Don't Forget About Age 60!!
 

Purple Bros/Sisters:

Don't forget about the age 60 issue! I was talking to my state senator earlier this week and he thought the majority of pilots out there are in favor of increasing the madatory retirement age to 65.

You see, he thought that if our biggest labor union was in favor of age 65, that obviously the majority of pilots must be for it, seeing as how ALPA represents US. He was quite intrigued that wasn't the case.:confused: He mentioned he would be out of a job if he did that:eek:

Don't believe ALPA's BS!! Stay engaged with your elected officials. It is NOT over yet.

Fred

Let’s not give up the fight yet. Congress is still in session until 16Nov. We each need to send one more email asking to maintain the current rule or support ALPA’s proposal on changing the Age 60 retirement age with provisions. APAAD.org is planning a blitz campaign this week in Washington, DC. They don’t consider the pilots who want to retire while healthy and live a long life or damages done to other pilot’s careers.

Their own website announces the surrender of Captains T.L and J.B.L and another Capt J.J “hits the wall” on Nov 9th. I am sure there are many 50 year olds willing to take up their fight because it is about "discrimination". Yeah right, those in their 50’s want to advance their seniority and will not join the whining until they are 58 ½.

The law will change, it is up to us to change it in a way that protects accrued benefits, does not force us to work another 5 years and allows pilot to keep B funds in tact.

Addresses to the Senate
http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

Addresses to Congress
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Is this another example of ALPA supporting its membership???

So we have to resort to appealing to our elected officials, while OUR very own organization works against OUR interests using OUR money!

Good Grief!!!

Aren't unions wonderful?! Sorry, couldn't resist!:eek::rolleyes:

Take a look at hiring at FedEx and UPS right now. It is stagnent. I have heard that both companies plan to hire almost no one in 2008. And this is with age 60 in effect.

For all of you who thought that changing age 60 would not dampen hiring and seniority movement, what do you think now??

I just hope age 60 lasts as long as possible. Right now it will last atleast through the first of the year. I am hoping it takes several more years.

Let it go.
43% wanted the rule to change outright.
62% wanted ALPA to drop/modify its existing opposition of the rule if it was evident that the rule would be changed in the near future.

Age 60 change is a done deal for ICAO pilots.
Age 60 verbiage is in a plethora of spending bills in both houses.
The number of Age 60 supporters in Congress has gone from a handful to hundreds.
The FAA is working the issue via NPRM.

Some times you have to cut your losses and press on.

Ya I remember how that question was worded.. Definately in a way to argue the change... It was a BS question THEN and NOW.. And it only existed to make the same case you are trying to make! :mad:

Also I might add.. ALPA's change of position (Straight at the Prater Road Show) was to kick the Age60 change out of legislation and back to the FAA NPRM process... Folks are getting on board to support it because of this change in policy by the largest Pilot's Union... It has gone from influencing it to us wanting it.. :mad:

Politicians are very good at telling you what you want to hear to keep your support.

The ones you correspond with may know exactly what is going on, how they will vote and how you think about it. But they don't want to look like the bad guy. They feel the pressure to act on a perceived age discrimination issue. Their non-pilot constituents wouldn't understand if they showed ANY inclination to vote against the elderly. They also don't want you or I to think they are intentionally voting "against" the membership of a labor union. Even if it is just a pilots' union. They feel they can stay in favor with us if they say the right thing while voting for age 65. They have spent many years learning how to appeal to more than one side of an issue. Also, if it comes down to siding with labor or the elderly, I don't think labor will win.

Don't give up the fight but don't expect much. We may still be able to work on getting rid of the retro thing.

The real shame is that we'll never know what would have happened if ALPA national had shown some stones and remained opposed to the change. I have a lot of respect for the APA and the NW MEC for standing tall in the face of adversity.

I only wish my union representatives had shown similar resolve.

