DW's message 5/19
 

Go to the APLA MEC Site and watch DW's message.
Key notes:
1. Age 60 is going to change
2. FedEx ALPA 70% Against, but ALPA wide is split 50-50
3. Advocated changing official policy to have credible voice in influencing change to protect our benefits
4. ALPA was about to give pilot education but outside pressures fast forwarded time line, sorry
5. APLA's position against change was causing opinions to be ignored
6. Congress and FAA are accepting ICAO Study on Safety of Age 65 Pilot Flying (so I guess we should too?)
7. Seniority should be kept if pilot is still on list, not retro if still on property (if retired or fires - done, otherwise bid what can hold)
8. No change to retirement benefits with this contract...

The way I read it is how it has been said before - We take care of the senior guys now and kick the can down the road for the junior guys to deal with.
APLA has "lost the fight"

I'm not "senior", but you do have it mostly right. I think we should go with DW on this one.

Well hopefully the over 60 Capts will buy my beer! I've had one Capt buy me a beer on my 1st year!

Key word is "SENIOR". Remember that is part of the word "SENIORITY". Like it or not (I personally don't) it is incumbent upon ALPA to represent and protect seniority rights...PERIOD. An older guy, say 61, who is in that back SHOULD be allowed to bid what he can hold if the law changes. I am a young MD Captain, so personally I hate it, but philosophically I do support the notion that SENIORITY IS SACRED. I am not p.o.'d if the 60+ guys bid from the back seat to the left seat, it is their right and that right is what ALPA is all about. Not every decision that the organization makes will be to each of our individual benefits, but it is ALPA's responsibility to protect seniority to the best of their ability.

If the company was smart, they should let the 60+ guys stay in the back and pay 'em passover at whatever seat they can hold after 65 passes. At least they (the company) will save on training costs and mitigate the seniority bumping affects that will happen otherwise.

Hey Meatball,

A beer? Are you kidding? They should buy you a house!! And, they'd still be ahead.

I buy most of the beers. And, you don't even have to be 1st year. Of course, that's just the way I was brought up.

The issue has to do with the retirement issue, not seniority. If we do nothing now to prevent the changing of when we can retire (and not be penalized - 60), then this change has more drastic consequences for all of us. As I have said before, you want to work till you die fine, but don't penalize me for going out at 60.
I have no problem with the guys on the panel going back up front if they are qualified. The company won't do the passover if they have more than 3 years left.

Our retirement is (right now) a contractual issue. Will this change bring pressure at the negotiating table to change it? You bet. We're gonna' need everyone on board to fight that one. Unity.

Well, considering the host of guys willing to waive a retirement check for the chance to work five more years, I'd say its going to be an uphill fight.

How much would a company pay me to work until 60 then "beat it" with zero benefits? You know that's the company's target, and this age 60 thing is the nose under the camel's tent. They'll grandfather a few benefits, but the B plan will be the first target, the the whittling of the A plan will follow.

Well, if he's 1st year and no one has bought him a beer, it certainly wasn't a senior person who stiffed him. It must be one of those 4 year Capts. Who says only senior peole can be greedy bastards?

Albie, in five years those guys will be gone, and we'll be working on our next contract - In the environment they left for us.

Not if the FAA has anything to say about it. According to the speech Marion C. Blakey gave in January, "The rule we intend to propose will be parallel to the ICAO standard — either pilot or co-pilot may fly up to age 65 as long as the other crewmember is under 60. It is our intent that this new rule will apply to pilots who have not yet reached 60 by the time the rule goes into effect."

The union may try to support those who have not retired yet, but if the FAA publishes the rule as Marion stated, there is nothing the union can do. It would be expensive for the Company to bring S/O back to the left seat. Between training costs, and 5 week vacations per year, not to mention all the sick leave that these guys have saved up and will use, we're talkin' big bucks I know the Company doesn't want to spend. Which way do you think Fred will lobby for or any other airline for that matter?

The FAA is no longer changing the rule, Congress is. Why do you think Marion announced the change and then said the NPRM would be published 8-10 months later? The Ms. Blakey wanted to give Congress, and all the other parties such as ALPA, airlines time to get a Law passed that will address the challange of dealing with pilots that have been forced to retire on PBGC pensions.

