[quote=TonyC;172465]
So on to the next question.

ALPA asked, "ALPA's policy has been to oppose any change to the Age 60 rule. Suppose it is evident that the FAA or Congress is determined to change age 60 rule and that the rule will, in fact, change. Under these circumstances, do you feel that ALPA should maintain its opposition to any change in the Age 60 rule or drop its opposition or modify its policy to be able to address the FAA or Congressional efforts to change the rule?"



As I told my rep, to make the leap that we should drop the first question and claim to have found a majority that meets their desires in the second is very weak. You tried to use logic and numbers - I think your argument breaks down. Here is mine - then you can have at it!

Your argument was clearly pointed towards those who disagree with the way DW has represented FDX ALPA's position to the Exec. Board. Your conclusion was that he represented the majority, or the interests of all of us when no poll data existed. I will argue that answers to those two questions are being misused to justify DW's actions.

Question 1. We agree that the majority of FDX pilots were in favor of not changing the rule. Basically 66 to 30. ALPA wide it was 54 to 43.
You essentially found a way to acknowledge yet dismiss these results with question 2.

Question 2. Paraphrasing, it was whether ALPA (nationally) should MAINTAIN ITS OPPOSITION (1 action) vs. DROP OPPOSITION or MODIFY ITS POSITION (2 actions)

I believe you and FDX ALPA are misusing the results. The poll broke down the results individually, and found NO MAJORITY OPINION on this question, and then created one by combining drop and modify. The numbers when broken down did show modify as the having the highest percentage by 11 points at FDX and about even ALPA wide.

But let us do something that initially seems paradoxical. Let us combine those that wanted to maintain opposition with those who wanted to "drop opposition" vs those who would modify policy. Then we see a different majority. At FDX, it is slim 51-47. ALPA wide it is 56-38. There are rational reasons to do this.
1. Hard to argue that DW followed the will of the majority in question 2. Only 47 percent of FDX pilots wanted to MODIFY policy. He voted to modify policy. A majority wanted to fight the change (whether it would happen or not) or drop opposition. These goals are different, but neither provides DW with a mandate for his vote.
2. To show that these apparently divergent viewpoints do not add up to the idea that ALPA should DO anything! It makes those in favor of modifying policy (change policy) separate from those who would not. Most at FDX and most at ALPA would not have changed ALPA policy in response to the belief that change is inevitable.

A lot is written on this board by those who wanted to "drop opposition" if you follow the posts. And why not? They agree with you that Age 60 is going to change. DW and others were warning us against wasting resources when other critical battles (cabotage) are looming. This group of voters apparently wanted to have the official position be FOR age 60 but Drop the opposition politically--- save resources to fight other battles. Somehow this group is lumped in with those who would MODIFY policy. DW found his majority!

But we can see that DW did NOT represent a majority at the EXEC Board Tony. He did have numbers to use, but unfortunately they are being misused. He should have represented Fedex pilots by voting NO! He should have showed leadership by showing us how this voter breakdown was massaged.


How can you/anyone continue to parrot the idea that DW was following a majority with differing poll results?

 

You make much of the difference between "drop its opposition" and "modify its policy." I fail to grasp the significance of the difference, as either one requires the other. In other words, if ALPA policy is to oppose a change to the Age 60 rule, the policy must change in order for them to drop their opposition. They seem to go hand in hand. If there's a critical nuance that I'm missing, then I'd be interested in studying it.

What I find more important is the way that sentence ends. After being given both of those options, the object of change is described. Why whould we drop our opposition? Why would we change our policy? What would be the purpose of such change?

The purpose is to "be able to address the FAA or Congressional efforts to change the rule." I think those that voted for either of those options agreed with that objective. Furthermore, I think the new ALPA policy meets that objective.




.

 

I guess we don't agree at all. I will say there was a difference -- they obviously asked it - and they obviously broke it down for us to see the percentage.

Here is how I see the meaning-

1. maintain opposition = actively (politically/publicly) oppose

2. drop opposition = do not actively oppose change to rule

3. modify policy = change the wording of ALPA policy with regard to age 60

There are huge differences in these 3 options. Do you really believe the wording didn't mean much? They just broke it down for ....what? I think they broke it down that way because they were the options available. But they lumped 2 and 3 to find a majority that does not exist.

Tony, people support #2 for many reasons. Here are some examples based on the premise that the rule change is inevitable.
A Doesn't expend resources.
B Doesn't make us obstructionist.
C Doesn't make us hypocrites on Safety.
D (this one is wordier) Next contract, doesn't put us in the uncomfortable position of demanding a 60 retirement while publicly favoring a 65.

#3 has the disadvantage of doing A/C/D in my opinion.

 

What is right, eh? If you believe over 60 flying is right, you have a few positions to choose from.

1) What would be the most "right" would be to offer all over 60 pilots the chance to come back to the cockpit, retired or on the property.

2) What is only partially "right" is SOs coming back up front.

3) It is also only partially "right" making the rule prospective.


