nightfreight

In JL's last diatribe, he mentioned that word on the street is the rejection of the LOA is partly due to retaliation for ALPA's Age 60 reversal.

Honestly, I have to admit I lost faith in FDX ALPA leadership after the Age 60 debacle. When you turn your back on the overwhelming majority, trust is lost. I probably would have said my Negotiating Committee speaks for me and believe that it was probably the best they could do. Now that they have lost my trust, I wonder what their motives are. Unfortunately, I believe that we won't follow them and that new leadership is essential.

I keep hearing about extraterritorial scope protection, yet I have no idea where in the LOA that this is remotely addressed. The LOA might be a decent deal in many locations worldwide. Unfortunately, Paris and Hong Kong make the list of 2 of the top 10 high price cities to live in. I am not about fleecing the company, but a stipend for these two cities is a cost of doing business. The cost neutral options are not feasible for most of us. With the new "enhanced" option, you get $2700/month, yet you get to move a whole 500 pounds of goods. In the three year option, you don't even get $2700. You have to upgrade to make up for the lost money, and in most cases, you would still come out behind.

I am not sure what JLs job is. Does the company think he has our ear and that he is someone we should believe? I think he was did a fine job as chief pilot, but why are we hearing from now?

Haywood JB

I would haste to say that when the MEC took their stance on the age 60 issue, it woke a lot of members up. Now instead of blindly following, ie speaking for me, we are questioning what exactly is said and voted upon. I think there is an issue of trust, and they are showing that they are not in the interest of the entire pilot group, but a select few, and that is why there is a retaliation. If the LOA were in the best interest of the pilot group(no STV, cost feasible for those with families), we would vote for it and go with the flow, but it is far from that. Age 60 is a whole other can of worms that will be near and dear after this vote closes. Honestly I think it is apples and oranges(I could be wrong though).

HJB

prezbear

Night,

In 1896, the US Supreme Court upheld the ability of states and localities to mandate racial segregation. President Wilson showed continued political support for that decision when he segregated the civil service in 1913. I think it would be fairly accurate to say that an overwhelming majority of Americans believed that racial segregation was the right thing to do in the first half of the twentieth century. It wasn't until the 1954 Supreme Court decision of Brown versus the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas that the tide really began to turn against segregation. Would anyone admit that an overwhelming majority of Americans in the last century were correct in their thinking?

On November 23, 2006, the International Civil Aviation Organization (of which, the United States of America is a signatory) raised the upper limit of the retirement age of professional pilots to 65. After that date, the government would allow airline pilots past the age of sixty to fly in US airspace. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), in his comments to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation begin his speech with the following words:


"Mr. President, I rise today, as an experienced pilot over age 60, along with my colleagues, Senator Stevens, Senator Lieberman and Senator Feingold, to once again introduce a bill that will help end age discrimination among commercial airline pilots. Our bill will abolish the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) arcane Age 60 Rule a regulation that has unjustly forced the retirement of airline pilots the day they turn 60 for more than 45 years.
Our bipartisan bill called the ``Freedom to Fly Act'' would replace the dated FAA rule with a new international standard adopted this past November by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) which allows pilots to fly to 65 as long as the copilot is under 60.
Since the adoption of the ICAO standard in November of this year, foreign pilots have been flying and working in U.S. Airspace under this new standard up to 65 years of age a privilege the FAA has not been willing to grant to American pilots flying the same aircraft in the same airspace.
This bill may seem familiar; I have introduced similar legislation in the past two Congresses and I am dedicated to ensuring its passage this year. And it has never been more urgent.
We cannot continue to allow our FAA to force the retirement of America's most experienced commercial pilots at the ripe young age of 60 while they say to their counterparts flying for foreign flags ``Welcome to our airspace.'' "

Like it or not, our stand against changing the Age 60 rule was a stand for age discrimination. All the congressional support that ALPA had ever cultivated and maintained was evaporating quicker than you could say to a cabbie, "Capitol Hill! And step on it!" We were on the wrong side of the age discrimination issue, and the only way this union could prevent itself from being banished to the realm of political insignificance, was to change its stance. The moment ALPA reversed their decades long position against changing the retire age was the very instant that they received calls from their long-time congressional support. Thus, ALPA is now able to help craft how this legislation will be enacted and hopefully, minimize it's impact on the profession.

ALPA President Prater ran on a platform that included changing the Age 60 rule. As I have heard it told, it was Prater that put out the Age 60 survey without prior discussion with the ALPA Board of Directors. Remember the question that asked something like, If the Age 60 will is to be changed, would you want to be involved? This is apparently what gave him license to proceed with the political change of position.

For what it's worth, DW takes the criticism that they didn't communicate well with this matter. If you have some time, why not give him a call and discuss it with him yourself.

My point Night, is, don't blame FDX ALPA for the Age 60 reversal. Also, if you wonder what the motives of the Negotiating Committee were during this LOA, I suggest you send them an email, or better yet, give them a call.

Prez

ConnerP

I haven't heard anyone on the street say a NO vote is retaliation for age 60 but I have heard plenty say the LOA is a dog.

Your quote above is exactly the point. JL is doing his job. LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN.... JL is doing his job.

How many guys have you heard refer to JL as "a straight shooter" or "a stand up guy" or "one of the guys" or say that they "trust him"? The company thinks he has our ear because... HE DOES.

The problem is that JL is "the company". He is not "one of us"!
After all, does he or does he not sit across from us at the negotiating table? That is part of his job. Another part must be to sell us this LOA by negotiating directly with the membership via e-mail.

The phrase "my negotiating committee speaks for me" was not a FedEx original. It means for the company to negotiate at the bargaining table and not directly with the membership. It does not mean that the membership will automatically rubber stamp whatever the NC brings to them.

I'm out-
Conner

applefritter

Which side of the mandated racial segregation issue were you on in 1896?

Lipout1

Prez or is it DW. How does the majority opinion at FDX ALPA have anything to do with segregation or the price of soy beans. The leadership is elected to represent the membership. If the membership wants something, the elected leaders are suppose to do it. This crap of we know better and are not going to listen to you is what will get them fired and causing the problems with this LOA.

BrownGirls YUM

How would changing the mandatory retirement age to 65 be any less of an age discriminator than 60?

Lipout1

Ditto! Why stop at 65? Isn't that discrimation?

RockyTopFlyer

Wait five years when all the pro-age 65 pilots are about to turn 64. Many will realize they are still broke and then try to move the age limit to 70.

applefritter

Let's call it the International Aviation Standard Retirement Age Harmonization Program.