Mayday,

Not exactly. NWA has FROZEN their pension and pilots are currently working under a terrible contract. They are getting a whopping 5% B fund. Most pilots expect their pension will not be there when they retire.

Read the part about the Group A carriers. The people that contribute 80% of ALPA's revenue voted 64% against the change.

NWA voted more than 70% against the change (just like we did at FDX). At least they don't have a hero like DW who chooses to do the "right thing" and protects us from ourselves. Even NWA management agrees with them (not that I am giving those guys any credit).

I find it repulsive that even though our membership supposedly voted 70% against changing the rule, our leadership decides to go their own way.

I also cancelled my ALPA-PAC payments.

How ironic, on the back of the business reply mail envelop, which arrived with this years ALPA-PAC Congressional listing, is the phrase:

"Every day someone in Washington comes up with a bureaucratic scheme that could cost you money, threaten your lifestyle, diminish your professional standards."

Isn't ALPA National headquarters in Washington DC?

For those reading this at home and are wide awake, skip to the bottom paragraph.

For those who are at the end of a week of night hub turns, just waking up and wondering what hotel/city am I in this morning...read on:

"some one in Washington" = ALPA National
"bureaucratic scheme" = change to Age 60 policy w/o a vote of membership via established ALPA procedures

Well you get the picture by now and can fill in the rest of the blanks....

"cost you money" =
"threaten your lifestyle" =
"diminish your professional standards" =


Make your voices heard, don't vote with your feet, remain a union member. But make an impact the good old fashioned American way, vote with $$$$$. Revoke your ALPA-PAC checkoff today!!!

How would one revoke PAC checkoff?:mad:

Obviously not to those 150 or so guys over 60 who are active pilots on our seniority list and in the union. Non-members can get screwed.

You know the old saying, "build a thousand bridges and no one calls you Albie the bridge builder, but suck one..." Well, in the last week, a lot of c****uckers have shown up, including generous old Albie.

I'll tell you what sir. Those 150 guys coming back would slow down my career to the tune of about $30,000 (a wild ass guess.) You cut me a check for $15,000 and I'll be more than happy to be as generous to them as you are. It's all whose ox is getting gored, as Albie and me are finding out.\


edit: I take back the sir. Don't call Albie that name. You gonna earn some enemies here.

Huck.......a few questions if you please

1. How long have you been here (FDX)?
2. Is FDX your first Major Airline Job?
3. Would you agree that seniority is foundation of our system?

The same form (ALPA-PAC Checkoff Authorization Card) used for authorizing ALPA-PAC checkoff deductions can be used to revoke your checkoff. At least it has a line to "Terminate Deductions of $__________Per Month".

I suggest a follow up letter to crew pay indicating same. Be sure to use original signatures on all start/stop authorizations, e-mails and faxes may not work.

How to find a copy of the ALPA-PAC Checkoff Authorization Card? Try this direct link:

https://crewroom.alpa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=785

Or use the long method:

Log onto ALPA.org
Legislation $ Politics - left side of screen [click]
ALPA-PAC - left side of screen [click]
Sign up for Checkoff - top of page [click]
Print page

Didn't see a search function on the main ALPA page, just did a quick scan and may have just missed it.

Come on Redeye ... none of those questions have ANY bearing on the fact that the junior guys get screwed for each and every single guy that decides to stay past 60. Who cares how long he's been here or if this is his first airline job? Either his argument "holds water" or it doesn't. Any discussion to the contrary is driven by old guys possibly under the influence of Alzheimer’s disease.


Mark

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.

So, how do you feel about the guys who hit 60 at the other carriers with no back seat? Do you support their right to reclaim their jobs and seniority? How about our over 60s who wanted to keep flying but were presented with the choice of having a bigger retirement check than they could make as an S/O and hence, for economic reasons, retired?
If retroctivety is approved, I don't think it's a stretch to throw these guys in the mix. The feds have publicly stated that these guys and the over 60 S/Os will not go back, why not fight for all of them?

1. 5 years

2. Fedex is my third airline, and I flew corporate before that. Got my ticket signed in 1986, if that makes any difference. (I've also flown 60 makes and models, been through 10 part 121 training programs, including both the DC-10 twice and the MD-11 twice, and was an MD-11 captain when I came here. There... I feel much better....)

3. If I was a smart-aleck I'd say evidently not, because I'm going to lose about 5 years' worth from all this (or more if the FE's come back). But I'll just say that we all knew the game coming in - make hay till you're sixty and then you lose your seniority or get to only use it on a panel. Don't give me the "seniority is a bedrock of our profession." So was age 60. So bedrocks don't always last forever.