FJ

Always have been opposed to ANY support to changing the Age 60 rule. Disappointed eternally in FDX ALPA for cutting our legs out underneath us by supporting the change. Old news; nothing we can do about history. BUT, the Age 60 guys going to Flex positions instead of plumbing does two negative things to all of us under 60. First, it keeps them in the game for eventually going back to a window seat without plumbing as the contract and law dictate they should AND it reduces the number of line pilots the company would have to utilize to fill these flex spots. I know, since the flex deal got gutted nobody wants to do it anymore so let'em do a job nobody else wants to do. But, what if they couldn't get the necessary number of under 60 guys to flex? They'd probably have to improve the benefits that made being a flex so attractive for so long which would in turn allow line guys to migrate to these open flex jobs. That in turn would reduce the number of "line" pilots which would ultimately require the company to either increase pilot numbers or enhance pay rewards for pilots to fly more then BLG. Big picture, why doesn't OUR Union take a stand on significant steps taken by the company which ultimately negatively impacts the careers and quality of life of the pilots they are SUPPOSED to represent? Curious to see if DW and his gang respond or ignore this latest move by the company to enhance the FDA LOAs without negotiating with the Union. If they don't take a stand, then really, what do we need a NATIONAL union for?

Hey Ham, I didn't see a lot of guys bailing out of the FLEX jobs because the system was gutted. These guys are still making more than the average line pilot, they just aren't making it as easy. So, I don't think there is a problem filling FLEX jobs with line pilots.

The problem is the company doesn't know what to do with all the herpes that won't go away. If they make them all FE's then they only get to use them once or twice a decade because they can sit reserve, call in sick and use vacation to never actually see a 27 Panel. By making them FLEX they actually get some use out of them for the money spent keeping them around.

Let's hope the age 60 retroactive issue gets resolved one way or the other soon.

So you're saying that only the over 60 guys are sitting reserve, using their earned sick time (that the company won't pay them for otherwise), and their earned vacation to not work? Sort of sounds like a lot of guys I know, who live in domicile and are fairly senior. As you well know, that's been going on here since before you hit puberty.

As for over 60 guys (or any other guys, for that matter) being qualified on one jet and flexing on another, I had called FedEx ALPA about this issue and DM got back to me last night, saying that: "there's only one guy in this situation; the union knew about it; and besides it's allowable in the contract."

JJ, As usual when it comes to the over 60 issue you take the high road.

1. What I was saying is if you have 200 guys on the 727 panel and only need 100 alot of guys are getting paid to sit around. Putting them to work as a FLEX gets something in return for the pay they are getting.

2. FedEx didn't exist when I hit puberty.

3. The part about the union knowing of only one guy doesn't mean it is not going on. It only means they are willing to acknowledge the one they know about.

Ditto!!!!!!!!!!

....Ummmm.....

I'm betting on a solid nothing.

MaxKts,

I certainly understand the part about putting s/o's to work, rather than paying them to just sit around. But since that scam (the not working much for a normal monthly paycheck) has been around for a long time, and that coupled with the fact that it's happening in each and every seat, in each and every jet, to me it doesn't matter who's (over or under 60 guys) doing it. If the company wants to man their airline this way, it's nice that some guys are getting paid to do nothing. Wish it were me. Wait a minute.... it is me:D, as I'm on long term disability, just sitting here, getting paid.

As for the union acknowledging that they know of only ONE over 60 guy doing the flexy thing in ANC, this happens to coincide with that very same piece of information that I personally called SM (MD-11 ACP) about the other day. He confirmed that there's only one. Since I'm not paranoid, and I truly believe that everyone is NOT out to get me, I feel that I've been told the truth, and that there's only one s/o doing flex work in the Mad Dog. As you said, it's better to get some work out of him for his pay, although I look at it in a slightly different way. The way I see it, he's providing a valuable service by supporting and training guys on the MD-11, all for his lowly s/o's pay. Perhaps a BZ is in order.:rolleyes:

Or ... he could be sitting at home drinking maitais, while enjoying his retirement and taking home the same pay? Hmmm ... I'll never understand these guys?

