 60, my calendar showed NOQ, as of my birthday, until the first event of ground school for the back seat. In order to show up at the school house with the proper attitude (going from captain to s/o requires a rather large mental adjustment), I asked for, and was given, a little more than a month off. This included some vacation time, but was mostly just time off without pay.

Your comment of "Of the 13 individuals, senior to me, that turned age 60 in Apr and May, only 1 is not still in the system" is rather telling, in that it appears that you only are concerned with guys who are senior to you, and therefore might be back if the rule is changed. I thought you were concerned with the entire rule change in general. But now I understand.

I've intentionally kept out of this debate because it's a real bucket of muckets. For the junior guys, all you see is that you're going to be sitting where you are now, but for a lot longer. This might or might not be true. Especially at FedEx, what with new jets on order, and new domiciles, there should be significant growth (we all hope.) As well, you always assume that because a guy is turning 60 that he is very senior. That's also not the case, but who am I to point this out to you. You constantly bring up the fact that we should have done a better job of financial planning, but fail to realize that a good number of us got here during a time when you sat at the panel for 4 to 5 years, and didn't have a chance to make captain until almost 9 years. Hell, some of us sat on reserve, when there were no rules for reserve, for upwards of 3 & 1/2 years. I don't tell you this to gain sympathy, but so that you can understand where maybe we were doing the best we could. As well, we didn't have the 6% matching that we do now. All just minor issues.

As well, you seem to want to abdicate the seniority system, because it would benefit you to do so. I do understand the issues associated with this contentious rule change, but the thing that bothers me is that you are willing to throw away the system that has stood us in good stead for so many years, just to allow you a slightly faster seat progression, while at the same time forsaking guys who have been humping freight for Fred for a long time.

There are many arguments that can (and have been) made, and all are, or may be correct. We don't know how this will shake out, but I can tell you this: without a solid unity of purpose, and a well supported union, this pilot group will be recovering from the next negotiated contract for many years to come. Dave Webb and the rest of our union leaders are doing what they think is in our (collective) best interests. The fact that you don't agree, is just the way it is.

As for the non-members list, I couldn't find it either... What gives?

Falconjet

JJ: There was nothing in Busboy's post that you quoted about any of that stuff. You must have a guilty conscience.

How is this for you. I spent my first 2 years here on reserve on the panel, couldn't sniff a right seat until after 3 years, and decided to stay on the panel a year past that just to see what holding a line would be like. Boo hoo for me. I am still vehemently against a change, and I am almost 47.

For every scenario you list just imagine how much worse it would have been for those guys if everyone senior to them just got a 5 year windfall when you were about to a) get off reserve, b) upgrade to the right seat, c) upgrade to the left seat, d) get recalled from a furlough.

None of us is begrudging the senior guys anything, except a change in a longstanding rule that favors them dramatically, providing them a windfall of 5 more years in the left seat AND costing the junior guys at a minimum SOME amount of upward mobility and MONEY. We can argue for ever how much or how little, but it will cost the junior guys SOMETHING.

The most frustrating thing is that guys like you and Dave Webb won't even admit that basic fact and simply shake your heads at how impetuous and selfish we are because we only want the same chance at upgrades and progression that you guys had.

Its really not all that selfish to just want to keep your place in line without having the guys at the front with their prize come back, call cuts, and push you back another 5 years.

Thanks for your service and all, but you could lighten up on calling the guys in favor of the status quo selfish and greedy.

FJ

MD11Fr8Dog

While the link, with the sortable list with birthdates, is not working (been that way for a few weeks and I haven't gotten any response from the ALPA web people, it is available here Positive Rate on page 18, or in your hardcopy that comes in the mail.

