Let's fix our own house now. We can kick the $hit out of each other, and we'll make nice in 3 years before the next contract. If we've learned anything, its that our leadership can and will stick together for financial reasons.

We just need to make sure our MEC is OUR union, not just a "senior captains' union". I have utmost respect for the job our captains have done on the line, the success they've helped create, and the job they continue to do. However, we cannot let 500-1000 (or less) of our own dictate terms to the rest of the body or we will NOT be in a position to stick together down the road. (FJ has said this many times....)

IMHO,

Everyone needs to tell ALPA to stick to no on age 60 and say no to SO's going back up front.

Hearing how DW is going to help ALPA "work" the issue by fighting for retroactivity, I would rather ALPA have less of a say in the legislation. Congress is not keen on retroactivity now and I wouldn't mind it staying that way.

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You mean an over 60 year old person can currently find employment in the US as a pilot!

Did anybody bother to tell APAAD?

So there really is life after FedEx. What a concept.

sleepyF18-
Where are you?
Pay attention to Albief15's last post before this one...
this is how most of us feel!!
BTW-talked on the phone w/you, my block rep and wally...
still feel like I am taking w/out vaseline...
I am junior and I should know when to keep my mouth shut and should know that the "leadership" knows better.:mad: :mad:
Start the recall!!!!
Los1

Just think ... you could collect ALL of your retirement AND find employment elsewhere? That has to pay more than being a 727 s/o and you could sleep at night time when normal people sleep ... I'm surprised more "old" s/o's don't see it that way? :eek:

I REALLY don't inderstand the fly past 60 (at FedEx) mentality ... it's kind of sad.



Mark

Quoted from the FDX 7 meeting minutes email,

"Our CBA protects us and keeps “normal” retirement at age 60, even if the regulated age changes. Additionally, our Defined Benefit Plan (A-Plan) and Money Purchase Plan (B-Plan) remain unchanged. It should also be pointed out that Money Purchase Plans are not exclusive to airline pilots. They are a type of Defined Contribution plan and thousands of employers offer them. Even if the regulated age changes, we see no threat to the continued existence of such plans."

Does anyone know for sure if this is true?

I know medtronic is memphis offers a defined contribution plan.

The main point to take away from this is that while our A and B fund are defined by the contract the contract CAN CHANGE. Who here thinks that the company will not come after these plans next time? When we try to argue that the "normal" retirement age is 60 (ie no penalty for retiring between 60 and 65) the company will say "Screw you - FDX ALPA was FOR the change to age 65" and here comes 65 as the new "normal" retirement age.

If the MEC is so worried about how much they will be able to influence how any change is implemented, why don't they consider our contract? The company will have a field day with us during the next negotiations, specifically because our MEC came out in favor of a change. Expect to fight tooth and nail to maintain what we have in the A-Fund, and who knows what will happen with the B-Fund. While we are spending so much time and "negotiating capital" to preserve what we already had, we won't have any left for, say, pay raises or work rule enhancements.

This will come back to bite us in the collective arse many times and from many different directions, and to change our stance now weakens any position we might want to take in the future.

Another thing - hasn't ALPA's official stance been that the Age 60 rule was a safety issue? Someone correct me if I am wrong on this.

So (if I am correct) are we now to believe that a "changing political climate" can change our official stance on a safety issue? What's next - increased duty up to 20 hours? Is it safety or is it politics?

[quote=HazCan;162989]You're not and it makes me sad. They are going to ruin the unity we had over this bull**** and then the company is going to run roughshod over the top of us while we are busy circle jerking over this.

Ruining our unity was the "right thing to do".

I think the MC is elected by the MEC, so they can only be recalled by the MEC. MC is a position often borne of horse trading between various factions within a MEC. The loser in the horse trading often doesn't bother to run officially once they realize they won't get enough votes from the MEC. To get rid of a MC, you have to find out who on the MEC agrees with you and mount a recall effort against the MEC members who don't agree. You also better have a new MC in mind who isn't part of the current MEC and isn't part of the political process to recall the other MEC members or it's unlikely that you'd get many to stick their necks out on a recall movement. This is why recalls tend to occur more often at smaller carriers with smaller MEC's. By no means an impossibility and it has been done at carriers with larger numbers than FDX, but it has to be a very coordinated process. The machinations of the process are one the reasons MC's can sometimes feel that they can say whatever they wish without impunity.

