FoxHunter

The last I looked I would be #3 727 S/O or #30 DC10 S/O using my S/O seniority number. I'm not sure one would consider either very junior.

FoxHunter

If this is passed by the Congress the new rule, age 65, becomes effective 30 days later. ALPA national seems to think it will come effective this September or October. It may be sooner since some expect a vote on S.1300 in early June.

dckozak

Do you really believe that removing ALPA and returning to FPA is a logical response to this issue?? Is this about lack of trust in DW and company, or is this issue of retroactively so important that is worth risking the unforeseen, potentially damaging aspect of going back to an in house union?? Maybe you weren't here, pre contract or pre ALPA two or One. Do you remember FPA and the travisty it became?? Clearly the issues involved in the age 60 debate has created a major fissure in the way it has been dealt with by FDX ALPA. Is it about the leadership or the issue?? If you believe the fact of retroactively (pilots returning from SO to Capt) will really adversely affect your career progression, I think your way off base. There are a lot of negative issues related to increasing the retirement age, impeded seat progression at FedEx is minor relative to the legacy pax carriers. Growth has always been the major driver to upgrades at FedEx, retirements, while increasing (or did until recently) will for the foreseeable future play a smaller part in seat movement than at slower growing (or contracting) pax carriers.
Again regarding the issue of age 60 legislation or FAA action. ALPA has not been at the forefront of this impending change. Thank the Europeans and your fellow pilots (outside of the ALPA structure and within at SWA) for helping bring this issue to our door steps. The solution is political, ALPA has determined that change is going to happen and is trying to mitigate damage to it members while respecting the rights of all members regardless of age.
This is not an issue where seniority triumphs over the less senior. I voted with the majority because I see this as a loss to all pilots. Assuming the change happens, we all will have the opportunity to shorten our retirement by five years. Thats the real loss.

SNAFU

Or, it could fail to be passed, and like an overwhelming majority of the funding bills for 2007 that still haven't been passed, and the FAA funding would go to a continuing resolution while the NPRM process turns its wheels.

Bottom line: You have no idea what will happen, and there are still many different ways this thing can play out. You've already had your hopes dashed twice, I wouldn't put away that 727 FE study guide away yet there big fella.

SNAFU

For me, there are several issues. The first, primarily, is the lack of respect for the wishes of the majority by the union "leadership", both local and national. You say that pilots outside of the ALPA structure have been gunning for this and that is true, but so have pilots within ALPA national despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of ALPA members oppose a change. Plus our entire MEC and LEC "leaders" have just told the membership to pound sand on both issues. If they refuse to represent the will of the majority that is their right but is also ours to demand representation and recall them if we feel they aren't providing it.

Believe it or not, I don't really have a problem with our backseat guys coming back if the law changes and allows for it. I would prefer that the law not change at all. I don't believe we (ALPA National) should have ever backed off our stance that it is a safety issue. If, however, the law changes and it specifically denies FEs the chance to go back up front, then I feel that our MEC and National should support that feature. The FEs would have no basis for seniority in that case. It sucks to be them, just like it sucks to be me because either way I lose if the law changes (as do most of us).

Finally, if you don't think that even one FE going back to the Captain/FOs seat won't slow down advancement for those of us still waiting our turn you are on crack. You can try to minimize it by saying it won't be that many (that is what DW said the other night) but that doesn't change the fact that even one of them will delay a significant number of other folks junior to them.

If the law changes I think ALPA ought to be fighting to have the pilot under 60 be the Captain, and thus allow over 60 guys the RIGHT SEAT ONLY. I don't care what you pay them, but the guy who has to be there to babysit the old guy should be the PIC.

RIGHT SEAT ONLY!

Flying Boxes

I think the MEC has already set the precident that seniority doesn't apply for training!!!!!!

How important do you feel about that little fiasco/opinion now. Our union will really have a tough time explaining how it can support lack or seniority with the "junior varsity", and support seniority with the "varsity" team! Sounds like they have really set themselves up to look bad in this case! Makes me want puke when I here about principles, and "right thing to do". Sounds like our MEC has Situational ethics.

Also, please explain the ethical clarity you feel in supporting retroactivity, our unions stance, whithout supporting it for retirees! It is/will be the same law change!


