New DW message
06-06-2008 | 11:33 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
From: 757/767
DW may be responsible for the Oberstar/ALPA retro language, but that doesn't change the fact that retro was in both the Senate and House bills (S.65 and H.R.1125) that were made moot when Oberstar but age 65 in the FAA Reauthorization bill, which was subsequently passed as the Freedom to Fly Act when FAA Reauthorization stalled.
Last edited by Roberto; 06-06-2008 at 11:39 AM.
06-06-2008 | 12:06 PM
#33
Contract 2021
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 453
Likes: 4
From: 777 - Both
Very good point...I think its time for someone to suggest an amendment so that if we are affected by a BLG reduction then the pay for the MEC Chairman (whomever that is), is reduced to the same.
06-06-2008 | 01:04 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
DW may be responsible for the Oberstar/ALPA retro language, but that doesn't change the fact that retro was in both the Senate and House bills (S.65 and H.R.1125) that were made moot when Oberstar but age 65 in the FAA Reauthorization bill, which was subsequently passed as the Freedom to Fly Act when FAA Reauthorization stalled.
S.65 did not allow retroactivity for pilots who had left the company, but apparently would allow it for those who became instructors or SOs.
HR.1125 did not allow retroactivity for anyone who had reached age 60 prior to the effective date. Even if they were still with the company as SOs or whatever.
But the larger point is that without DWs intervention, we would not have SOs returning to the left seat.
06-06-2008 | 01:31 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
From: 757/767
You are wrong.
S.65 did not allow retroactivity for pilots who had left the company, but apparently would allow it for those who became instructors or SOs.
HR.1125 did not allow retroactivity for anyone who had reached age 60 prior to the effective date. Even if they were still with the company as SOs or whatever.
But the larger point is that without DWs intervention, we would not have SOs returning to the left seat.
S.65 did not allow retroactivity for pilots who had left the company, but apparently would allow it for those who became instructors or SOs.
HR.1125 did not allow retroactivity for anyone who had reached age 60 prior to the effective date. Even if they were still with the company as SOs or whatever.
But the larger point is that without DWs intervention, we would not have SOs returning to the left seat.
06-06-2008 | 01:36 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 712
Likes: 0
From: 777 Multi-tasker
I guess it would be possible to debate this untill gambler's anonymous intervein's, however, the greater point is; DW has lost the confidence of the membership and is therefore no longer an effective leader of our MEC. In these critical times it would seem we need a leadership the rank and file can get behind. DW is not that leader and should "do the right thing"
06-06-2008 | 01:48 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
From: 757/767
Here is the applicable language from S.65, which was identical to the language in its companion bill, H.R.1125
(a) In General- A pilot who has attained 60 years of age may serve as a pilot of an aircraft operated by an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, until attaining 65 years of age only if the pilot serves--(1) as a required pilot in multi-crew aircraft operations; and(2) with another pilot serving as a required pilot in such multi-crew aircraft operations who has not yet attained 60 years of age...
(c) Applicability- The provisions of subsection (a) shall not provide a basis for a claim of seniority under any labor agreement in effect between a recognized bargaining unit for pilots and an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, that is made by a person who was a pilot and who attained 60 years of age before the effective date described in subsection (e) and is seeking a position as a pilot with such air carrier following that person's termination or cessation of employment or promotion or transfer to another position with such air carrier pursuant to section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the day before the effective date described in subsection (e).
The sentence beginning with "The provisions of subsection (a) shall not provide a basis for a claim of seniority..." is translated in plain English to mean that the change in the age by itself does not provide a basis for a claim of seniority...
However, depending upon one's collective bargaining agreement, there may be a claim.
I cannot speak for FDX's contract, but the UPS contract did provide the necessary and sufficient basis.
(a) In General- A pilot who has attained 60 years of age may serve as a pilot of an aircraft operated by an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, until attaining 65 years of age only if the pilot serves--(1) as a required pilot in multi-crew aircraft operations; and(2) with another pilot serving as a required pilot in such multi-crew aircraft operations who has not yet attained 60 years of age...