Seconded. Did any of you get to cast a vote for DW when he was re-elected?

No?

Because the election of the MEC Chair is much like the electoral college for the President: people think they elect someone directly, but they don't.

The only way to get a new MEC Chair is to have enough people on the MEC who are willing to support someone new. And the first way to get that is to get people on the LECs who will have a new view.

I agree with everyone so far who has said that ALPA is us. However, when your representatives (not lords or dictators, but representatives who are supposed to represent your views) disappoint you, the solution is not to quit the union, boycott it or anything else. The solution is to elect people who truly represent your views and who will fight for them when the chips are down.

I know that many people (including me) want something changed quickly, but that is just not going to happen. What CAN happen is a methodical change in makeup of the LECs, the MEC and eventually the Chairman so that they more accurately reflect the will of the majority.

What that means is that everyone needs to participate. Remember what is happening now, and vow that it never happens again.

From the FDX MEC Policy Manual:

"Any MEC Officer may be removed at any time, with or without cause, IAW ALPA Constitution and By Laws"

Summary from the ALPA By Laws (the crucial stuff):

- any officer of the MEC can be removed by a 2/3 vote of the MEC.


So let's see - we've got 12 blocks that's 12 plus the Chair, Vice Chair and Sec=15?? Need 10 votes to overturn or at least 50% on the first vote and then a simple majority vote after. I suspect it'll be tough.

Yep, it's tough. And for a reason, so that guys don't get tossed out for single issues.

But this (to me, at least) feels different. This is a single issue that is also a defining issue.

So it looks tough on the surface, but might be easier when the actual straws are collected. This issue has generated more energy and involvement than anything I've ever seen, and people don't tend to forget when their careers have been sold out.

I'm in
 

I'll buy ten and hand them out

How about wearing your ALPA lanyards backwards? My Co-star and I did today. The new all black look is symbolic of our mourning for the loss of our say on issues DW and the MEC know we don't agree with them on. Spread the word..

If guys like Albief15 thinks he is entitled to a greater "piece of the pie" in future contract negotiations, he can wait & get his at the same time I get mine...slugging it out between 60 to 65. I didn't ask for it & don't want it but will have to find a way to deal with it & it doesn't include caving-in to someone who feels he deserves more now than someone else. Wait your turn & "get it" like the rest of us.

Hey Freightdog. I quit wearing my lanyard when our alpa quit representing me

Albie can defend himself but I believe he was talking about everyone getting the same size slice of pie. The last contract was nice but there were some extra goodies if you happened to be of a certain age. And now the reason for those extra goodies has magically vanished. In the future perhaps it will be best if we just negotiate our contracts to benefit all equally.

Put me down for 10

Our turn is about to get extended by 5 more years.. :confused:

Since we can't do a recall...

If you haven't done the phone survey yet-


Don't give ALPA the go ahead to support over 60. If it is true ALPA will have less of a say in the legislation, it is a good thing. But I don't really believe that assumption is correct.

Congress does not want retroactivity and we should limit those that want it (DW) as much as we can. Don't enable them.

"Hey Freightdog. I quit wearing my lanyard when our alpa quit representing me"

I can't blame you at all. The thing is if you are not wearing a lanyard you could be mistaken as a nonmember. If you wear it backwards you send a message that your MEC has refused to hear your view because they know it will not be their own and you have a chance to spread the word when someone asks why you have it on backward. I say everyone who can show up to the meeting with Capt Prather with backward lanyards and pelting him with questions about why our MEC refuses to hear form the majority of it's members on issues like retroactivity for those over 60 when the change happens. Looks like our MEC thinks the "Taking it Back Tour" means taking back our democratic rights as dues paying union members to have a say on issues concerning our careers. Let's ask Capt Prather what he thinks. Again, just a thought...

No, no, no... you got it all wrong. They didn't mean to say "Taking it Back Tour," they meant to say "Taking it in the Back(side) Tour." :D

FDXLAG, read Albief 15's post #3 on this thread, para #8. He's clearly calling for "more for me now" based on the tentative/upcoming age 60 change. Like I said, we can all look foward to our "windfall" between 60 & 65 & not feel like I deserve more now because of something none of us can stop....

Hot subject.


Everyone unhappy or with questions should e-mail their MEC Rep and ask them if they support retroactivity or not.