So accordingly they (maybe you) are SOL!

Busboy

That's easy. If it becomes a law or regulation...Then the "regulated age" as defined in our CBA would change. And, of course you would have to honor that change. The contract didn't change, the law did.

But, that is much different than actively pursuing the change! Against the will of the majority of your constituents.

SleepyF18

The below is some background information on why the MEC feels as it does. I know most of you are very emotional on this issue, and that you may not be willing to accept this information at face value. That is up to you, my intent is to merely provide some background information on how this decision was made and show that there is no secret agenda.

1. ALPA has successfully defended the existing age 60 repeatedly since 1980.

2. Two seismic events have taken place in the last several months which are leading your union’s leadership to decide on a change in our position: (1) the President allowed foreign pilots over 60 to operate in U.S. airspace pursuant to ICAO policy, and (2) the announcement by the FAA of its intention to mirror ICAO policy and allow pilots to fly to 65. These two events essentially nullified ALPA’s position arguably based on safety concerns.

3. Senators Inouye, Salazar, Lieberman, Feingold, and Representative Rangel who have traditionally supported ALPA’s opposition to changing the age 60 rule now support a change. Senate Bill S. 65, which would change the law, now has 25 sponsors, and House Resolution H.R. 1125, which would do the same thing, has over 70 House sponsors. Additionally, senators and House representatives who now support changing the law have come to view it as an age discrimination issue.

4. If ALPA is to minimize the impact of a change to age 60, a change we feel is imminent, we have to be players in the political environment in Washington. We currently are not; Congress and the FAA are telling us they will not discuss the issue with us until we change our position. The potential currently exists for contractual changes to become legislated, not negotiated.

5. We feel changing the venue of this issue to the NPRM process and away from the legislative process will afford the best opportunity for us to minimize downside implications of a change.



With regard to the prospective nature of pilots currently flying past age 60, a read of our contract may be in order. Specifically, under Section 2, the definition of Regulate Age states:



The age at which FARs do not permit a pilot to continue flying as a Captain or First Officer.



When you look at Section 22 you will find under paragraph B. Seniority Accrual and Application:

1. A pilot who has established seniority shall not lose his seniority except that a pilot shall forfeit all employment and seniority rights and his name shall be removed from the Master Seniority List under the following conditions:

a. Retirement.



If the regulated age changes to age 65, this MEC believes that under no circumstances should those pilots currently working past 60 be denied the right on any subsequent bid to exercise their seniority in accordance with their contract . To do otherwise compromises our integrity at its foundation and as such should not be a part of any resolution coming from our union.



This issue has the potential to undermine the unity of our membership ALPA-wide. We did not initiate this change; ICAO and the President’s decision to allow foreign pilots over age 60 to fly in the US did.

ALPA President Captain John Prater will be in Memphis on May 14 and May 15. This is a great opportunity for all pilots in the Memphis area to come out and ask questions. Refreshments will be served during both of these events. Please make plans to attend one of these road shows.

Monday, May 14
10 a.m. - 2 p.m.
MEM Airport
* Conference Room A
* Security Checkpoint A
* Terminal A

Tuesday, May 15
11 a.m. - 2 p.m.
Germantown Centre
1801 Exeter Road
Germantown, TN




When you objectively evaluate these arguments, I trust you will agree that your MEC is doing the right thing. If you do not, please feel free to call your rep.



See you on the line.

Busboy

..........

Busboy

Sleepy,

I've heard all that. Some of it verbatim from my rep.

We have many things in our contract that limit people's rights/benefits based on age at a certain date. Our retirement section is filled with things that keep certain age groups from benefiting. Like, the multipliers, the VEBA funds, etc,.

Does having to be age 50 at date of signing, having a seniority number on June 1, 1999 or having to be age 53 on Jan 1, 2007 ring a bell? Those are all age limits that WE negotiated in our own CBA.

So, how is it that if we are opposed to our MEC trying to steer language that benefits a few, and not the majority, we don't understand? If the law changes to include retroactivity...then so be it. The FDX ALAP membership doesn't want it, and our leaders should not be pushing for it as, "the right thing to do". I see no difference in declaring an age for VEBA funds and allowing the FAA/congress to set a proactive date for over age 60 guys.