FDX: Your IRS tax dollars hard at work
01-10-2008, 10:06 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by subicpilot
I've got a better idea. Lets give a targeted pay raise to her retirement, since she was negatively impacted by age 65...after all, she was counting on having more money than she's going to have...
Sorry, I just couldn't resist. I guess the logic works both ways...
Sorry, I just couldn't resist. I guess the logic works both ways...
01-10-2008, 10:19 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: MD-11 F/O
Posts: 146
She is not alone. Here is another squaring off with Uncle Sam:
http://www.wmctv.com/global/story.asp?s=6202079
If convicted of a felony you lose your FAA ticket too.
http://www.wmctv.com/global/story.asp?s=6202079
If convicted of a felony you lose your FAA ticket too.
01-10-2008, 10:31 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: A300CAP
Posts: 479
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
The logic might work if you show me how she was negatively impacted by age 65.
She can't come back because of age 65, as LJ suggested tongue-in-cheek, any more than we can give her a pay raise because of it, as I suggested tongue-in-cheek.
My little witty sarcastic "jab" was meant to show that it is just as silly to suggest that we allow a person who has retired to come back to work because of financial hardship, as it is to suggest giving someone a targeted pay raise because they didn't get promoted as fast as they thought they should have.
01-10-2008, 10:41 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by subicpilot
Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees.
She can't come back because of age 65, as LJ suggested tongue-in-cheek, any more than we can give her a pay raise because of it, as I suggested tongue-in-cheek.
My little witty sarcastic "jab" was meant to show that it is just as silly to suggest that we allow a person who has retired to come back to work because of financial hardship, as it is to suggest giving someone a targeted pay raise because they didn't get promoted as fast as they thought they should have.
She can't come back because of age 65, as LJ suggested tongue-in-cheek, any more than we can give her a pay raise because of it, as I suggested tongue-in-cheek.
My little witty sarcastic "jab" was meant to show that it is just as silly to suggest that we allow a person who has retired to come back to work because of financial hardship, as it is to suggest giving someone a targeted pay raise because they didn't get promoted as fast as they thought they should have.
01-10-2008, 10:59 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by Busboy
Longevity pay? I don't get no stinking longevity pay!!!
I just wanted to take this opportunity to be the first to ask where are the bidpacks? I know they aren't due yet but I wanted to be first.
01-10-2008, 11:02 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: A300CAP
Posts: 479
Ok. Please explain then how YOUR longevity deserves to be rewarded more than MINE.
My understanding of this "targeted pay raise" concept is to compensate senior first officers for lack of seat progression brought on by regulated age increase from 60-65. To follow that same logic, we would have to apply that same pay raise to:
- F/E's who didn't make F/O
- Narrow body F/O's who didn't make wide body F/O or narrow body CAP
- Wide body F/O's who didn't make narrow body CAP or wide body CAP
- Narrow body CAP's who didn't make wide body CAP.
I just think the whole concept is without merit. A knee-jerk reaction to the cries of a few most affected by age 65. Remember, we are not talking about furlough assistance. No one is getting ready to lose their house.
And seat progression was not "artificially limited". ALPA national did what it thought best for the industry as a whole. It helped hundreds of pilots who lost most of their retirements and gave them a chance to work a few more years. So it's going to hurt the junior members now, but on the flip side, it will give you that same opportunity to work a few more years if some financial misfortune comes your way. So it's unfortunate, but asking to redistribute any financial gains this crewforce might have coming toward a particular seat position or seniority is just, well, dumb. So say we do it and 3 years from now it comes to pass. All those guys we just voted the raise for now get upgrades to CAP. Brilliant. Have you thought any of this through?
I know getting stuck in the right/back seat stings, but it's just bad timing.
Most pilots will still spend more time in the left seat for the life of their career than the right, with the exception of possibly retired military pilots. So you'd be stabbing yourself right in the paycheck with this stunt.
My understanding of this "targeted pay raise" concept is to compensate senior first officers for lack of seat progression brought on by regulated age increase from 60-65. To follow that same logic, we would have to apply that same pay raise to:
- F/E's who didn't make F/O
- Narrow body F/O's who didn't make wide body F/O or narrow body CAP
- Wide body F/O's who didn't make narrow body CAP or wide body CAP
- Narrow body CAP's who didn't make wide body CAP.
I just think the whole concept is without merit. A knee-jerk reaction to the cries of a few most affected by age 65. Remember, we are not talking about furlough assistance. No one is getting ready to lose their house.