Bonus question--Ask your MEC how the MEC Chairman decided on his own, without a poll or other membership guidance, to fight for retroactivity.

How many millions spent on retiree heath care? Yet new hires still are paid the same $2000 they were a decade ago. When our union starts protecting our young instead of eating them we will all benefit. We have seniority based representation here. Stay involved, contact your reps and pressure them to represent the majoritys view in your block. That is the way it needs to work for our union to survive with unity, and that benefits us all.

Hey I agree 100%, but we are in the minority here check out this thread: http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/showthread.php?t=9950 Start on the 4th page

Slightly out of context since para 1 through 7 talked about how much the last contract gave to the over 50 crowd because they had to retire at 60.

See, there's where you don't understand. The only windfall I want from 60 to 65 is taking money out of 130Jdriver's wallet on the golf course. You keep acting like we all benefit from this. The only way the majority of us benefit is if we are forced to work past the age that I want to. I understand the whole "I'm healthy and want to keep working" thing and actually am sympathetic about the loss of pensions. But please don't p1ss in that river of understanding by saying we will reap those benefits as well. I don't want that raping, I mean reaping....

I'll donate to the mgmt cause if i get my 18 strokes! :)

Past....

Noon on the 22nd, you in?

Sure. Just RMG my r days!

your services are too valuable to do that

You used to have my respect, based on your posts and the words of those who know you personally. Now I realize you're just a greedy little **ick.

If I understand it, your premise is, if the new rules are written so that it is at all legally possible for a current over 60 to return to a window seat (which even DW thinks is a remote possiility,) screw him, he's old so keep him out of the front seat. Well, up yours right back attya. And no, I'm nowhere near 60, but I'm am a lot more senior than you, and find your attitude towards the top of the list enlightening. For all your talk of unity, you are more than willing to ****** over someone if you think it will gain you a few seniority numbers or a couple bucks.

Keep your chiquita hammock on, it'll never happen....
 

Problem is that he is correct though. If you actually but the people who figure out what compensation amounts to negotiate/accept at any given airline you will find that there are tradeoffs. These tradeoffs are far more obvious at regional airlines and low cost carriers like airtran and Jetblue. While the lcc's typically have better FO wages than the regionals both tend to be pretty low, graduate slowly and have almost zero growth after year 4-5. The justification from their unions is that 'everyone one should be a captain by then, so why waste money on good FO scales when we can add money to where the pilots should be by then?' Everybody plays along happily as long as there is growth. Ever wonder why Mesaba, Comair, Am. Eagle, Horizon FO types seem a whole lot grumpier than their counterparts at places like SkyWest, Mesa, and Republic/Shuttle Ameirca/Chautaqua? Check out the upgrades and payrates and you'll find a big piece of the puzzle. Look at the FO's starting to percolate over at jetblue and airtran as they start to realize that every one isn't going to get that quick upgrade. The majors do the same rationalizations but it typically has centered around age 60 retirement. Most companies that had or still have a DB plan have more side letters and loa's covering every senior special interest group that held power at one time or another. The A scale deal over AA where only they can vote on changes to their A plan is a classic-don't be surprised when that one pops up again here in the future when more seniority segment deals and 'multiplier' greed eventually catch up with the plan. The pax airlines tend to have a much smaller percentage of widebody a/c than cargo carriers making those aircraft more senior. Check out UA's old contract 2000-it gave 28.5% pay raises to what were considered widebodies(777,747, DC-10) and 21% to narrowbodies(757/767/737/A320)-it even went so far as to come up with 'special' payrates for newhires that weren't the full 21% raise represented in the contract. The justification given was that it was the right thing to do because of the forced retirement at age 60. The multiplier increases make up for the 'loss' and the reason for the spread on the widebody v. narrowbody payrates was twofold: to help the senior headed to retirement who needed those few higher paid years as widebody capt. for their fae credit and to correct a supposed injustice because they felt previous contracts sacrificed what the widebody pilots felt were fair raises via Decision 83 in order to secure better narrowbody rates. Incidentally that will happen again since all of the pax carriers rolled their junior narrowbody guys back to the dark ages in the last few years. All of this stuff is fine and dandy until you change the assumptions it was based on which age 65 most certainly does. Changing the FO payscales to reflect the new world under age 65 isn't a grab, it's in-line with what got the payscales to the point they are in the first place. They may not admit it unless you press them, but ALPA national costs out every little piece of these contracts for their carriers and individual carriers often employ additional consultants to do the same during times of negotiation for new contracts or worse concessions. They know exactly how much they've taken from FO compensation to beef up Capt. compensation and what it would take to even everything out so that everyone's career projected earnings will remain roughly the same. I am not saying the scales were wrong to date, obviously the majority of us felt they were fair, but as long as DW is talking about doing the right thing he should follow through in an area that is admittedly tough because we as a union and profession have a tendency to make all things Captain holy and readjusting the FO payscales to reflect 65 flies squarely in the face of that. Does make for an interesting cockpit conversation though.