All this "young feller" talk is to say, you don't count for much. We'll let you pull gear and pay dues, but you ain't sh!t at this company until you're a widebody captain. O.K., I can deal with that. I know where I stand with you Redeye. Let's see where that gets us....

Our guys that retired made that choice and should not be able to come back. Our S/Os over age 60 chose to stay, remain on the pilot system seniority list, have every right to return. You just don't get to ignore the contract because it may have a negative impact on you.

If retroactivity happens to be approved by Congress the FAA has no say. I believe any pilot forced off their list on or after November 23, 2006 should be returned.

You believe in the tooth fairy too.

And you use the date Nov 23, 06 for what reason?

ALPA-PAC and Age 65 -- FedEx
 

Gooch and others,

I just REVOKED my ALPA-PAC contribution. Simply e-mail ALPA at: [email protected]

Include your name, airline, member number, and intentions to discontinue support of ALPA-PAC.

This was not a knee-jerk reaction for me. I have read and heard all of the rhetoric. I am an active member of ALPA, and active FedEx ALPA committee member, and I do my fair share to support the organization. I will continue to do so.

However, the reversal of policy at the national level and local support by the FedEx MEC has greatly disappointed me. Each and every airline pilot that signed on to this profession knew the rules on Age 60 from the start. The excuses will continue to mount and the bandwagon is getting full.

The AGE 65 legislative process has proved divisive and will continue that direction for a long time. There are many compelling viewpoints on each side of the issue. Time to make some tough choices.

If the change does occur, the career progression across the spectrum will have far reaching effects on retirement, quality of life, and finances for EVERY pilot junior to those who continue past Age 60.

I will also support a recall of the leadership at the national and local level. In fact I pledge to be an integral part of the process. Talk is cheap, actions matter.

Consider the impact on you, your family, and your future -- vote accordingly with your hard earned $$$ and your recall ballot.

NKA

That was the date ICAO changed to age 65, also the date the FAA approved Captains up to age 65, foreign pilots only.:mad:

I think you should go be a foreign pilot, then you can fly till 100 for all I care.

No, as a US Citizen employed by a US carrier I expect the same rights granted foreign pilots. Looks like the FAA, Congress, and the American public agree.

That's great, you got the three groups with NO CLUE about aviation to agree with you. Good work.

What can I say??:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The "up yours" in the post wasn't aimed at the over 60 SOs. It was aimed at DW, who unilaterally decided that promoting the retroactive clause was a good idea. My translation of his letter was he was not "rolling over and accepting the change", but promoting it. To translate--DW says WE HAVE TO ROLL with age 60 changes. I don't like it, but I can buy it. The next step, however--promoting retroactivity...is a huge move PAST that mandate. So--again--the "up yours" was "up yours you presumptious MEC chairman who didn't ask me anything", not "up yours your old over 60 guys..."

Unlike some, however, I have not hidden from the fact the law change hurts me in a lot of ways. It slows down upgrades. It slows down moving up the seat seniority and enjoying better lines. And it slows down industry hiring--which hurts our business. FedEx is chump change for us...but if SWA, CAL, DAL, UPS, and a host of others quit hiring or slow down then we feel it there too. I can name at least 20 great guys over 58 I'd love who I'll enjoy flying with if they stay past 60. I can see the real benefit for them. However--this is a ZERO sum game, and the extra money they accrue now is money guys in my age group won't make. Why is it greedy if I point that out but okay if someone senior makes more coin by staying on?

Sorry you think I'm a jerk. I think a better statement is I honestly am articulating what MOST of the guys that are still on FO seats feel. This is a very bad BUSINESS decision for most of us. We can roll with it. The resentment comes when we think some of our elected leaders are deliberately working against our interests then telling us its for our own good.

Again--"up yours" singular....not "up yours" plural. And you weren't the target.

Cheers.

Actually, I feel for anyone who wanted or needed to keep flying, and was forced out of the cockpit. If the government would let them back in, more power to them. On the subject of our over 60 SOs, they are on the property, on the seniority list, and should be able to bid Captain if they can hold it, seniority and medical-wise. What a lot of the junior (I can't say old, because some of them are my age or older) people don't realize is a lot of those over 60 guys can't even hold WB captain, and many no longer have a 1st class medical. Some are not even under 65. So to screw over a whole group of people, based on a loss of your "perceived income," is patently unfair. I say "perceived," because if experience in this industry has taught me anything, it's that until you can hold it, are train for it, and are activated in it, it ain't yours. Just ask the guys who were on DC10 Cap IOE just before the first contract, and were pulled out and sent back to the Boeing. The US could get in a trade war with China, and then all of us Fedexers are screwed. Sh@t happens, and expectations get dashed. Blaming another group and screwing them over doesn't make up for it, and won't make it right.

