That is bizarre. How would we have lost? The rule was originally written so that you had to have a window seat in order to stay after 60. We lobbied to have the rule change to anyone on the seniority list. Had the rule stayed "window seat only" how could they have sued us? Here is a little lesson for you; whatever DW said believe the opposite.

 

I believe the ALPA lawyers referenced Section 24 E. 6 with respect to The over 60 Re-bid issue after the law changed. We work under a Seniority system. Under the AGE 60 law (pre Age 65) The number 1 Crew member on the System seniority list might have been a 2nd Officer (or could conceivably have been). The AGE 65 law came. That pilot was still the #1 Pilot on our list. Why shouldn't he/she be able to exercise his seniority?

Don't get me wrong, I was affected negatively too. I moved backwards 60 plus #'s in my Bid pack. Personally I won't like anything that happens until I am #1 on the list

In any event it is time to get over this.

 

It may be time to get over it but that does not change the facts. The rule was written so you had to have a window seat to be eligible to have a window seat after age 60. ALPA and FDX MEC in particular lobbied to have the rule rewritten so that it was anyone on the seniority list. Alpa took credit for it then. It is our duty to make sure they get all the credit they deserve now.

 

Not saying they should not have gotten the seat their seniority deserved.

On the next seat bid they absolutely should have gotten any seat they can hold. Nobody would deny that.

But canceling a bid so they can have their seat back was nonsense. It is what it is - but lets not try to rewrite history.

 

If you're going to argue, lets put a few facts in the mix.

There was a bid canceled. Reason, presumably, was those awards weren't necessary in the near term. Then there was an EXCESS BID OUT OF THE 727 SO SEAT

I would have been fine with a real vacancy bid to allow people to use their seniority but the bump and flush was about to commence. Many people LOST THEIR SEATS after the excess out of the back seat when management suddenly realized they had too many widebody CAs again. Not like they could have forecast that.

If management wanted to solely honor seniority you would have never seen an SO excess bid.

I think I made the mistake of using honor and management in the same sentence. My bad.

Yeah, in the past. But not forgotten.

 

Not so. There was no such version that denied upgrade to an active employee.

 

200 + pilots coming back had a huge impact on 4a2b IMHO. Those guys who pushed the loudest for the change and retro never seemed to own up to the unintended consequences, and instead placed blame solely on management (no saints) or pilots working extra as the crux of the problem. Nobody ever said "dang....the 2007 law change just gooned up the hiring model..." They conveniently overlooked the guys like CB and others flying 130+ hours every month on their lines as having ANY impact. I never chastised anyone for doing ANYTHING during 4a2b, because I figured if those guys who were handed a gift by Prater and Congress could do it, so could anyone else.

To me, its just a lesson in unintended consequences, and was a reminder to be very careful when making changes in any one area due to ripples into other arenas. Everyone had a "solution" to 4a2b, but it usually involved someone else making the sacrifice. My hope is that we just use that as a cautionary tale before we start making wanton changes to our contract to fix short term irritants. The original poorly written paragraph, and the zeal at which retro was pursued combined to have an effect neither group foresaw, even though the intentions were good by all parties.

 

Yes there was. Now isnt this productive.

 

Neither the union or the company would've lost a lawsuit for complying with federal law. Naturally, some lawyer would've been happy to take the money of a bunch of 60+ pilots with no common sense. However, had the law effectively said, " if you're over 60 when the prez signs the bill...you're outta luck for a window seat" who would they have sued?

 

And, IMO, the solution to 4A2B was to not fly extra. Seems simple to a simpleton like me!