Jetjok

Underdog, my questions to you are:

1. Is the guy who made a fortune in the stock market, but continues to fly for FedEx greedy?

2. Is the guy who married into a ton of $$$, but still wants to fly greedy?

3. Is the guy who is part owner in a business that is doing very nicely but again, wants to keep flying for FedEx greedy?

4. Is the guy whose parents are very wealthy, and who is an only child, but still wants to "work" greedy?

5. How about the guy that had a whole different career before FedEx, be it either civilian or military, but will only have 10 years when he reaches 60, but still wants to garner as much as he's entitled to, by law, be considered greedy for continuing to fly until he's 65?

Personally I feel that in each of the above scenarios, these guys are doing what is right for them, within the confines of the current system, and whatever you or I may think of them is irrelavant. They are exercising their legal right to work, and as much as I'm sure it pains you, they should not have to suffer your verbal abuse or questioning mind.

So my final question to you is where is your threshold for someone continuing to work, given any of the above situations? And would that threshold be somewhat higher if they happened to work at a different company and their mere presence didn't effect your progression?

Toccata

Maybe yes, maybe no. Depends on their situation. Most of us are greedy, at one time or another at some point (..pass another heapin' helpin' of them mash taters....thank you...thank you verr' mucy...).

Using the word 'greedy' is really a mis-nomer. In actuality, you are talking about a group in a class of 'brothers' that have a unplanned for and relatively unexpected benefit, or windfall, become available. Said unexpected benefit/windfall is completely optional to take. Choosing to take it will have a direct negative affect and impact on the expectations and plannings of another class of 'brothers' in the 'brotherhood'.

While greed may be involved, I believe some other word may be more appropriate. I, along with all my greedy friends, feel kinda insulted to be classed with that group.

My greed is calling to me to get another cup of coffee now.

Underdog

Yo JJ,

Breathe deep before you blow a gasket. First, my questioning was directed at Albie, since he broached the subject. I have not claimed or insinuated anyone was greedy at any point. I merely asked at which point has the threshold of greed been crossed, according to Albie? I hit 25 years of service at 55. I found some of his comments interesting, especially as it might pertain to me, in the not so distant future. As for your diatribe, you essentially ask the same type of questions. Only your anger is undeservedly directed towards me. I wonder if it's out of a sense of passion or guilt.

Questioning mind, no doubt....pains me, hardly....verbal abuse, tch...priceless.

Huck

No need to set some threshold - the vast majority of us are good and decent people. Most guys will do what's right for their situation.

Think of the guys waiting to get hired, the guys waiting to upgrade. If you can work past 60 with a clear conscience, then go for it. If you can't, pull the handles and go start the next part of your life......

aircum

JJ your right its personal GREED!! Hey the law has changed, but we don't have to like it. I'm sorry when it comes to someone loosing their job vs someone affording their second home in Aspen, it is very difficult to not be verbal. We all have a right to an opinion, if someone does not like it, walk away.

Jetjok

Guys (Underdog, Toccata, & Aircum),

My feelings on this whole thing are well known here. The problem I have with guys saying stuff like "its personal greed" or "it depends on their situation" is that regardless of their situation (which was the whole point of my previous post), they have a right to stay and continue to work until they, by law, are forced to leave a window seat. As I've said all along, guys should retire when they reach 25 years of company service or at age 60, whichever comes last. However, if someone can afford to retire earlier, than that's a benefit to those remaining. If they can't, that's life, and the rest of us should be able to understand that, without having to know each guys personal "situation."

Now as for this small band of brothers, within the overall larger band of brothers, "that have a unplanned for and relatively unexpected benefit, or windfall, said unexpected benefit/windfall is completely optional to take. Choosing to take it will have a direct negative affect and impact on the expectations and plannings of another class of 'brothers' in the 'brotherhood'.", I hope, Toccata, that you're only talking about guys who were over 60 when the rule changed, and are now back at a window seat. Because if you're not, than you're actually talking about possibly everyone presently on the property, who will have to make that decision sometime between now and the future.

And finally Underdog: 1) I'm not going to "blow a gasket" over this, because as most guys here know, I'm in a very unique situation, that at present is working out just fine; and 2) Your mere asking of the question "at what point do you think the threshold of greed has been crossed", insinuates (at least to me) that you feel that threshold has indeed been crossed. If you didn't mean your question as I've interpreted, than please accept my apology.

And I still look forward to someone answering the 5 questions I posted previously.

Busboy

IMHO...

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Define "nicely".

4. Does he still live with them?

5 Depends on his former career's retirement.

JJ...Give up the "can do it, because it's legal" arguement. What Lorenzo did was legal, what Icahn did was legal, etc. But, I think most would argue that it was greedy. On a much grander scale, of course.

42GO

Maybe we should look at it from the point of view of "most people" who would say that "ALL PILOTS" are greedy because of what we and the unions have gotten these companies to pay us because we "don't do anything"....
so for you young "all knowing judges of the world order", who gets to define the term "greedy"?

Maybe it's the 25 year old pilot who is mad at the 40 year old military pilot who is double dipping.
Maybe it's the 40 year old package thrower on the ramp who looks at our life style and says the same about all of us.
Maybe it's the 59 year old that got fired at 50 because he was "too" old.
Maybe it's John McCain because he is running for president "at his age" and taking a job away from the young Barak.
Maybe it's one of our guys who doesn't upgrade when he can because of his desire for "quality of Life".

Maybe you guys should just grow up and try to enjoy your blessed lives "as hard as it is" and let everyone determine their own path to quality of life. Wouldn't that be a novel idea!

vagabond

jungle and fedupbusdriver, you are both precious. Like a newborn baby, you bring me such joy and happiness in an otherwise austere life.

We live in the most litigious society on earth and I wouldn't want any of you to be sued by some Old Geezer for saying nasty things about him. This forum may be anonymous, but there are ways to discover probable identities.

Funny, as some of you already know, I belong in several of the "protected" classes simultaneously. Never did me any good. I moved up in life on my own merit.

As for being greedy, every person must do what he needs to do, within the confines of the law. Age 65 benefits some and disadvantages others. Life is that way. What's important is how and what you choose for yourself given the information you have at the time. Plan ahead. One thing I've always wondered - if you have 20 or 25 years of service (flying), do you really want to continue in this climate of stress and turmoil? After so long, I personally would want to try something else. Move on and get a breath of fresh air before I get put into my pine box.

Toccata

JJ - you are correct in that the set may be quite large, and varied. And, if FedEx retirement remains at 60, it could include everyone here who stays in a window seat past 60.

Near term - certainly anyone past age 60 that remains, or moves, into a window seat is in it. If the next contract moves retirement up to 65/60, at that point the set size will stop increasing, as remaining really becomes no longer optional.

I understand greed, and I understand personal circumstance issues, as I'm sure most all here do. I was simply trying to separate those from the third issue - the dyconomy of what this Union wants to claim it is still about, and what the individual members actions regularly show. How we tend to treat each other is either sadly incorrect, or simply the reality of the 'me, me, it's all about me' mentality of what appears to be the majority of the pilot force (not all - Albie). Just pointing out the fact. Judging? Nope.

My answers would be that if they stay on to use the additional income to acquire more of what they already have plenty of, then the motivation to stay at least includes greed (by most definitions). If not, it is something else. Girlfriend in VCP, enjoy walking around and being seen in their uniform, like the catering and coffee, like to see sunrises or sunsets from FL370, have financial needs that the income helps with, and on and on.

It MAY be greed, it MAY be personal circumstance dictated, but it most certainly is taking advantage of an unplanned gift, to others detriment. I would hope there is no argument with that fact.