Anyone else out there see the irony of making retirement benefits such a major part of our last contract only to now be fighting for guys not to use it? I wonder how much better our negoitiating capitol could have been spent? It sure seems wasted to me right now. A bigger "B" fund sure would have been nice since many of those over and approaching Age 60 may not be using the increased benefits we got for them and it would at least have helped those who get caught in the stagnation that is coming.

Anyone remember how many Wide Body Captain slots were in the last MOAB bid? Remember how exciting that was? Now it looks like any future bids will have most of those slots filled with those over 60 when the reg changes if our MEC has their way. Not quite as exciting as it used to be...

Write your reps and encourage everyone to do the same. We deserve a say here..

"Yea, I understand. Hope I didn't come off as argumentative! Painkillers can have weird affects! I had surgery last week to enable me to last until retirement, whenever that might be."

Hope all is well MD. Did you have to get your tennis elbow fixed from tipping too many pints? Get well soon!

Speaking of getting well, anyone know where Tony C is? He has been very quiet on this issue..

So the better option is to quit, the way you have done many times in the past?

Weren't you calling for DW's ouster shortly before the T/A was announced?

Don't even get me started on this one. Me, Me, Me. That is the mantra of many over 50.

Forget those pesky newhires or lower seniority folks.....

I just received a reply from my block rep and the first line contained the words- "slippery slope". Sounds like the MEC script already. I won't share the details, you've probably already heard them yourself. But I will share my reply.

Yes, we agree on Age 60 and disagree on retroactivity. I truly don't understand how we 'roll-over' on the basic rule but we are going to retain our principles and fight everyone else on retroactivity. If it's inevitable that it is a doomed effort, then why not 'roll-over' on it too?

I still can't see how we are comparing apples to apples-- it is a ONE-TIME federal regulatory change that forces guys from the front seat and makes them wear a Scarlet Letter (A for Age); while the right to bid and fly what you can hold is written into the CBA and at the present time doesn't trump the regulatory requirement (and in the future should not either).

At the Regulatory Age the age 60 pilot experiences a Permanent Status Change. It is his choice whether the change is from pilot to S/O or from pilot to retired. We are talking about a relatively small group of folks who choose, for whatever personal reason, to change seats rather than retire. Their new status is Permanent and does not deserve to be reversed or changed because the rule changes to extend the deadline for other pilots.

Our history is full case where federal regulatory changes have created a small groups of disadvantaged "Tweeners" and most have unhappy stories that resulted from their new classifications. There are the folks screwed out of social security, there are the folks denied the GI bill in the 70s (VEAP) and many others that escape me at the moment. I believe our over-60 S/Os will be simply members of a new group of Tweeners who were at a unlucky place in the time/space continumum.

The bottom line here is that the company has not abrogated these folks' seniority; the federal government government permanently changed their status. It's a One Time change, not something that going to keep happening down through the ages. Although the MEC line seems to be that "retroactivity won't pass", has anyone really considered the true implications should your 'wish' be granted. A small group (how many non-members?) will gain untold and unintended advantage over the rest of the pilot group.

Small group advantages, whether real or imagined, are the fertile ground into which discord is sown. And I don't like what I already see happening. This decision to fight for a 'doomed' principle already has us fighting amongst ourselves and worse it's leadership against the membership. Now there's your slippery slope to the bottom-- 4 years of unity shot-in-the-head for a 'doomed' principle.

.

"The bottom line here is that the company has not abrogated these folks' seniority; the federal government government permanently changed their status. It's a One Time change, not something that going to keep happening down through the ages. Although the MEC line seems to be that "retroactivity won't pass", has anyone really considered the true implications should your 'wish' be granted. A small group (how many non-members?) will gain untold and unintended advantage over the rest of the pilot group.

Small group advantages, whether real or imagined, are the fertile ground into which discord is sown. And I don't like what I already see happening. This decision to fight for a 'doomed' principle already has us fighting amongst ourselves and worse it's leadership against the membership. Now there's your slippery slope to the bottom-- 4 years of unity shot-in-the-head for a 'doomed' principle."

Somebody say AMEN!!

Nicely written Fly. Send it to your rep and all other reps as well. I was told by one rep they don't pay attention to this board because there are only about 50 of us posting. BTW, be sure to ask why DW and the MEC save all their "principled stands" that we have no say on for those approaching retirement or those already retired. When will they stand up for the junior pilot?

I must say - my views on this union have radically changed in about the last month. And not for the better. I bet I'm not alone.