Several years ago everyone on the seniority list got "hosed" when our union successfully lobbied to change the regulated age. Every month since then everyone got bid lines, vacation & training dates that weren't as good as they would have been. How many people have had upgrades delayed (some for years) because most pilots decided to stay until they turned 65?

Company manning is a company problem. Competent, forward thinking management should have seen retirement numbers and economic growth many years ago. I'm not sure than ANY inducement for the senior guys to stick around should be included in ANY contract.

Wouldn't that "hose" EVERY junior guy again? "If" we are inclined to help Management with THEIR manning problem, should it come with benefits for EVERYONE? Should that have included a timely CBA 2 years ago?

 

I got hosed by age 65.

I didn't get the 25K payout in the last contract, and I will vote no if I don't get it in this contract.

There should be no "extra pay" of any type as an inducement to prevent someone from retiring. "Extra pay" for them, is money taken out of my pocket. I will vote no if this is in the contract.

 

I'm sure that they (FedEx) are looking at what Delta did some years back when they offered early outs, then hired back the Capt's as contract until they could man the seats. Capt's double dip, and the money doesn't come out of the contract pool of money. However can you imagine trying to get that side letter passed and the can of worms that would open up ! What a cluster this has become because FedEx wanted to save money in the short term.

 

How so? I get that you did not move up the seniority ladder as fast as you would have if the rule had not changed, but you also have the option to work that extra 5 years if you either want or need to.

YOU may be an exception, but do you really think that your age demographic will retire at an earlier than maximum age when they are presented with the same scenario as you approach 60? I suspect the numbers staying until forced out will remain pretty much the same. We'll see.

 

I proposed something very similar several years ago on this BB.

 

Lineslug,

If you don't understand how the junior guys were hosed by age 65, I am afraid there is no hope for you.

The guys that were already Captains had the option to stay until 65 or retire at 60. They also got an "extra" 5 years of Captain pay, that I will never have the opportunity to get.

Because my Captain upgrade was delayed by 5 years, I will need to stay until age 65 in order to make up for lost revenue, if I can continue to pass the physical, which is an unknown. I already have one friend who permanently out on disability at age 59.

I have heard more than one Captain, who advanced to wide body pay in his 40's or even 30's, tell me that they, too, were affected by age 65, because they didn't get their choice of bid lines each month. Cry me a river. I had to bite my tongue since it was a 12 day trip.

If anyone is deserving of a "bonus" chunk of money, it should be those crew members who were stuck as FO's for an extra 5 years. ALPA hosed us, then FDX ALPA added insult to injury by putting the FE's back in the Left Seat through manipulated bids, then insulted us again by giving 25k to the guys that stayed until 65! There should be "retro" pay for FO's!

And people wonder why I will vote no if I don't get my 25K?

Seriously?

 

Working an extra 5 years is/was never an option for me... so I got hosed, too! As did many, many, people on our seniority list that were opposed to the age change our Union ended up supporting. I am not trying to make this an age 65 debate again as that train left the station long ago. Please don't allow thread creep on that contentious topic.

Bottom-line is this; it appears the majority of APC followers, crew bus passengers, and AOC popcorn eaters feel that there should be no negotiating capital expended to prevent people from retiring before Peak. If we reach a TA before Peak, the manning issue is management's fault. I hope our negotiating committee feels the same since they speak for me, you, and every other FedEx pilot!

 

I doubt the company is scrambling to improve our retirement. I think it's more likely they are trying to reduce current or future benefits.

 

If your Union works to get me 5 extra years in the penthouse and you 5 extra years in the outhouse would you complain?

 

I understand the "It's not our problem sentiment", and I agree. We did not create it, it's not our fault, and we shouldn't have to pay for the solution. However, when it becomes an obstacle to ratifying a deal, when THEIR problem prevents OUR success, when it's the only thing standing between us and an industry-leading contract, it becomes our de facto problem, too.

The money I propose for the solution doesn't come out of our hide -- it's money the pilot has already earned, his deferred compensation.



I'm always a little confused (not by these posts, but by others in the thread) how some people want senior pilots to "retire, get out of my seat", but they won't consider a benefit to encourage them to leave.






.