Busboy

Ohhhh...Now I get it.

Our MEC is only supporting retroactivity because they don't actually think it's going to happen. BRILLIANT!!

Now, it all makes sense.

MD11Fr8Dog

I'm not saying that at all. But, being pragmatic, I'm not get that ruffled about it. The point being, I don't like how we got to where we are - DW's presentation of an MEC decision. But it is where we are, and I'm okay with the decision. Read my other posts so I don't have to repeat myself.

I don't like what's happening to us any more than the next guy. But whining and b!tching won't help.

Also, I just don't see anyone getting recalled, do you, honestly? I'm not interested in trying to sell out guys on our seniority list and giving the company a crack to try to work later in our contract negotiation lives.

When you, or anyone gets someone recalled, I hope you guys are there to fill the shoes, will you be?

As far as DW, I think he made a horrible presentation of an MEC decision. Talk to your rep - have you yet? I spent 45 mins on the phone with mine last night, plus emails with my LEC chair, my rep and the comm chair. Either they are all on board and part of the decision, or DW has dirt on them and they are all good liars. I'm as cynical as the next guy, but even I'm not that cynical to believe that.

SNAFU

So what good do you feel has come about because you spoke to your reps? Did they change their mind? Did they promise to represent you next time?

What is the point of talking to folks who are too arrogant to listen?

Tell me again why I should talk to these guys who have just told me that the rape is inevitable just lie back and enjoy it? And oh, by the way, we're going to petition Congress to let the rapists out of prison because after all they were disadvantaged and lost their pensions?

Yeah, I want to waste my time talking to these guys.

Busboy

Yup. My rep has most definitely heard from me, and I have have heard from him. We disagree.

Strut

Retroactivity must be for all (everyone forced from the seat - pouring coffee or retired), or none at all. It'll be intelecually dishoneset to do it any other way. For our leadership to advocate another position is just a political dodge.

MalteseX

We are......

MalteseX

PAC dumped today.... now I need to find another PAC to contribute to....

MalteseX

The contract cannot "usurp" FAA regs or US Law. What is causing the beef is that the proposed Senate bill and the speech given by the FAA administrator, and vast amounts of other reporting indicates that the "powers that be" are saying that the max age is moving from 60 to 65 in multiplace aircraft where one of the pilots have to be under 60... also they say that they don't favor retroactivity... if you hit 60 before implementation, then you don't return. The gray area is in companies that have engineers, we are one of the few..... so we as a group must define how this plays out on a NATIONAL stage, not just within our contract (because the national "rules" regs or law hasn't actually been written yet).
Our union is comprised of members and we'd like our leaders to represent the majority of the members. This all came to a boil when DW said he is going to aggressively fight for seniority on the national level. This may or may not be in conflict with the wishes of HIS union---ie us. We THINK the majority differs from this position---rightly or wrongly ... but he is RULING much like the head of the Politburo. And THAT's what the beef is about.
Our "leaders" are taking a position that may be in conflict with the majority of the membership and they are saying publicly that "they know best" or "it's just the right thing to do".

You provide a good argument in your post, but THAT's precisely what we want as members... to debate, to get the good and bad of each position out there and to make a call as a UNION --- one in which the leadership responds to... not just goes about it on their own and everyone else be damned.

By the way, the union leadership did not use the contract to help the guys get their passover pay when JUNIOR members were trained out of seniority order---another seemingly back room deal and a slap in the face to some of the membership. No response from the union to an admitted company screw up and violation of the seniority sections of our contract.

Gooch121

This was published in the 8 May 07 Memphis Business Journal:

NWA to Senate: Don't delay pilots' retirement
Memphis Business Journal - 4:41 PM CDT Tuesday, May 8, 2007

In a rare partnership, Northwest Airlines Corp. and the Air Line Pilots Association are lobbying to stop legislation that will alter the age restriction on active pilots.

In a letter to Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), NWA CEO Doug Steenland and ALPA's David Stevens write that they're strongly opposed to the legislative proposal to replace the Age 60 Rule for pilots. The proposed Age 65 Rule will replace one arbitrary age limit with another with no criterion-based process for determining pilot fitness, the two state in the letter. In addition, the new age restriction may jeopardize safety.

NWA (Pink Sheets: NWACQ) and ALPA claim there's no medical evidence to support later retirement for pilots.

If passed, the rule will delay the retirement of numerous pilots, they say, and consequently delay the promotion of younger pilots.

Northwest employs about 1,500 in its Memphis hub.

Or you can go to:
http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/s...0400%5e1459362

or go the ALPA website and wonder through it's ALPA webboards.



You know there could be some dissent when the ALPA Executive Board meets later this month. If that's the case, maybe, its just speculation on my part, just maybe our MEC Chair promised to bring FDX ALPA in on the "right" side of this issue, thereby insuring a change to ALPA's Age 60 Regulated retirement age position.

Could also explain why the Alpa President is visiting the MEM airport to talk with the troops tomorrow and Tuesday.

Could be why everybody on the FDX MEC is in lockstep on this issue.

Always bothers me when everybody agrees on the same solution or takes the same side of a difficult issue. Leads to group think.

Gunter

I hope enough of us responded to the poll by disagreeing with the "ALPA should change position to have a say in the legislation" question. That mind trick seems to have worked on a lot folks. DW will send another e-mail out claiming we support his plan if we didn't. In the last e-mail he was proud it was only 52% against change. He saw that in his favor and a "statistical dead heat".

Then he'll charge up Capitol Hill with his "mandate" to affect change the way he wants it to happen.