The language of S.65 is included in S.1300 which is the FAA reauthorization bill. The FAA runs out of money on September 30, 2007. Some will note that there are other methods to fund the FAA beyond this date. The other issue S.1300 covers is aviation taxes. On September 30 2007 the FAA not only loses it's funding but the government authority to collect aviation taxes expires.

Foxhunter- You my friend are in Fantasy land. Just like all the other supporters of this. Everyone talks a good game, but don't put the Cart before the horse.

S65 and S.1300 will go no where. Congress will not change the rule, the FAA will. Nice try though. First, there is no House version of S.1300. Then it needs to get out of Committee. Then it needs ZERO changes. And where's the Co-sponsers? 4 Total?

Get a life and stop spreading mis-information. The Rule will change. In about 2 to 4 years. Not this summer.

Fantsy Island? Maybe not!
 

This info is from the FDX ALPA portal FDX LEC 7 post May 8,2007. Indicates that this age 65 is on the fast track. I copied only a portion. You can read the whole letter on the web. But it's 10 days old and things change. :rolleyes:

Senate bill (S-65, which would change the law) now has 25 sponsors and House Resolution (HR-1125, which would do the same thing) has over 70 House sponsors.

We were also told that there are several members of the Senate and the House that believe that the FAA timeline of 18-24 months is too long and they are pushing to make the change via legislation rather than waiting for the NPRM process to play itself out. As such, we could see change very soon. The Senate could attach S-65 as an amendment to an FAA appropriations bill, which will be considered this month (May). If they are successful and the House approves the FAA appropriations bill (with the S-65 amendment) and it is signed by the President, age 65 could be the law of the land before the end of 2007.

Good Luck- I've heard this all before. This Bill is going to be a rider on this or that Bill. Etc. The FACTS are, that neither bill has gotten out of their respective Committees. Which is just the First of many steps. Then they have to go to Conference. Then there has to be ZERO changes of Both Bills. Then the Bill has to pass. Talk to me this summer. I'm sure you'll have a New bill to jump on for your cause. And then another one next spring. This is getting like Ground Hog Day.

The FAA will change the Rule-Maybe. The NPRM may go either way. I still say 2 to 4 years. Wait and see what happens when AMR and the APA come out against it. Then we'll have NWA and AMR against the Bill. Plus APA and the majority of ALPA.

I'm afraid my last post sounded angry or defeatist. That wasn't the intent. I just think we GAVE AWAY a nice perk of this career--the ability to walk away at 60. The justification for the B-fund is now suspect. What will we have to give away to keep it?

Has anyone really looked at what a self-funded retirement would cost? How much would I have to give an investment firm for a pension/annuity that would be the equivelent of our retirement? One way to end this whole "protect the nest egg" battle might be simply raise pay NOW and stop the pyramid scheme. How much would a 40 year old narrow body FO have to save/invest every year to get a solid pension by the time he hit 60?

Strut--these old guys will "get theirs". Their benefits are locked in. The guys who stand the most to lose are those dudes who planned to retire at 60 in the next 8-10 years. They'll be two contracts to whittle away at what they "have" right now. And you are right--it will take a lot of fighting to preserve what has already been previously established as the "normal" airline pilot retirement plan(s). Guys like me, Jolly, and Huck have 15-20 years, or perhaps 20-25 years...until we have to retire...so we can adjust our plans and roll with the flow. I've already mentally "written off" any A plan benefits just to force myself to save and invest conservatively. I HOPE I am wrong and we still have something close to our current plan when I retire. My point was that by pushing the age to the right we've made our B plan a lot more vunerable to future cuts by the Feds and by management negotiators.

And again--whatever happens--I'll be there supporting the team. However--I'd love to hear DW offer ONE idea on how he proposes helping those junior hurt by the support of doing the "right" thing for everyone else's seniority rights.

Bet it was a tiger guy.

NashMD11. Thanks for the info learn something new every day.:D

So you'll refers to who? What cause is that? I'm against age 65. I believed the process was going to take the 2-4 years as you stated, but I was wondering how this was going to be be fast tracked.

Do you think the age discrimination issue might stir the pot in Congress? So why haven't we heard from AMR/APA and NWA?

Sorry, the S.1300 was introduced on May 3, out of Committee May 16.;)


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...0:SN01300:@@@X

Guys,

I'm over 60 and when you get my age, you're gonna have "another pair of shoes to walk in." I don't have college kids to pay for or alimony BUT I've been with that bankrupt airline and, with only 3 years wide-body for high 5 over 16 years service, I am looking at $100,000/yr. Not bad. It's probably the "healthy choice" as well. Still, retirement means moving into an uncertain future. Do you think you know what the future will bring?