Jetjok

Whereas I agree with you about Busboy's post, when I read it, all those thoughts sprang forth. My response was not directed at him at all, but at all you guys who go on and on about how unfair it is, and about how you will suffer. The fact is that it is indeed a windfall for the senior guys, or the guys who have already turned 60, and for whatever reason, have decided to go to the back seat. I readily agree with that, and only wish my timing was a little better in that regard. However, what none of you bother to mention is that if this rule passes, you will each have 5 additional years with which to either continue to work, or, at your choice, retire. The real issue is that it's happening now, as opposed to when you're 57 and not 47. If the age rule is going to change, than it's going to be good for some and bad for others, regardless of when it changes. To be p!ssed at us older guys for being in the right place at the right time, stinks. It would be sort of like being p!ssed at your neighbor for winning the lottery. Personally, I didn't petition for the rule change, nor did I join any group or support any group that did. Like us all, I'm a bystander in this event. If it passes and I get to again fly as a captain, so be it. If it doesn't, same thing. In either case, don't attack me, because I had nothing to do with it. As for lightening up, I believe I've only posted two or three posts on this thread, but if the shoe fits.... And by the way, I might have a guilty conscience, but it's not about anything I've said or done here.

SleepyF18

The non-member list is down due to problems encountered with the transition to a new revenue management system at ALPA. They are working out the bugs and hope to have it back up in a couple of days. The link to the message line addressing the new system is below in the May 3rd Message Line.

https://crewroom.alpa.org/FDX/Deskto...cumentID=37743

Busboy

"Rather telling", huh? Actually, no, you don't understand. I was given a retirement list, 18 years ago, that lists individuals date of birth, seniority, etc. The list does not include anyone hired after that date. I know of no list that does. So, your conclusion is way off the mark. I am concerned with the rule change, in general. I just don't have the data to include those junior to me.

I don't fail to realize anything of the sort. I lived it!!
My time in this industry(incl. 18yrs here):

4.5 yrs as S/O
8.0 yrs as F/O
9.o yrs as Capt


That is the biggest crock of crap in your post. I know its the MEC's mantra right now. Its in every e-mail, letter and video we get from them. But, it is not a contractual issue, it is a regulatory issue. Moving you to the back seat was not a contractual issue, it was regulatory. I don't remember anyone on the MEC fighting to change regulations to protect your "seniority rights", then. Were they abdicating the seniority system?

I am not throwing away anything for my gain. Or as you say, "just to allow you a slightly faster seat progression". Faster than what? Faster than it would be without changing the rules? That will be your gain, not mine. I stand to gain nothing, no matter how the rule changes. And, I don't consider the idea of working past age 60, a gain.


I would argue that our MEC's actions have done more to fragment this union and more to alienate the different seniority groups, than any Ford & Harrison, or management scheme, could have ever done.

TonyC

An important nuance that most of us have probably missed here is that there's a difference between senior and old. The old, seriously old, and chronically old are scattered throughout the seniority list -- not just at the top. Except for the Anchorage, Los Angeles, and Subic Bay blocks, where only Captains and First Officers exist, most (if not all) blocks have Over-60 members. I'm nowhere near that ancient age, yet I have several members of my new-hire class in that category. There are Over-60 guys in my Block, and in the Block junior to me. I'm not certain, but I'd bet there are some in Block 7 as well.

What if all the Over-60 guys were junior? Would that make a difference in how you feel about letting them bid the right seat? What if we let them go back to the end of the seniority list when they turn 60, and then bid what they can hold? The only people that would be affected are the ones that haven't been hired yet. That way it wouldn't slow you down, right? Would that make it easier to swallow?





.

Falconjet

Tony: For me, right seat only (as proposed by Huck several times) would be the most fair compromise that could possibly come from this change. I don't see it happening, but that is what I suggested in two different places in the ALPA survey. I urged everyone to do the same, and I know several others who made similar comments in the survey.

I don't think it has much of a chance for several reasons, not the least of which would be APAAD's insistence that it wouldn't be fair. AS if the change itself is somehow fair. Right Seat Only would be a reasonable compromise.

As far as retroactivity, I have also stated that in this area I actually agree with Dave Webb. I don't think, however, that is has any chance of being adopted because of the glaring dichotomy of the FedEx/UPS 59.9 year old experience and the United/Delta/etc 59.9 year old experience and the inevitable lawsuits that would follow.