Thanks for the explanation. I apologize for taking it the way it looked on the forum. I still agree with DW on the over 60 guys though, as mentioned in the post above. And, yes, I know it will probably delay my eventual WB Capt slot.

Either way...I'll be pulling gear for you for a while or asking your advice when I do get to upgrade.

It ain't personal...and I'll be a professional whatever the outcome.

Just realize a lot of young guys feel very disenfranchised by their leadership and and pretty hot. That doesn't mean any of us wish personal ill will on anyone--except idiots like rjlavender. Rubbing someones nose in a 5 (or more) year setback is pretty bad karma.

For clarification purposes...... has OUR Union decided that the majority of it's members do not know what is best for them individually or ALPA as an entity? In his empirical wisdom, has DW decided to singlehandedly make a decision that negatively impacts a large body of the membership he is SUPPOSED to represent; without giving them the opportunity to have their single or collective voices heard on the subject? The Age 60 legislation is a train he has decided we ALL should jump onto without the clear support of the membership. I still fail to see the rationale for spearheading the advocacy of affirming the retroactivity issue. WHO exactly does FDX ALPA represent on this issue? I don't believe any of us can honestly answer this question unless it is put to a vote for the entire membership body. Until then, any claims of greed, shortsightedness or selfishness don't hold water. This is a MAJOR issue to a lot of careers; let the membership have their voice.

Then why hasn't the age 60 crowd not taken the fight for the guys under 23. ICAO allows pilots to become ATP's at 21 not 23. That's age discrimination. And it has been that way much longer than ICAO's age 65 rule.

I thought all you young ALPA guys were taking care of them.:rolleyes:

I sent the following to my LEC rep with copies to the three MEC officers and the other LEC blocks reps. We can burn up the chat forums all we want, but staying in touch with your MEC and especially you LEC reps, in my opinion will have the greatest chance of success. Hey, I'm not asking to keep the Age 60 policy or asking to overturn it. All I want is a collective stance from this union arrived at through the procedures published in our By-Laws. Have a recorded vote on the issue and let our MEC Chair take that info the the big meeting at the end of the month.

Why are they afraid of having a recorded vote?

"DUMP THE PAC"

My email follows...

Thanks for taking the time to chat over the phone yesterday. I hope some headway has been made towards having a recorded vote by our MEC on the proposed change in ALPA's Age 60 Policy for three reasons:

1. I feel it is very important for our Chairman to have the results of a vote in his pocket prior to his leaving for the Executive Board meeting later this month. How he votes as compared to how our MEC voted will say a lot about how this MEC operates.

2. It is important for our rank and file membership to experience an occasion where the MEC arrives at an important decision using established procedures as written in our By-Laws. This is to important an issue to be determined by a voice vote, hand count or head nod. It needs to be a recorded vote, with the results made public. Our membership needs this...our membership deserves a recorded vote.

3. Finally, a recorded LEC vote on this issue will allow the rank and file to see just how responsive the LEC block reps are to it's respective members. As with the first reason, we need to see who the LEC reps work for, their block members or others.

Without a change, the current method of operation is beginning to look and smell like "back room politics". Please continue to press for a recorded vote.

You're right, I've got mine so who cares about "what's right" huh. :rolleyes:

I wasn't up on the Hill, ****ing and moaning to administrators about how unfair things were in the industry. I paid my dues (to get my experience), got the job I wanted, and accepted the rules for what they were.

To me it just shows that this age60 group is all about themselves, others be darned.. :mad: I wish I was wrong. Enjoy your weekend.

And your opposition to the change is all about you! I'm shocked to hear that. ;)

As DW said at the meeting, his decision won't impact us at all, as the Age 60 ship has sailed, and nothing we do can change it. All we can do is minimize the associated affects to our benefits.


FDX ALPA is representing the only large group of over 60 active pilots in ALPA, who are still dues-paying members (at least most of them.)

Albie: Shack. Right again.

PAC: I thought about yanking my contributions, but I'm going to hold off for now. What would Mgmt want you to do? Contribute or not?

Actually not really, cause I'll can fly til I'm 65 as well. :)

The glass is half full not half empty.

I've got it!
 

Since the age 65 is an ICAO thing, then let them fly from Zurich @ Narrowbody pay and Guangzao on Widebody pay and dim sum.
This ought to help their strained finances.

What follows is my communication with some members of our MEC in light of the 11May07 MEC Message line and email replies.


That was a quick reply, though it was probably due to my choice of words versus
substance of the communication. Some issues raise the level of passion higher then
others, this is one for me. To be heard above the clamor and get the requisite
attention, sometimes a 2 x 4 is the appropriate tool, metaphorically speaking.
The phrase "backroom politics" seems to have struck a nerve, I apologize
if you were offended and to others on the addressee list similarly afflicted.