But, then, there's lots of stuff you'll never understand.

Hey Mayday,

It's really not important that you understand them. It's only important that they understand themselves, and what they elect to do with their lives is their business, not yours. I understand where someone would pass judgment, based on their own likes and dislikes, but that doesn't make it right. If a guy wants to work past what you consider a reasonable retirement age, that's for him to decide. Hopefully you can understand this. If not, then there's no hope for you at all in the context of this discussion. Best to you.

JJ

JJ,

I think it's a bit sad (pathetic actually) that these over 60 guys (that could be collecting a VERY GOOD retirement!) have no identity or self worth outside of their aviation life.

Geez ... get a hobby, golf, fishing, gardening, restoring an old car or airplane, take some college classes, volunteer at the local homeless shelter, coach a kids little league team ... you get the idea. There are TONS of ways to contribute to the community that might give you a sense of fulfillment and make you glad you have a really good retirement program.

But, I wouldn't expect someone with a different viewpoint to understand stuff like that? Best to you too ...


Mark

PS ... JJ, Please PM me your personal information. I'd like to take out a life insurance policy on you so that maybe I can retire BEFORE age 60. This working nonsense is really starting to interfere with my time off. Thanks

JJ, I beg to differ. When they elect to do and/or push for something that affects my life, it becomes my business.

Regardless of whether it affects you or not, it's not your business. You do not get to decide how others lead their lives, with the possible exception of your wife. And I doubt if you even have that much authority to tell her how to lead hers.

Yet you seem to be very willing to tell us how to lead ours.

Can't have it both ways JJ.

Did anyone read the new AOD magazine? Great article from the CFO about how each revenue dollar is broken down in terms of costs. Wages and salaries were approximately 1/3 of our costs. So let's consider what the over 60 policy is doing to FDX financially. Approximately, we have 200 over 60 SO's in the DC10 and another 200 in the Boeing. We'll assume DOS+1 and 15 year longevity for all SO's.

DC10
((1) crewmember x 140.90/hr) x 1000 hrs = $140,900 per yr
200 * 140,900 = 28.2 million dollars per year

727
((1) crewmember x 123.91/hr) x 1000 hrs = $123,910 per yr
200 * 123,910 = 24.8 million dollars per year

So, as of now, FDX is spending 53 million dollars per year for labor from the over 60 engineers, of which they see very little productivity due to sick time, vacations, lack of flying, and general over-populus of the seats. This number accounts for only wages and no other costs are factored in.

Now, considering the AGE 60 debacle looms for another two years, FDX is expecting to retire another 500 guys, assuming 80% hang around and "take" an engineer seat, that's another 400 guys and puts FDX over 100 million per year just in wages alone.

Now, there are two arguments to this. First, if I was over 60 and I knew I'd be able to sit on my butt and make $140 grand per year with minimal effort, I would do it. In contrast, from a non-over 60 perspective, this situation has the potential to really hurt FDX and ALL of its employees. I'm pretty sure JL didn't think of the financial impact when he put his retirement policy in motion, but looking at the rough numbers, it's in everybody's interest, except the over 60 guys, to close that loophole. It's nothing but fat that needs to be trimmed.

Sure, you'll hear "it's none of your business" and some other condascending comment, but in reality, it is our business considering it affects every employee of FDX. I'm sure at least 50 or 100 million could be better spent for the future of FDX (FDA's, LOA's, contract 2010, new airframes, new hires, COLA's) than spending it on over 60 SO's that are dead weight.

"Yet you seem to be very willing to tell us how to lead ours."