Where I take issue with the MEC and Dave is in fighting for that, which he admits we can't win, is somehow more right than fighting against the change in the first place, which we can't win either (according to him). That disconnect I simply can't get my hands on. That tells me more about his (and ALPA leadership's) interests and desires than any survey or video speech ever could.

FJ

Falconjet

[quote=Jetjok;169652]Just as a point of reference, when I turned 60, my calendar showed NOQ, as of my birthday, until the first event of ground school for the back seat. In order to show up at the school house with the proper attitude (going from captain to s/o requires a rather large mental adjustment), I asked for, and was given, a little more than a month off. This included some vacation time, but was mostly just time off without pay.

JJ: I hate to quote the same post twice but this comment is very telling and the way I read it goes a long way to explaining why the senior guys are so hellbent on getting back to the left (or right) seat. Yeah, it sucks to have to sit and the back and watch two numbnuts (its a joke guys, relax) up front "stumble" their way through something you could do in your sleep.

You've had to do it twice now at FedEx, because EVERY newhire has to make that same adjustment when they get hired. They were all Captains before they got hired here, and most had to make that same adjustment.

Maybe if we treated the backseat job and those doing it with a little more respect and dignity it wouldn't be such a bitter pill for the guys to swallow when they extend their career back there. Its a nice option to have that the pax guys no longer enjoy, its too bad more guys can't make the transition a little more gracefully.

FJ

FreightDawgyDog

"What if all the Over-60 guys were junior? Would that make a difference in how you feel about letting them bid the right seat? What if we let them go back to the end of the seniority list when they turn 60, and then bid what they can hold? The only people that would be affected are the ones that haven't been hired yet. That way it wouldn't slow you down, right? Would that make it easier to swallow?"

Not me. That's not what this is about. This is about fairness to all. What I would like to see is this rule change only apply to those that have not yet earned their ATP. That way there are no active pilots that see the windfall that Busboy talked about. Not me, not you, and not Foxhunter, NMB or their ilk. Now that would be fair.

For the record, I am a WB Capt with decent seniority. I am in position "A" for this age change and stand to benefit greatly from it as long as I am fortunate enough to work for a viable company and stay healthy. I should be jumping for joy in fact. Thing is, I remember what it was like to be on the outside looking in, hoping to have a chance to get hired, knowing there was a limited window in which I could make a career in aviation work, and also what it was like on the bottom of a seniority list when the furloughs came. It's those guys I think are really getting screwed here, not those who have to retire at 60 (to the best retirement in the industry no less, which we used lots of negotiating capitol to obtain) just like everyone before them did. I had a discussion the other night with one of our WB Captains. He was all for the Age change but against the fight for retro. He asked me and I said I was against both. Right away he started yelling at me saying I was selfish and only wanted to move up at those turning 60's expense. As I wasn't interested in yelling back I walked away. You should have seen his face the next morning when he saw me checking out of the hotel with 4 stripes on. I almost could hear him braying like the jacka** he was. Anyway, that is not what this is about to me. I know those who advocate retroactivity would like it to be as simple as "If you are against this, your selfish". To me it's about our union representing us, as a whole, and seeking our input on issues as big as this. I am in complete agreement with Busboy when he said this to JJ..

"That is the biggest crock of crap in your post. I know its the MEC's mantra right now. Its in every e-mail, letter and video we get from them. But, it is not a contractual issue, it is a regulatory issue. Moving you to the back seat was not a contractual issue, it was regulatory. I don't remember anyone on the MEC fighting to change regulations to protect your "seniority rights", then. Were they abdicating the seniority system?"

Nope. They were following the law which is what we should be doing now. That is what our contract tells us to do. Anything beyond that is not covered. The MEC has tried to make it a seniority issue (why I don't know) and split our unity, in ways the company could never had imagined, by doing so. Time will tell if it can be healed to the point where it was prior to this. The only clear message the MEC has sent is to tell those approaching Age 60 to delay retirement and hang out on the panel because they are fighting to get your Capt's seat back. It's not a message that needed to be sent IMO. Certainly not at such a high cost to our unity.