Well, OK. I'm surprised ALPA didn't call you to defend them in any of the lawsuits concerning the FTEPA, then. As all the retired guys were suing ALPA for just the opposite of what most of you, here at FDX, believe. ALPA inserted language to keep all the age 60-65 retired pilots from returning.

I'm sorry to keep hammering at this...But, I think it's an important point concerning how the final language of the law came about. We(including me) all biatch about our FE's being allowed to come back to the front seat...But, it would have been much worse for those of us still active, without ALPAs input.

From this article, pilots-file-with-supreme-court-in-age-discrimination-case, by a lawyer that took a case to the Supreme Court. (The "senior pilots", he refers to were already RETIRED):

"Members thought that they had corrected the problem with the enactment of FTEPA, but many members did not know that Oberstar had inserted the provision drafted by ALPA. That provision said that senior pilots could return to work but could not claim any of their accrued benefits, seniority, or status. Due to the way that this industry is structured, that poison pill provision was an effective bar on employment. Even if hired in their sixties, these pilots would have to go to the end of the line — behind ALPA members. Many were left without health insurance or income to support their families.

The ALPA provision states:

The Fairness for Experienced Pilots Act 49 U.S.C. § 44729(e)(1):

1) NONRETROACTIVITY- No person who has attained 60 years of age before the date of enactment of this section may serve as a pilot for an air carrier engaged in covered operations unless–
(A) such person is in the employment of that air carrier in such operations on such date of enactment as a required flight deck crew member; or
(B) such person is newly hired by an air carrier as a pilot on or after such date of enactment without credit for prior seniority or prior longevity for benefits or other terms related to length of service prior to the date of rehire under any labor agreement or employment policies of the air carrier.

ALPA openly admitted that it drafted the provision and had Oberstar (right) insert the provision to strip the senior pilots of their ability to return to work with their earned benefits and status.

So, what I'm trying to get at here, is that yes, ALPA's provision allowed our active, under age 65, FE's back to the front seat. But, more importantly, ALPA's provision kept all the under age 65 retired guys from also coming back.

The original 2005 bill did not allow the back seaters to return to the front seat and that was changed partly because of our MEC Chairman's wishes. Was he right to do so is another question! Was he right to do so if the vast majority of FedEx pilots did not want him to is the real question. I am saying I am totally against what happened but am totally against revisionist history. The fact is you can sue anybody for anything "they had not won" and the fact is in the original bill there was no coming back. And before you start about leaving people behind we do that every contract this one is anyone less than age 54, last one was 53.

Booked in Business over 16 hours.
 

I was booked in business with bank reflecting only business fare. The lie flat seat booking in business was legal, however the bank needed to be first class value. The block is 17:05. DFW to HKG.

Called Corp travel. They booked me in first and agreed I should have the first. Bottom line is over 16, you rate first. They can book in business but bank must reflect first, and they will book you first if available on your flight. It was, so I got it. More importantly my bank was changed to reflect the first class ticket regardless.

Until you hit 16 hours, it can be a business class bank.

Good luck.

HK.

I think we all understand the provisions of ALPA National and age 60. I think we also understand the FDX Mec and company were working hard to make sure the chief pilot at the time could pretend to go to the back seat and then back to the left seat in the blink of an eye. After all he wrote good emails. That was kind of the point, just about every other airline seat progression stagnated, here at FDX we got to go backwards before we stagnated.

I hope the lesson learned is that any future age changes should be instituted gradually to prevent windfalls for some at the expense of others.

Yeah, just like our current CBA! :rolleyes:

How about no more age changes😳

Come on guys, in a seniority based system the top guys really are expected to eventually retire

Please, please no more fly until you die incentives

...or we may just find they become a requirement😁

Yeah, who could have ever seen that coming?

I know American carriers are all headed to a 2 class cabin if not already there. Regretfully we aren't the standard to strive for in international travel. We rank at the bottom for service and condition of aircraft.

Korean Air, Thai, Cathay, Singapore, Quantas, Emirates and China Southern are some that have first class cabins and lounges on newer aircraft with no plans to get rid of them at least in the near future.

My first class ticket was issued on 20NOV for travel on 20DEC. Several variables here so I don't think my fare or class should be used for reference. This was a mid-trip scheduled D/H from HNL - SFO so short flight with block over 5 hours. 3-class aircraft out of HNL are rare, usually 2-class aircraft. This was UAL and they are bumping some fares to first but usually it's domestic coach tickets to first. The captain I flew with picked up the trip just a couple days before the trip started and he got first class also. Business would have qualified so probably got first due to UAL or maybe Global travel didn't know this was a 3-class aircraft and simply booked first. Ticket was around $650 so not a high fare.

Written like a true grizzled veteran of the deadhead game. Your post underlines all the complexities involved in the deadhead side of our contract and lifestyle. It's an important quality of life issue for me. I never...never... trust Global Travel without cross checking their work. Usually, they do a great job. But it is very rare that I can't figure out a better solution for my personal preferences. So I deviate. A lot. For me, it's worth my time and effort. And until I prove otherwise, I believe the flexibility in the new CBA will actually work very well to my advantage.