I read with great interest today's MEC Message line, unfortunately, not until
after I had transmitted my last email asking for a recorded vote on the Age 60 policy.
Am I to assume today's (11May07) MEC Message line is the recorded vote on the
Age 60 issue? Or, was it really a referendum on whether to support the Age 60 policy
change through Congressional actions or the FAA NPRM process?

If the vote was to determine the instrument of change (Congress vs the FAA), then
aren't we putting the cart before the horse. Gentlemen, shouldn't we first
establish if this MEC is in favor, officially, of changing the AGE 60 policy before
we debate the merits of the Congress versus the FAA implementing the change? I
still haven't seen the recorded vote on whether the MEC is in favor of changing
the Age 60 policy...or not. If I missed the vote, please point me in the right
direction and I'll read the results. All I have seen concerning the Age 60
policy change question has been published in MEC communications, the most recent
of which stated:

"The most recent poll data, with an error rate of 3%, indicates that an overwhelming
majority of FDX ALPA members do not favor a change to age 60..." (11May07
MEC Message Line)

If this statement is correct how can our MEC and it's Chair override the desires
of the "overwhelming majority"? Overwhelming majority were the message
line's words not mine.

What I have seen and heard these last few days is a lot rhetoric from both sides
of the issue. One side discussing the subject as being a done deal, trains leaving
the station and we need a place at the table. The other side discussing the loss
of just about everything except children and the family dogs. As I understand,
the ALPA Executive Board is comprised of the larger airline MEC Chairs. So it's
not just the ALPA President and our Chair sitting at a table making the Age 60 policy
change decision. Our Chair is part of a larger group of MEC Chairs, each representing
the wishes of their members.

If our Chair is part of a group of Chairman, why is it so important for this MEC
and Chair to override the wishes of it's members. Certainly other airlines
see the issue differently and may wholeheartedly embrace the proposed new standard
of Age 65, as is their right. I understand as a major cargo operator, we are in
a minority when sitting at the table full of PAX carriers. Each group has a different
agenda and after all cargo and PAX, why they're as different as (dare I say
it) night and day. So I keep asking myself, why the push on this issue, why is
the MEC and it's Chair so ready to override the overwhelming majority of its
members?

I wonder...why now?

Nothing would be a good start!:rolleyes:

No need for the red highlighting, I know what we are talking about here(practice). This industry and in this particular case this union does not exist in a vacuum. Intrinsically, we are no better or worse than any other pilot group out there-none of us have the patent on making mistakes or re-inventing the wheel. I was responding to one of the responses made to Albie by someone else on this thread. All contracts and payrates have give and takes for one reason or another and the ones made for age 60 need to be revisited if the rule change(doubt they will, ALPA in general is a senior 4 stripe world-or 'shut and color' in more simple terms). I used the example of the regionals and lcc's because it's far more obvious to the casual observer than it is at the majors, but the principles are the same. Hey in a 35+ page thread, we can expect just a little thread drift!

Speaking of thread drift, does anyone have any insight as to what the Company thinks of this? Is Fred in favor of the age change? I envision an army of bean counters furiously crunching numbers to figure the cost of salaries, training, sick leave, vacation, expansion, hiring, retirements, medical, contract changes, etc etc and I'm sure they've got a plan to either mitigate or exploit the rule change. Any thoughts from the smarter guys on this board?

Only 18 pages for me! I get 20 to a page!;)

"Speaking of thread drift, does anyone have any insight as to what the Company thinks of this? Is Fred in favor of the age change? I envision an army of bean counters furiously crunching numbers to figure the cost of salaries, training, sick leave, vacation, expansion, hiring, retirements, medical, contract changes, etc etc and I'm sure they've got a plan to either mitigate or exploit the rule change. Any thoughts from the smarter guys on this board?"

While not claiming to be a "smarter guy" on the board, I will, as always, offer my opinion.

When you want to know what the company will do the old rule of "follow the money" almost always works. I am sure they will both mitigate and exploit this issue for their profit. As training is a pretty big expense, it is unlikely they will want to train anyone who can not give them at least 5 years or more of productivity. Considering those older among us have the most vacation and highest usage of sick time I am sure they will not want to retrain anyone over 60. Having said that, if they can find a way to get something else that is of more value to them to facilitate the MEC policy of retroactivity (say PBS as an example) they may agree to an LOA regarding displacements to allow just that. Unlikely, but after what we have witnessed with the MEC ignoring the membership wishes to help out a small minority, not as unlikely as I once believed. As usual, the company has taken the wiser road here of remaining quiet until they see how everything turns out. When it comes to retroactivity I think the MEC should have done the same instead of causing such needless discord amongst their membership, especially since they now say it probably won't happen anyway.