(c) Applicability- The provisions of subsection (a) shall not provide a basis for a claim of seniority under any labor agreement in effect between a recognized bargaining unit for pilots and an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, that is made by a person who was a pilot and who attained 60 years of age before the effective date described in subsection (e) and is seeking a position as a pilot with such air carrier following that person's termination or cessation of employment or promotion or transfer to another position with such air carrier pursuant to section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the day before the effective date described in subsection (e).
The sentence beginning with "The provisions of subsection (a) shall not provide a basis for a claim of seniority..." is translated in plain English to mean that the change in the age by itself does not provide a basis for a claim of seniority...
However, depending upon one's collective bargaining agreement, there may be a claim.
I cannot speak for FDX's contract, but the UPS contract did provide the necessary and sufficient basis.
Last edited by Roberto; 06-06-2008 at 02:50 PM. Reason: spelling
06-06-2008 | 02:18 PM
#38
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
I guess it would be possible to debate this untill gambler's anonymous intervein's, however, the greater point is; DW has lost the confidence of the membership and is therefore no longer an effective leader of our MEC. In these critical times it would seem we need a leadership the rank and file can get behind. DW is not that leader and should "do the right thing"
1800-BETS-OFF
06-06-2008 | 03:06 PM
#39
Next 24 hr layover…
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 538
Likes: 25
Here is the applicable language from S.65, which was identical to the language in its companion bill, H.R.1125
(a) In General- A pilot who has attained 60 years of age may serve as a pilot of an aircraft operated by an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, until attaining 65 years of age only if the pilot serves--(1) as a required pilot in multi-crew aircraft operations; and(2) with another pilot serving as a required pilot in such multi-crew aircraft operations who has not yet attained 60 years of age...
(c) Applicability- The provisions of subsection (a) shall not provide a basis for a claim of seniority under any labor agreement in effect between a recognized bargaining unit for pilots and an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, that is made by a person who was a pilot and who attained 60 years of age before the effective date described in subsection (e) and is seeking a position as a pilot with such air carrier following that person's termination or cessation of employment or promotion or transfer to another position with such air carrier pursuant to section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the day before the effective date described in subsection (e).
The sentence beginning with "The provisions of subsection (a) shall not provide a basis for a claim of seniority..." is translated in plain English to mean that the change in the age by itself does not provide a basis for a claim of seniority...
However, depending upon one's collective bargaining agreement, there may be a claim.
I cannot speak for FDX's contract, but the UPS contract did provide the necessary and sufficient basis.
(a) In General- A pilot who has attained 60 years of age may serve as a pilot of an aircraft operated by an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, until attaining 65 years of age only if the pilot serves--(1) as a required pilot in multi-crew aircraft operations; and(2) with another pilot serving as a required pilot in such multi-crew aircraft operations who has not yet attained 60 years of age...
(c) Applicability- The provisions of subsection (a) shall not provide a basis for a claim of seniority under any labor agreement in effect between a recognized bargaining unit for pilots and an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, that is made by a person who was a pilot and who attained 60 years of age before the effective date described in subsection (e) and is seeking a position as a pilot with such air carrier following that person's termination or cessation of employment or promotion or transfer to another position with such air carrier pursuant to section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the day before the effective date described in subsection (e).
The sentence beginning with "The provisions of subsection (a) shall not provide a basis for a claim of seniority..." is translated in plain English to mean that the change in the age by itself does not provide a basis for a claim of seniority...
However, depending upon one's collective bargaining agreement, there may be a claim.
I cannot speak for FDX's contract, but the UPS contract did provide the necessary and sufficient basis.
We all know that you are our resident Age 65 expert. This is not our fight - it is for the FDX pilots and their MEC. No need to keep bringing up details and opinions on something that is so emotional on all sides...
06-06-2008 | 03:20 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 712
Likes: 0
From: 777 Multi-tasker
we interupt this thread for a voice of reason... how refreshing....
thanks, you can have roberto back now, we're done with him.
we now return to you to your regularly scheduled flame fest....
thanks, you can have roberto back now, we're done with him.
we now return to you to your regularly scheduled flame fest....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
