I attended the LAX LEC mtg today where Dave Webb attended and had some great comments concerning Age 60. We had a good 2 hours of time to discuss this issue alone and DW was very honest and candid. Had a decent showing with split of CAs and FOs and even a few Over 60 S/Os.

Let me start by saying I'm someone who is very anti-Age 65 and been pretty irate about the way this whole thing was handled. I came away from this mtg feeling better about the Union and the MEC. Some key points

- DW basically regretted the way the communications came out. I still don't really buy the explanation of the so-called acceleration since this fast-track realization started with info from the lobbyists on Apr 2nd and the message traffic that followed including this video was pretty much distributed completely backward.
-If retro passes, no Union support for anything other than a standard Posting with vacancies as far as S/Os moving forward
- FDX ALPA could vote against the Age 60 change but it would do no good as this is sure to pass - made this point over and over. Definite feeling that NWA and IPA are taking easy road on this and not doing what's "right".
- FAA re-authorization has Age 60 rule change written in it and includes verbiage about not allowing 60+ S/Os to the front. Big companies have been able to influence the verbiage for their own age discrimination protection. DW and the MEC are obviously against this verbiage.
- when ICAO had the vote on Age 60 rule change in November, US (and all member states) could either accept the rule or withdraw from ICAO - no other option. Once White House decided to accept the rule the writing was on the wall and it was only a matter of time.
- Real feeling that this will get passed thru legislation - Senate bill could be out as early as Memorial Day and if that happens then House bill will get fast tracked. NPRM is better way but not a great chance that it'll come out this way as everyone knows this will result in a lengthy delay - most numbers thrown around were Winter 09 at earliest if NPRM.
- If it passes, positive for Company is slight increase in over-funded pension plan for a while but huge negatives are increases in disability and insurance from Age 60-65.
- Big concern that if ALPA doesn't "get on board" (Legislature's words) then ALPA would lose seat at table at very slight chance of shaping this rule (basically said we have very little chance of changing the outcome regardless of where we are but zero chance if we don't change our Age 60 stance). Obvious problems are Changes to Medical requirements, Open Skies, Foreign Ownership and duty time/flight time limits.
- Big push was that MEC cannot and does not selectively represent its membership. It must represent all. They will not cave to "mob rule" regardless of any poll outcomes. Giving an inch on seniority will hurt future negotiations. Union has potential to let this turn into big battle that will hurt us in future negotiations.
- Age 65, if it passes, is seen as external event - federal regulation. Question was asked if MEC has considered any adjustments to potential loss of FO earnings/seniority/etc. Although some loss is probably guaranteed, DW refused to predict anything since there are so many unknowns and they defintely are not considering any present or future changes to help mitigate losses to junior members as this was/is an "external event".

Overall it was a good meeting. I was surprised at how much information comes out during these meetings that is not openly discussed in any minutes, briefs, emails that I've seen. DW comes across as extremely knowledgeable and generally persuasive. I wish the communications on this whole thing would have come out differently. I'm still upset over the entire thing but am no longer one of the guys yelling for a recall.

P.S. FDXLAG - your comments on GOP vs Dems are so stupid it's difficult to even offer a retort that you would understand. Let's just say that the ALPA PAC gives 25% of its money to pro-pilot labor GOP and 75% of its money to pro-pilot Dems - that's just the way the political entities that are a lot smarter than you or I believe. Vote however you want but don't be confused on who your vote supports and who it definitely doesn't.

 

Thanks Tuck! Good Recap.
Call me dense (among other things), but How are We giving in on seniority when we are talking about an external federal regulation event??
And How does being the victim of this external federal regulation turn into a battle and hurt us in future negotiations?? We aren't writing the rules.

I agree. We are a commuter pilot group and it's a shame in this technological environment that we can't make this type of information available as transcripts, streaming audio or perhaps even video.

.

 

Yes serious.