So look -- I don't care what you decide with your ALPA votes and majorities and thinkin' you'll be safe at 60 and "bullet proofed" from dereg and bankrupcy. That's what you think NOW.

Me? I'm almost "over the line" on my decision and all I can say is "God only knows, guys." Most here seem to think they control their future. Yeah, so did I. But then it turns out I can retire now and that's good, too! Don't "burn any bridges," OK?

Bob

Maybe it's just you ;) I have had numerous Capts buy beer and dinner. And not just during my first year. Alot great guys out there. A few butheads!

Thanks again to all the guys that buy the beer! :)

No doubt. Tiger guys are great about that tradition. I will pass it on when it's my turn.

I don't agree with everything DW said, but I'll give him credit for making a compelling argument for this retrospectivity eyesore.
He needed to do this a while ago--when he got on his retrospectivity horse--but better late than never!

Albie,

Of all the arguments against age 60, loss of B Fund has the least merit. I can not think of a scenario where Fred will be able to quit paying us the 6-7% that we have negotiated as part of our compensation. Tax wise there are enough loopholes to keep this deferred if you desire.

If DW wants unity I think he should step down as our MEC rep. IMHO that would go a long way at repairing the damage done to our unity

Maybe it's just you ;) I have had numerous Capts buy beer and dinner. And not just during my first year. Alot great guys out there. A few butheads!

Thanks again to all the guys that buy the beer! :)

Maybe it's the amount of beer I order? Oh well....a 12 pack of Schafer in a motel in SHV watching reruns of Simon & Simon is fine with me:D

[quote=Black Meatball;168202]Maybe it's just you ;) I have had numerous Capts buy beer and dinner. And not just during my first year. Alot great guys out there. A few butheads!

Thanks again to all the guys that buy the beer! :)

Maybe it's the amount of beer I order? Oh well....a 12 pack of Schafer in a motel in SHV watching reruns of Simon & Simon is fine with me:D

Whatcha talking about?
 

Hell, my wife recently complained that I buy more dinners out for the crew each week than I do for her....I told her...and she actually understands, that it is part of "the cost of doing business"....kinda like belonging to the O'club.....you just do it and don't think about it. I'm a six year Capt and nothing's changed in the past year.

I think most of the young Captains realize how good they have it and probably "pay it forward"....particularly because they are cognizant of how many more years they have on property. It is a long time to live down a bad reputation.

I have actually seen the that the cheapest guys were....crotchety old purple guys, followed by retired 0-6's. The most generous.....the silver guys by a mile.

Every month an over-60 works as WB captain he is :

a. costing some 10 year NB captain who wants to bid WB captain $2325 / month;

b. costing some 7 year WB copilot who wants to bid NB captain $3150 / month;

c. costing some 3 year NB copilot who wants to make WB copilot $1500 / month;

d. costing some F-16/F-18/CRJ pilot another month of waiting for his dream job.



This is bound to put a little crimp in some of the postflight socialization, no?


(2d year after signing rates, 900 hours a year, no int'l pay)

I hope everyone reads and understands this.

You forgot to mention he also is stealing:

--B Funds

--5 years of retirement

--Seat senority


It just isn't about age discrimination.

For all you FO's that don't drink, time to nut up, its hard to buy beer,admission to the French Maid, when YYC is not a DP:mad:, if your rejecting my offers. I won't tell your wife, Pastor ect.. what you did on the road. We have a higher standard than that in the Bus. Flame on RR.:rolleyes:

You're right.........former Herc guys know that nothing compares to flying the four fans of freedom....

Boys - don't get me wrong. I fly with great guys and count most of them as friends. They'll still be my friends after they're over 60.

But it may make for some interesting bar discussions... "Really? Your Baron burns how much an hour? How much was that Bayliner? So... how's the old ticker these days?....."

That's my point! A beer is the least they can do;)

All the beer!!

You can slam the Dems all you want. But there has NEVER been an adminsitration more unfriendly to organized labor, and Gents, we are labor, nothing more.

In the next election I am voting for my labor life....

Well said Check 6 - me too.

Which party is in control of this Congress?

If that is all you are is labor vote away.

Of course if you are your common everyday Billionaire..........I'd vote Republican.