Alpa Fdx
05-06-2007, 07:59 PM
#151
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
After some discussion with some MEC folks, here is the basic tenet:'
Seniority is important. It is a cornerstone of contract benefits. If we voluntarily give up seniority rights (i.e. selling out the over 60 FEs) then we weaken our seniority system. This system is critical....what if FDX decided to only furlough DC-10 guys....vice furloughing in seniority order. Unlikely I know, but the principal also applies on strike. Remember pre 98 contract FDX threatened to furlough "out of seniority order" which was a legitimate threat prior to having a real contract. Seniority is important as a negotiating tool....if captains can be threatened with termination out of seniority order we will never be able to accomplish any real "self help".
Now the rub. Our MEC and ALPA national are convinced this is a lost game.
If we "play ball" and get on the winning side, then we can push for the FAA, not congress, to determine when and how to implement the new rules. These rules, even though they SUCK for junior guys, will be taking place in 18-24 months and most likely WILL NOT be retroactive. Therefore...anyone after that date will NOT be in a position to perform as a captain/FO. However--if we resist...congress will jam it down our throats thanks to APAAD and other interests, and we'll end up with it shoved up our @ss anyway. Then...it will be effective this fall....30 days after signing which means Sept-Oct timeframe. This means our own Foxhunter is right on the bubble.
So--ALPA wants to make nice with congress and "support" this new law. Which means ALPA wants to be on the winning team, then slow leak this for as long as possible....perhaps 18 months...perhaps 2 years.
The irony in this is huge. Either way...the junior guys loses. If we support ALPA, which "publically" supports the change...we might mitigate some damage. If we fight our union...or force it outside the discussion...we end up not having any say, and perhaps having implementation this fall (the sound you hear in Foxhunter and his bros clapping). By supporting your union and turning the decision of implentation details over to the FAA, you have a better chance of kicking the implentation date eighteen to twenty four months to the right. While I have no personal beef with George, he benefits from a fractured ALPA and a congressional APAAD sympathetic decision. We gotta eat some sour medicine, but we'll eat it later (and minus another 50-100 dudes) if we support our union....Dave Webb be damned.
I dont' like either choice, but we are between the devil and the deep blue sea. I've never been furloughed or merged, but my turn at getting ********d by events beyond our control is coming.
What I do know is age 60 is not an issue ALPA can fix. However, our company, however great, has some issues that ALPA can help. The optimizer needs to be turned down...or else requests for fuel savings can be blown out the window. The deviation issues mentioned on another thread could use some work. We need a union. I'll support ours. I'm not happy, however, with the TONE of the correspondence we've gotten, and I've expressed that. I expect to hear a bit more news on those issues in the next few days.
In the meantime--senior or junior...I'm on your side if you want a strong union. Our union, however, could use a bit of charm school in how it presents its case at times. Perhaps I need to sign up some of the MEC reps for one of my interview coaching sessions....
Seniority is important. It is a cornerstone of contract benefits. If we voluntarily give up seniority rights (i.e. selling out the over 60 FEs) then we weaken our seniority system. This system is critical....what if FDX decided to only furlough DC-10 guys....vice furloughing in seniority order. Unlikely I know, but the principal also applies on strike. Remember pre 98 contract FDX threatened to furlough "out of seniority order" which was a legitimate threat prior to having a real contract. Seniority is important as a negotiating tool....if captains can be threatened with termination out of seniority order we will never be able to accomplish any real "self help".
Now the rub. Our MEC and ALPA national are convinced this is a lost game.
If we "play ball" and get on the winning side, then we can push for the FAA, not congress, to determine when and how to implement the new rules. These rules, even though they SUCK for junior guys, will be taking place in 18-24 months and most likely WILL NOT be retroactive. Therefore...anyone after that date will NOT be in a position to perform as a captain/FO. However--if we resist...congress will jam it down our throats thanks to APAAD and other interests, and we'll end up with it shoved up our @ss anyway. Then...it will be effective this fall....30 days after signing which means Sept-Oct timeframe. This means our own Foxhunter is right on the bubble. So--ALPA wants to make nice with congress and "support" this new law. Which means ALPA wants to be on the winning team, then slow leak this for as long as possible....perhaps 18 months...perhaps 2 years.