After 2010 Capital Gains tax rates increased to 20%.
Dividends taxed at your tax rate from 15%.
IRA deductions cut in half (over 50).
All other provisions of the "Bush Tax Cut" sunset.

Couple that with the AMT and I am looking at serious tax increase in 2011.

You said billionaires vote republican I said rich and poor vote democrat whats the difference?

 

What part of if Labor is your only concern vote democrat is difficult for you to understand or respond to? Seems to me I am agreeing with you.

 

And don't forget your "B-Fund" will be gone on the next contract:

See the Age 65 discussion threads: http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=59

 

I wasn't there, but according to TUCK -- DW said that some of the corporations have influenced the legislation!! Did they have to favor the rule change to have influence? This is what we have been told is required! I am still calling BS on that part of this deal!

 

Oh, and enjoy this:

http://www.eeoc.gov/foia/letters/200...faa60rule.html

 

Tuck: Thanks for the recap. Nothing really new, DW and the MEC just keep repeating the same info. You can either believe it or not. I don't doubt that they believe what they are saying, but I don't personally believe that our support (or lack there of) will have any difference on the outcome of age 60.

Either way, there will be some to get a windfall while everyone else gets hosed.

I think they lose some of their credibility by claiming that the legislation could be passed in the Senate by Memorial Day and then also claiming that would influence how quickly the House would approve their bill. There are still funding bills for FY07 that haven't passed and those agencies are operating under a continuing resolution. Happens almost every year. That legislation is not a slam dunk and they are saying that is in order to bolster their strategy. Their assertion that this is going to happen at lighting speed is only offering a false hope for those who will hit 60 this year. Of course I could be wrong (I'll wager on about 5 mins for Foxhunter to weigh in and call me a scab or KKK member again) but I still think it highly unlikely that this bill will go through as quickly as they are saying.

FJ

 

Thanks for the great info Tuck. Very helpful. Apparently, DW has the charisma to help us work thru this hard time in our union. But it doesn't change the facts for me.

The statements above appear to be contradictions. When an issue is supported that is great for retirees or the most senior dudes (at the expense of junior dudes and their "peripheral" issues), they cry we must support all in the union. This is not the first time this has happened.

Yes, I agree, this is an external event. So lets not waste our political blue chips by pushing for a retroactive solution. We will have less power on other, more important and lasting issues.

It's enlightening to know that if DW gets his way he also has no desire to work anything positive for the junior folks because it is an external issue. I figured as much.

I figure that since it is an external event we should go with the NWA or IPA position. I'm not buying that we are doing the right thing. If we were really interested in doing the "right thing" to bring over 60 folks to the front retroactively, we would have changed position on age 60 a few years ago or push now for for retirees to come back.

The right thing is taking care of our retirees or over 60 guys. We do that now. Some stay on as SO a long time to hang out with their friends on trips. The over 60 SOs take their massive vacation, drop a few trips and use a little sick time. I'm very glad to help them enjoy a few more years at FedEx. Over 60 from most carriers means retirement with no hope of return and a tough new life at Netjets if they want to keep flying. But enough is enough. When we kill thousands of younger guys for it, I draw the line. Like DW I say we should support all in the union, not just the most senior 300.

And it is still drawn no matter how smooth and convincing DW tries to be.

 

Indeed

Here's the deal. We all know what the "older" crowd who wants to see this pass get: 5 more years in the seat.

They do not want you (those junior to them) to have the right to investigate or discuss how thier desire will watershed onto everyone else.

Things like:

--Being junior for 5 more years

--Losing upgrades as 5 more years is added to the cycle

--Pay loss due to upgrades

--Destruction of the Unions as a cohesive force as they try to reconcile the desires of the few with the career expextations of the main body

--Seat senority/bidding loss as retirements bog down for 5 years

--"B Funds" going away on future contracts

And of course this jem:

http://www.eeoc.gov/foia/letters/200...faa60rule.html
Yeah--it's already in the works.