I see you chose door #2. Most of us like door #3.

Telling me #2 is more right than #1 betrays a myopic viewpoint. FedEx pilots are not the only ones in ALPA. It also indicates a selfish attitude to not want to fight the "good" fight for all ALPA pilots over 60

I like #3 because the over 60 SOs make over $100/hr and have a great schedule. They are much better off than the folks flying for NetJets.

If you don't believe in #1, you have yet to convince me #2 is more right than #3.


I don't care if DW is "for" choice #1 or not. I don't follow him like a rock star. He should be more concerned with whether or not WE are for one of the above choices.

 

This is where all your rhetoric and comments break down. Why can we fight one issue and still be part of the conversation, but not another?

Doesn't wash.

FJ

 

[quote=TonyC;172465]ALPA asked, "Do you favor changing the FAA Age 60 rule?"

Given what's happening on Capitol Hill with the issue, that's kind of like asking, "Do you favor the sun rising in the east?" I'll give the Blue Ribbon Panel the benefit of the doubt that perhaps they developed this question before the pace of change picked up so quickly. Given that Administrator Blakey had already announced her intention to change the rule, this is the type of question that gives false hope. I think if the question had been, "Do you favor the sun rising in the west?" some of the respondants might have actually thought there was a possibility ALPA could make that happen.

Anyway, here are the results:


66.1% of FedEx pilots, and 53.7% of all respondants, oppose a change to the Age 60 rule. Many of you want to stop there and plant a flag. The trouble is, ALPA cannot make the sun rise in the west, and it cannot stop the change to the Age 60 rule. This question and its answer were therefore rendered moot.

So on to the next question.

ALPA asked, "ALPA's policy has been to oppose any change to the Age 60 rule. Suppose it is evident that the FAA or Congress is determined to change age 60 rule and that the rule will, in fact, change. Under these circumstances, do you feel that ALPA should maintain its opposition to any change in the Age 60 rule or drop its opposition or modify its policy to be able to address the FAA or Congressional efforts to change the rule?"

We answered:



If one accepts the premise of this question, he then looks at the results as representative of the will of the membership. If one refuses to accept the premise, then this table is filled with meaningless numbers. I fall into the former camp, being convinced that the rule will change, one way (the FAA) or another (Congress). In that case, 36.3% of all respondants still want to maintain our opposition to changing the Age 60 rule. Our flag is planted, and should remain planted until it is burned by the lava flowing downhill. Curiously, that's exactly (from a statistical standpoint) the same percentage of FedEx pilots (36.4%) that want ALPA to maintain its opposition to changing the rule.


Put yourself now in the shoes of the MEC Chairman, who votes on the Executive Board with the full force of every member in good standing at our airline. If he were to look only at the first question, he could vote with 66.1% of his members to oppose change to the Age 60 rule, and he could claim to have obeyed the will of the majority. That would have been very easy to do, and very easy to justify. Even after the rule does change, and we're stitting around complaining about the negative impact of the peripheral issues that were determined by Congressional staffers, we could proudly proclaim that at least we went down opposing it. We could repeat that boast as we began exposing ourselves to more stringent physical testing at earlier ages, as we began receiving less benefit from disablity plans, as we began contemplating the effects of normal retirement at Age 65, and as we dealt with a myriad of other unintended and unexpected consequences of the rule change that could have been mitigated were ALPA a participant rather than a bystander. An easy choice, and a Pyrrhic victory. (Look it up if you don't know what that means.)

Again, in the shoes of the MEC Chairman . . . I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to see that the Age 60 rule will change. When the Administrator announces the FAA's intent to change the rule, when Over-60 pilots flying under ICAO rules currently occupy our airspace, and when Congress adopts the view that the rule is Age Discrimination, it's just a matter of time. How much time is another question which could fuel debate ad nauseam, but the length does not negate the inevitability. If the MEC Chairman acknowledges the inevitablity, he must look beyond question 1 to question 2. If the Age 60 rule will change, what next?

61.9% of FedEx pilots who bothered to participate in the poll said ALPA should drop its opposition or modify its policy to be able to address the FAA or Congressional efforts to change the rule. At the crossroads where he found himself, the majority of pilots favored picking up our flag and finding a safer place to plant it. Only one out of three pilots insisted that we refuse to change our policy, that we continue to oppose any change to the Age 60 rule, that we leave our flag firmly planted exactly where it is until it is consumed in the fire. The membership's voice in this circumstance is clear -- change the policy.

And that's what our MEC Chairman did. He represented on this issue the will of the majority.


But wait, I haven't addressed retroactivity yet, have I?