Over and over again. JJ is never shy about sharing his wisdom from on high and tossing in the odd lecture now and then about how we should behave on this board to boot. Of course who I am to comment on one who has been to the other side and made his way back? Anyway, good point that is likely lost to some on this board (not just JJ) with a clear double standard...

i agree with freightdoggydog...

you hit the nail right on the head

IMO, the age 60 thing is as much a safety issue as anything else. I currently with a gent, who I like alot, but he is 63 now and I have seen his skills decline markedly over the past few years. It is pure and simple. I know ICAA has upped the age to 65, but with certain requirements, like crew complement, etc. One thing I know is that a class one physical in Europe is a two full blown a$$ pain, not the 30 min look and listen it is here. This should never pass for that reason. Whats next, well age 65 is discrimination, lets fight for 70. Please!! The age 60 rule is a good rule and its been effect long enough for all to plan for it. If you didn't, oh well, tough!! Don't take it out on the 95% of the rest of us.

JJ, and please, please tell us how if we fly fighters for 250 years we will know: "to not panic now, because we can panic later." I always love that sage advice.

7/32

YGTBSM, JJ you have totally lost it!!

Your cost numbers for the over 60 crewmembers doesn't take into account that if they were retired most of them would be drawing over $100 grand in retirement with "0" productivity. Even with large vacation and sick banks the company is getting some productivity out of these crewmembers. Plus once they do leave the actuarial tables say they will be almost dead so not a lot of retirement money will have to be doled out.

Machz,

You fail to mention that the $100k+ "retirement" wages the over 60 boys would collect is provided by an annuity already purchased by the company. So the above analysis is valid in terms of annual drain on company resources by the Kling-ons. Also, I have no doubt the Accountants are all over this. If/when 65 comes to be look for the Company to say "OK we'll pay you but not train you for a window seat saving.......approx 450 guys x 100k training cost = 45mil.

The company hasn't purchased annuity's. The company has funds set aside to provide for future/expected expenditures. Every Age 60+ guy who works til he dies helps make my pension more secure by not requiring the company spend any of that pot of money.

And, while them continuing to work has an impact on me, it isn't my business. Just as it isn't my business when someone senior to me decides whether to upgrade or not. If it was my business, then I could tell them not to take my upgrade slot, I could make retirement mandatory at age 60. But-I can't....because it's not my business

I'll bet the geezer continuing to work just decreases the amount the company has to pay in. Your pensions security is only as safe as next year stockholders report.

OK, here goes. This will be my last post on anything at all related to the Age 60 thing. After this, I'm going to try to just be content with reading all of your comments about it.

1. I've never told any of you how to lead your lives. Frankly, I could care less how you do it, just so long as when we are/were flying FedEx jets, you do it in a professional manner.

2. If you want to work until you're a hundred, or retire next month at age 45, both work for me.

3. If someone wants to work past 60, and the contract says it's ok, then maybe it's ok. If it effects you adversely, get it changed. Certainly you all should have the ability to effect that change with the union. After all, you're in the majority, aren't you?

4. I firmly stand by my statement "Regardless of whether it affects you or not, it's not your business. You do not get to decide how others lead their lives". What I was saying here is that what others choose to do with their lives, as long as it's legal, and causes no harm, is neither your concern, nor your responsibility to try to change said lifestyle. And please don't tell me that because it effects you financially, you have that right, because as someone else here said, if that were the case, you'd be trying to talk anyone senior to you out of upgrading and "taking your slot.", or at minimum, bad-mouthing them for doing so.

Well, obviously I could go on for hours, but it's time for my nap. But before I go, I want to share one last word of wisdom, this specifically is directed to V1 oh, no: When you dress up, try to remember to wear matching socks.:D

JJ Out!

Hey, I'm just happy if I remember to put socks on, if they match I'm way ahead of the game:D

7/32

PROMISE??:D

APA Urges President Bush Preserve Age 60
 

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/071113/20071113006355.html?.v=1 :D:D


“We will let our passengers know that for safety’s sake, it’s the right thing to do,” he said.

Wow, a union with some stones.

Rock on APA.

Sure wish we could have seen what would happen if ALPA hadn't caved.

FJ

APA Rocks! At least they listen to the majority of their membership!

Even though no one else does:( Remember their last strike, lasted all of about two seconds before Clinton stepped in. There are a few good things about being tied to the AFLCIO. Don't get me wrong, I voted against "W" both times.
fbh