And seat progression was not "artificially limited". ALPA national did what it thought best for the industry as a whole. It helped hundreds of pilots who lost most of their retirements and gave them a chance to work a few more years. So it's going to hurt the junior members now, but on the flip side, it will give you that same opportunity to work a few more years if some financial misfortune comes your way. So it's unfortunate, but asking to redistribute any financial gains this crewforce might have coming toward a particular seat position or seniority is just, well, dumb. So say we do it and 3 years from now it comes to pass. All those guys we just voted the raise for now get upgrades to CAP. Brilliant. Have you thought any of this through?
I know getting stuck in the right/back seat stings, but it's just bad timing.
Most pilots will still spend more time in the left seat for the life of their career than the right, with the exception of possibly retired military pilots. So you'd be stabbing yourself right in the paycheck with this stunt.
01-10-2008, 11:28 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Posts: 675
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
Ah but see that is where your logic fails. It makes sense to reward seat progression when progression is available. When progression is artificially limited it is just as logical to reward longevity. It is not "didn't get promoted as fast as they thought they should have" it is their potential for promotion was undermined by their union. I could just as logically argue that the payscales should be adjusted so I can retire at 60 with the same high 5 that I would have had before my union hosed me.
01-10-2008, 12:04 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by subicpilot
Ok. Please explain then how YOUR longevity deserves to be rewarded more than MINE.
My understanding of this "targeted pay raise" concept is to compensate senior first officers for lack of seat progression brought on by regulated age increase from 60-65. To follow that same logic, we would have to apply that same pay raise to:
- F/E's who didn't make F/O
- Narrow body F/O's who didn't make wide body F/O or narrow body CAP
- Wide body F/O's who didn't make narrow body CAP or wide body CAP
- Narrow body CAP's who didn't make wide body CAP.
I just think the whole concept is without merit. A knee-jerk reaction to the cries of a few most affected by age 65. Remember, we are not talking about furlough assistance. No one is getting ready to lose their house.
And seat progression was not "artificially limited". ALPA national did what it thought best for the industry as a whole. It helped hundreds of pilots who lost most of their retirements and gave them a chance to work a few more years. So it's going to hurt the junior members now, but on the flip side, it will give you that same opportunity to work a few more years if some financial misfortune comes your way. So it's unfortunate, but asking to redistribute any financial gains this crewforce might have coming toward a particular seat position or seniority is just, well, dumb. So say we do it and 3 years from now it comes to pass. All those guys we just voted the raise for now get upgrades to CAP. Brilliant. Have you thought any of this through?
I know getting stuck in the right/back seat stings, but it's just bad timing.
Most pilots will still spend more time in the left seat for the life of their career than the right, with the exception of possibly retired military pilots. So you'd be stabbing yourself right in the paycheck with this stunt.
My understanding of this "targeted pay raise" concept is to compensate senior first officers for lack of seat progression brought on by regulated age increase from 60-65. To follow that same logic, we would have to apply that same pay raise to:
- F/E's who didn't make F/O
- Narrow body F/O's who didn't make wide body F/O or narrow body CAP
- Wide body F/O's who didn't make narrow body CAP or wide body CAP
- Narrow body CAP's who didn't make wide body CAP.
I just think the whole concept is without merit. A knee-jerk reaction to the cries of a few most affected by age 65. Remember, we are not talking about furlough assistance. No one is getting ready to lose their house.
And seat progression was not "artificially limited". ALPA national did what it thought best for the industry as a whole. It helped hundreds of pilots who lost most of their retirements and gave them a chance to work a few more years. So it's going to hurt the junior members now, but on the flip side, it will give you that same opportunity to work a few more years if some financial misfortune comes your way. So it's unfortunate, but asking to redistribute any financial gains this crewforce might have coming toward a particular seat position or seniority is just, well, dumb. So say we do it and 3 years from now it comes to pass. All those guys we just voted the raise for now get upgrades to CAP. Brilliant. Have you thought any of this through?
I know getting stuck in the right/back seat stings, but it's just bad timing.
Most pilots will still spend more time in the left seat for the life of their career than the right, with the exception of possibly retired military pilots. So you'd be stabbing yourself right in the paycheck with this stunt.
The exception above is a pretty big exception here at FEDEX. And a lot more pilots will be hurt by this then were helped by the FEDEX MEC push for retro activity. How is this fair?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