First, let's go over the terminology involved, because that's important, and if we're not on the same page, it's easy to get confused. The Administrator has used the term "Retirement Age" when she has no control over retirement. She has said the rule will be prospective. What does that mean? If we take her fisrt statement (using retirement age) literally, the actual age is less relevant. While most 121 pilots retire at Age 60, many find employment (in Flight Engineer Seats, in Instructor jobs, etc.) that allows them to retire later -- with no limit. Does prospective include those pilots, or exclude them? When we first used retrospective (and I've done it myself) in this thread, we considered that retrospective would mean that those pilots still employed but over 60 would be allowed to bid back to the front seats. Retrospective in that sense would not allow those pilots who have retired (at any age, 60, older, or younger) to come back and reclaim their seniority numbers and bid the front seats.

Retrospective as I understand Capt Webb now using it would mean that any retired pilot would be allowed to come back and reclaim a seniority number and bid for the front seats as his seniority would allow. That is the most broad definition of retrospective, and the one that would result in the most negative impact on career progression for all those pilots now under age 60. Using this definition, Capt Webb does not support retroactivity.

What he does support is applying the rule change to all active flight deck members, whether they be 35 or 64, and whether they be Flight Engineer or Captain or Instructor. Every pilot with a seniority number gets the same break.


I think that's his position. Many of you disagree with that position. Based on your disagreement, and your assumption that the majority of all FedEx pilots agree with you and not him, you're ready to run him out of town. Did I miss a poll question, or did he have to make this decision without a poll? Given his responsibility to represent all pilots of the airline, all pilots of the class and craft, all pilots of all seniority numbers, he had to decide what was best for all pilots absent a finger in the wind poll. Our union could have sacrificed our most junior members, those not even yet hired by allowing The Company to substitute a Defined Contribution Retirement plan for our Defined Benefit Retirement Plan, but we didn't. We stuck up for that seemingly insignificant subset of our seniority list because it was the RIGHT thing to do. Likewise, it would have been very easy, very politically expedient, apparently even fairly popular to sacrifice the small subset of our seniority list, to ignore their seniority rights, to refuse to stand up for them, but Dave didn't. He stuck up for them because it was the RIGHT thing to do.

And if you think their sticking around to delay your training by 1 bid will harm your career, you haven't even begun to contemplate how much damage could be done by abandoning the seniority system.


It's time to put away the "He went against the majority" arguments -- they don't wash. When poll data was present, he represented the majority. When poll data was not present, he represented the best interests of us all.]

Tony, I've read this many times and am astonished. You really do come across as some kind of Dave Webb sycophant PR guy. Read it yourself. Is this really the way you wanted to present this argument?

 

I happen to agree with him on this. Not only did I write it, I proofread it -- a few times. So I guess, yes, I presented the argument just as I wanted to present it.




.

 

In your list, Option 2 requires that ALPA ignore its own policy. You are suggesting, I think, that ALPA ignore its own policy to Oppose change to the Age 60 rule. If it's OK to ignore one ALPA policy, it should be OK to ignore any other ALPA policy, right?

I don't think so. The only way to drop opposition to changing the Age 60 Rule is to modify ALPA policy that requires that we oppose it. If the policy no longer states that we will oppose the Age 60 change, then I suppose we could adopt a Do-nothing stance. I believe you are suggesting that Option 2 allows a Do-Nothing stance with no change to ALPA policy. That is not correct. ALPA policy was to oppose change, and "Do Nothing" is not opposing, therefore it does not comply with that policy.




.

 

The difference between #1 and # 2 is Class and Craft. Retired pilots no longer hold seniority numbers, and are no longer members of the Class and Craft. ALPA has a responsibility to represent all members of the Class and Craft, not all former members.

The difference between #2 and #3 is seniority rights. While all members of the Class and Craft have seniority numbers, choosing #3 would deny a small portion of them the privilege to exercise their seniority rights.

Option #2 protects the seniority rights of all members of the Class and Craft, and that's the responsibility of the Collective Bargaining Agent.


(And depending on what the definition of prosepcetive winds up being, #3 and #2 might wind up being the same.)




.

 

Man, after reading the last several pages of statical BS for and against question #1 vs #2 or #3, I'm ready to puke. Look, maybe it's because I fly the tri-motor antique and usually take a less complex view of life, but in my opinion, if our MEC Chairman had represented the overwhelming majority (their words, not mine) of FDX pilots and said 'NO' when asked if FDX ALPA was in favor of changing the current Age 60 rule, 90% of this blowback would never have developed!

If our Chairman had answered NO, would ALPA National have changed it's position anyway....you bet your sweet a$$. It would have passed by something less than 80%.

If our Chairman had answered No, would he have been barred from the room and not been able to participate in future discussions in that Executive Board meeting? I think not, he still would have been at the table and able to make his case for retro and anything else he had on his mind.

However, by saying YES to changing the regulated age to 65, our Chairman turned his back and broke faith with the (lets all say it outloud) overwhelming majority of FDX pilots, and that has us pi$$ed off. Our Chairman is supposed to represent (not lead, thank you!) us at the national level. He knew the feelings of the overwhelming majority and chose to ignore them. He broke the trust. He created the wedge which now splits our local union into junior and senior ranks and no amount of statistical BS about question 1 or 2 or question #457 will change this situation.