As for Albie - you speak of that which you know nothing of. Most generous guy I know.....

Am I missing something here? (Did you forget to take your medication this morning?) I'm not sure what any of the above has to do with the subject. The subject being FEDEX ALPA (not the commuters/lcc's or legacy airlines?) and how FEDEX ALPA doesn't seem to be representing the desires (and interests) of it's members. :mad:


Mark

Got this off flightinfo:

SUBJECT: Opposition to Any Change to the Mandatory Retirement Age 60 Rule

NWA MEC RESOLUTION #07-7

WHEREAS the current ALPA policy supports the Mandatory Retirement Age 60 Rule in the interest of public safety, and

WHEREAS the new ICAO age 65 standard arbitrarily replaces one age limit with another, and

WHEREAS ICAO did not conduct a safety risk analysis to evaluate the impact of the change in the standard on safety, and

WHEREAS the new ICAO standard would reduce the current U.S. airline safety standard, and

WHEREAS no mitigations have been offered that would provide for an equivalent level of safety if the ICAO standard were adopted over the existing Age 60 Rule, and

WHEREAS before initiating a rulemaking that could change the Age 60 Rule, ALPA recommends the FAA conduct a safety risk assessment with the participation of ALPA, airline, and Aeromedical representatives, and

WHEREAS the FAA will be in compliance with the new ICAO standard, without changing the existing regulations because the standard does not preclude the FAA (or any ICAO State) from setting a lower maximum age limit, and

WHEREAS the membership of ALPA was extensively polled and clearly rejected any change to the current ‘age 660’ rule by a 55/45 margin overall, and

WHEREAS the Group A carriers, including NWA, who comprise more than 80% of ALPA’s overall dues income, rejected any proposed change to the Age 60 rule by a 64% to 36% margin, and

WHEREAS the pilots of NWA rejected any proposed change by more than 70%, and

WHEREAS there is no evidence to suggest any significant change in the perspectives and opinions of the membership in regard to this issue, and

WHEREAS any change to the current Age 60 rule could have far reaching and significant negative consequences for the majority of NWA pilots,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the NWA MEC opposes any change to the Mandatory Retirement Age 60 Rule in the interest of public safety, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the MEC directs the MEC Chairman and NWA Executive Vice President to submit resolutions to the Executive Board and Executive Council, respectively, requiring the explicit support for the Age 60 Rule and prohibiting support of any public or private effort to change the Age 60 Rule by all representatives and employees of ALPA International, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the MEC directs the resolution request a $2 million grant from the MCF to initiate, organize and lobby for legislation to oppose any change to the Age 60 Rule and active opposition by ALPA International of any waivers to the Age 60 Rule,

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED the MEC directs the Executive Board and Executive Council resolutions prohibit any expenditure by ALPA International in support of changing the Age 60 Rule including, but not limited to, FPL, polling and lobbying.


Interesting reading.....

Although I am very much AGAINST changing the current "age 60" rule, it's important to realize that the NWA pilots did NOT lose their pensions as a result of the bankruptcy process.

I'll bet the carriers that lost their pensions have a different perspective on this issue ...


Mark

As it stands now the only way our voices will be heard is to do something as individuals. Our FDX MEC doesn't seem to have the guts to call a vote of LEC's on this issue, thereby providing our Chairman with direction when he faces a vote at ALPA's Executive Board meeting later this month.

I, for one refuse to be ignored. Somehow the message has to get through that I, a dues paying member, do not like the heading this organization is flying. I am not quitting the union, however I am revoking my ALPA-PAC checkoff today. The PAC even provided the postage paid envelope necessary to send them the message. And to make it really official, I'll send a letter to crew pay.

$$$$ always speak louder than words.