The irony in this is huge. Either way...the junior guys loses. If we support ALPA, which "publically" supports the change...we might mitigate some damage. If we fight our union...or force it outside the discussion...we end up not having any say, and perhaps having implementation this fall (the sound you hear in Foxhunter and his bros clapping). By supporting your union and turning the decision of implentation details over to the FAA, you have a better chance of kicking the implentation date eighteen to twenty four months to the right. While I have no personal beef with George, he benefits from a fractured ALPA and a congressional APAAD sympathetic decision. We gotta eat some sour medicine, but we'll eat it later (and minus another 50-100 dudes) if we support our union....Dave Webb be damned.
I dont' like either choice, but we are between the devil and the deep blue sea. I've never been furloughed or merged, but my turn at getting ********d by events beyond our control is coming.
What I do know is age 60 is not an issue ALPA can fix. However, our company, however great, has some issues that ALPA can help. The optimizer needs to be turned down...or else requests for fuel savings can be blown out the window. The deviation issues mentioned on another thread could use some work. We need a union. I'll support ours. I'm not happy, however, with the TONE of the correspondence we've gotten, and I've expressed that. I expect to hear a bit more news on those issues in the next few days.
In the meantime--senior or junior...I'm on your side if you want a strong union. Our union, however, could use a bit of charm school in how it presents its case at times. Perhaps I need to sign up some of the MEC reps for one of my interview coaching sessions....
05-06-2007, 08:09 PM
#152
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 757/767
Posts: 579
...I trusted their intentions all the way up until they announced their support bringing those over 60 from the back seat to the front seats upon the passage of this pending legislation... At no time have I been queried on how I feel about allowing this group of pilots to move back to the front seat.
c) It shall be unlawful for a labor organization-
(1) to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to
discriminate against, any individual because of his age;
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify its membership, or to classify
or fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual, in any way which
would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment
opportunities, or would limit such employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect his status as an employee or as an applicant for
employment, because of such individual's age.ADEA of 1967, section 623.
05-06-2007, 09:24 PM
#153
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
After some discussion with some MEC folks, here is the basic tenet:'
Seniority is important. It is a cornerstone of contract benefits. If we voluntarily give up seniority rights (i.e. selling out the over 60 FEs) then we weaken our seniority system. This system is critical....what if FDX decided to only furlough DC-10 guys....vice furloughing in seniority order. Unlikely I know, but the principal also applies on strike. Remember pre 98 contract FDX threatened to furlough "out of seniority order" which was a legitimate threat prior to having a real contract. Seniority is important as a negotiating tool....if captains can be threatened with termination out of seniority order we will never be able to accomplish any real "self help"...
Seniority is important. It is a cornerstone of contract benefits. If we voluntarily give up seniority rights (i.e. selling out the over 60 FEs) then we weaken our seniority system. This system is critical....what if FDX decided to only furlough DC-10 guys....vice furloughing in seniority order. Unlikely I know, but the principal also applies on strike. Remember pre 98 contract FDX threatened to furlough "out of seniority order" which was a legitimate threat prior to having a real contract. Seniority is important as a negotiating tool....if captains can be threatened with termination out of seniority order we will never be able to accomplish any real "self help"...
However, I don't recall our MEC fighting for the seniority rights of the herpes S/O's, in the past. Why? It was part of the regulations.
So, why not allow the FAA to make it a reg. that anyone over age 60 when this happens is SOL? That's not giving up anyone's seniority rights. Anymore than what they've been doing. It would just be part of the regs.
Webb is not only not listening/caring what we think of the reg change. He's actually advocating going beyond what we've said we don't want. If he gets his way, it won't matter whether Congress passes a law or the FAA goes though their motions. That point will be moot, as all of the age 60 guys will have the opportunity to go back to the left seat. That's the problem I have with this. While they're at it, maybe they should fight to get back all the 60-65yr old guys that have retired, too?
If this is his idea of getting on the train and having a voice...I'd rather he falls off and gets run over!!
Last edited by Busboy; 05-06-2007 at 10:26 PM.
05-07-2007, 03:15 AM
#154
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,238
RSO
Keep them in the right seat only!!!!
The only option that spreads the wealth beyond those chosen few who will get 5 more years of widebody captain pay.....
