angry tanker

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"

Strut

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

Black Meatball

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

MAWK90

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.

Busboy

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.

angry tanker

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.

Strut

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.

Albief15

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.

fdx727pilot

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?

Strut

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.