Originally Posted by FDXLAG (Post 2027545)

Which carrier has 4x 178 degree seats? Just curious.[/QUOTE

The united that I was in first had 4x in business!
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/United_Airlines/United_Airlines_Boeing_777-200_2_New.php

Originally Posted by HIFLYR (Post 2027626)

This configuration shows a First Class section

So what was your bank based on First Class or Business?

Originally Posted by HIFLYR (Post 2027699)

Mine was before the change. The new would be the discounted business as sky said in the earlier post.
This has been mentioned twice but UAL has lie flat business class seats that are god awful on their HKG-USA flights.

It's 2 X by 4 X by 2 X and it's 13 hours and it's awful. It's literally like sitting in coach. There's no "pods" at all (that's for UAL global first which we now aren't eligible for under this contract). You have people climbing over you or you're climbing over someone else. Your elbos are actually touching the persons next to you; the arm rests are just like coach.

I've been on it. Good luck deviating as well with a 2700 dollar bank on that leg. This is the new "go to" flight for global travel getting crews to/from HKG. Their MBO points are rolling in!

Thanks "lie flat" in lieu of first....

Originally Posted by FDXLAG (Post 2027940)

Since the flight was more than 10 hours the bank should have been for discounted first, regardless of the lie flat seat booking....

Originally Posted by TonyC (Post 2027540)

Tuck,

I've highlighted some phrases in the excerpt of the law you posted. Put them together and you form this sentence:
And here again is the third bullet point of ALPA's priorities as defined in the Executive Board Resolution to drop opposition to the regulated age change:
To fully appreciate the direction the conversation was taking and the possibility of disadvantageous outcomes, it is instructive to look not just at the language of the bill that immediately preceded the one than became law, but also the others that came before. I tried to paint that picture in the post from 2013 I referenced. What you'll notice is the frequent use of the word "retirement" when referring to the regulated age. Such imprecise language is to be expected when lawmakers with no subject matter expertise attempt to set aviation rules by legislation. Had the final bill contained such language, it would have been no stretch for FedEx to claim that due to change in law, our Defined Benefit plan had to be changed to adopt Age 65 as the Normal Retirement Age. The repercussions would have been numerous, and none of them to our advantage. I doubt we would have been offered some sort of non-qualified plan to fill the gap in benefits we would have lost.


The language in the final bill, the bill with language that has ALPA's fingerprints all over it, explicitly prohibited such action.

That's as clear as I can make it.






.

Originally Posted by DLax85 (Post 2027979)

I voted "No", and our current CBA is what it is now, but we must still fight to defend it

Originally Posted by DLax85 (Post 2027258)

Your being loose with your words

Words matter

"Active Pilots" does not equal "Active Flight Deck Crewmembers"

The second is broader to include FEs, and this is what allowed it to count for our guys 60-65, who were no longer working as pilots, rather they were working as FEs

As equally important, it did not include anyone 60-65 who were not "active" on the flight deck -- e.g. Sim Instructors, Flight Managers, etc

Other airlines besides Fedex & NWA/Fedex did have people like that, though they may not have been on the seniority list any longer

The other airline pilot groups were not in favor of these guys returning, so the word "active" was used.

If the final verbiage had actually been "active pilots", not "active flight deck crew members" there would have been no retroactivity for the FEs at Fedex, who were between 60-65

Bottom line -- the change in the law clearly had a broader/larger stagnation affect on the pilot group at Fedex

Of course this is all just a history lesson now

Let's move forward collectively to ensure proper enforcement with our current CBA

Fly Safely - Fly Professionally - Fly Well Rested!

Originally Posted by Busboy (Post 2028733)

I think you're missing my point. I said ALPA had the NO retroactivity clause put into the bill. Had the word "active" not been inserted into the law...Already RETIRED pilots, under 65, would have had the right to come back with their seniority.

Yes, FDXALPA lobbied to have our over 60 FE's included, when ALPA had the "ACTIVE" clause inserted into the bill. But, without that clause, 1000's of already retired pilots would have returned. ALPA was a defendant in many lawsuits concerning just that.