Keep them in the right seat only!!!!
The only option that spreads the wealth beyond those chosen few who will get 5 more years of widebody captain pay.....
05-07-2007, 03:17 AM
#155
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,238
What sucks in all this is that the over 60 crowd had one whale of a lobbying force hitting capitol hill.
I had ALPA... and I'd like to know how hard they were fighting that initial over-60-foreign-pilots rule. Real hard I'm sure.
I had ALPA... and I'd like to know how hard they were fighting that initial over-60-foreign-pilots rule. Real hard I'm sure.
05-07-2007, 03:38 AM
#156
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: Left to right
Posts: 119
Attempted to volunteer?
Some of us have Attempted to volunteer, but for whatever reason, were not invited into the inner sanctum..makes one wonder. Methinks DW and his cronies practiced a "closed shop" prior to obtaining one on the last contract.
I would be shocked and upset if someone told you you can't volunteer to do something, especially at the LEC level.
If you went into the MEC and told them you wanted to be on the negotiating committee you might get a neutral response.
Most LECs have vacancies in different committees and would appreciate more volunteers.
Remember, ALPA is us. ALPA is not the MEC. The MEC is not ALPA.
I would be shocked and upset if someone told you you can't volunteer to do something, especially at the LEC level.
If you went into the MEC and told them you wanted to be on the negotiating committee you might get a neutral response.
Most LECs have vacancies in different committees and would appreciate more volunteers.
Remember, ALPA is us. ALPA is not the MEC. The MEC is not ALPA.
05-07-2007, 03:51 AM
#157
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: A Big One
Posts: 283
Hoffa went to sleep with the fishes for a reason (must be said in a Italian accent). We're a organized labor group, maybe we should act like one.. Something along the lines of busting kneecaps might get the MEC to listen a little better. 
THIS IS ONLY HUMOR. NO ACTUAL THREATS ARE BEING IMPLIED, SUGGESTED, OR OTHERWISE RECOMMENDED.
THIS IS ONLY HUMOR. NO ACTUAL THREATS ARE BEING IMPLIED, SUGGESTED, OR OTHERWISE RECOMMENDED.
05-07-2007, 04:18 AM
#158
Guest
Posts: n/a
Some of us have Attempted to volunteer, but for whatever reason, were not invited into the inner sanctum..makes one wonder. Methinks DW and his cronies practiced a "closed shop" prior to obtaining one on the last contract.
I would be shocked and upset if someone told you you can't volunteer to do something, especially at the LEC level.
If you went into the MEC and told them you wanted to be on the negotiating committee you might get a neutral response.
Most LECs have vacancies in different committees and would appreciate more volunteers.
Remember, ALPA is us. ALPA is not the MEC. The MEC is not ALPA.
I would be shocked and upset if someone told you you can't volunteer to do something, especially at the LEC level.
If you went into the MEC and told them you wanted to be on the negotiating committee you might get a neutral response.
Most LECs have vacancies in different committees and would appreciate more volunteers.
Remember, ALPA is us. ALPA is not the MEC. The MEC is not ALPA.
I was a diehard ALPA advocate. I am now a reluctant member disgusted with the MEC and its "leadership".
05-07-2007, 05:27 AM
#159
Slainge Var'
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Zeppelin Tail Gunner
Posts: 1,530
If the company wants to avoid paying passover pay to the over 60 crowd, just have a big bid 2 weeks prior to the effective date of the change. Say for instance, with a two year training cycle. Even if they are allowed to bid back, they will have to wait for a vacancy bid. Also, if there is an excess bid soon, that will mean that every DC-10 S/O is over 60 and letting all of them come limping back all at once would pretty much ground that dwindling fleet. Something that ain't goonna happen in a short time.
05-07-2007, 05:30 AM
#160
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: A300 Captain
Posts: 257
If the company wants to avoid paying passover pay to the over 60 crowd, just have a big bid 2 weeks prior to the effective date of the change. Say for instance, with a two year training cycle. Even if they are allowed to bid back, they will have to wait for a vacancy bid. Also, if there is an excess bid soon, that will mean that every DC-10 S/O is over 60 and letting all of them come limping back all at once would pretty much ground that dwindling fleet. Something that ain't goonna happen in a short time.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
