Alpa Fdx
05-13-2007, 08:52 PM
#511
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
Tony,
As usual--a thoughtful and articulate argument. Just a couple thoughts...
Why is DW's position some how more noble and right that the leader of IPA, who chose to say "we remain officially neutral"?
What some see as nobility others see as an indifferent steamroller.
Personally--I'd like to see YOU get involved. Bad news from you is usually at least covered with thoughtful discussion, some wit, and a sense of perspective. That beats the "because we say so..." the firm keeps spewing on any correspondence they send out.
Second--your math is wrong. Bringing back over 60 SOs doesn't roll the train forward 5 years, its probably more like 6. With retro, pilots who would otherwise have moved on to retirement will bid and hold captain, which adds a few more (TBD how many) pilots to the mix. There will be some pilots who cannot hold captain at implentation + 5 years because the guys in front of them will JUST be getting those spots.
Again--big picture--the disenfranchised won't quit FedEx. Most won't quit ALPA. They'll accept the modified career expectations like folks have done after fuloughs, mergers, or other airline setbacks. But going against the wishes of the majority of on the subject of retro doesn't smell to many like fairness, but rather like the protection of a senior elite. By ignoring the majority the leadership has squandered the next 10-15 years of goodwill and alienated 2000+ pilots in some vain attempt to placate a few hundred folks--many of whom could retire immediately with something close to full benefits. ( I know there are some cases where that is NOT the case too) That's a Phyrric victory for the leadership. The unilateral movement of scope penalites to fund VEBA, the apparent lack of a fight against age 60, the apparent lack of a fight for passover pay for some MD-11 FOs, and now the move to proactively pursue a policy of retroactive age 60 implementation all have painted a picture of an MEC concerned only with matters which protect the most senior. The erosion of trust caused by the "perception" coupled with the lack of any real aggressive communication from anyone (except Sleepy...God Bless him...) has the potential to weaken the credibility and future support of our MEC. I dont' expect DW to call me and ask if the printers in the office need new ink or not. On the other hand, we've got over 4800 pilots with college degrees and some solid life experiences. I think we can trust the union membership to have some sound input on matters which have such serious career ramifications.
As usual--a thoughtful and articulate argument. Just a couple thoughts...
Why is DW's position some how more noble and right that the leader of IPA, who chose to say "we remain officially neutral"?
What some see as nobility others see as an indifferent steamroller.
Personally--I'd like to see YOU get involved. Bad news from you is usually at least covered with thoughtful discussion, some wit, and a sense of perspective. That beats the "because we say so..." the firm keeps spewing on any correspondence they send out.
Second--your math is wrong. Bringing back over 60 SOs doesn't roll the train forward 5 years, its probably more like 6. With retro, pilots who would otherwise have moved on to retirement will bid and hold captain, which adds a few more (TBD how many) pilots to the mix. There will be some pilots who cannot hold captain at implentation + 5 years because the guys in front of them will JUST be getting those spots.
Again--big picture--the disenfranchised won't quit FedEx. Most won't quit ALPA. They'll accept the modified career expectations like folks have done after fuloughs, mergers, or other airline setbacks. But going against the wishes of the majority of on the subject of retro doesn't smell to many like fairness, but rather like the protection of a senior elite. By ignoring the majority the leadership has squandered the next 10-15 years of goodwill and alienated 2000+ pilots in some vain attempt to placate a few hundred folks--many of whom could retire immediately with something close to full benefits. ( I know there are some cases where that is NOT the case too) That's a Phyrric victory for the leadership. The unilateral movement of scope penalites to fund VEBA, the apparent lack of a fight against age 60, the apparent lack of a fight for passover pay for some MD-11 FOs, and now the move to proactively pursue a policy of retroactive age 60 implementation all have painted a picture of an MEC concerned only with matters which protect the most senior. The erosion of trust caused by the "perception" coupled with the lack of any real aggressive communication from anyone (except Sleepy...God Bless him...) has the potential to weaken the credibility and future support of our MEC. I dont' expect DW to call me and ask if the printers in the office need new ink or not. On the other hand, we've got over 4800 pilots with college degrees and some solid life experiences. I think we can trust the union membership to have some sound input on matters which have such serious career ramifications.
05-13-2007, 09:00 PM
#512
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 F/O
Posts: 98
Sleepy18: Your attempts at explanations are so weak as to barely deserve a response. They are simply excuses why you and the rest of the LEC/MEC have to go.
ALPA got outflanked and allowed its stance against Age 60 changing by a very small minority of older airline pilots. Just how effective are we to judge ALPA PAC is if it can't even outgun a bunch of retirees? I know the answer, ALPA PAC wasn't even trying to, because Capt Prater and all the other old guys at ALPA National and most MECs it appears, were actually trying to backdoor the legislation all along. Thanks for that, kiss any hope of every receiving any PAC money from this pilot goodbye.
2.Nice job of politics and blaming the impending change on President Bush. Yeah, he is the guy to blame for the US caving to ICAO idiocy. That is really rich.
3. We lost some support on the hill. Too fng bad. You still have to fight for what is right and what the majority wants. You guys just decided it is time to quit so you can continue to line your pockets with the future earnings potential of those of us unfortunate enough to not have had our chance to upgrade yet.
4. The legislation, if passed, will have nothing negotiated about it. All the details will be done after the fact and between the various MECs and the companies at contract time. You say we can only have a voice if we cave on our principles, and then you say that we must stick to our principles on as issue we can't even win (retroactivity) because all of a sudden we are worried about doing the right thing. You can't have it both ways.
What makes you think you will have any say in the legislation if you fight against the principal feature of the change (retroactivity) but not if we fight against the change itself? That makes absolutely no sense and destroys any credibility you might have had with the membership.
5. Probably true, but with the representation (er, lack there of) that you are providing for the membership I would rather take my chances with the FAA reauthorization bill. If you guys get involved with the NPRM you will only continue to cut my legs out from under me. No thanks.
ALPA got outflanked and allowed its stance against Age 60 changing by a very small minority of older airline pilots. Just how effective are we to judge ALPA PAC is if it can't even outgun a bunch of retirees? I know the answer, ALPA PAC wasn't even trying to, because Capt Prater and all the other old guys at ALPA National and most MECs it appears, were actually trying to backdoor the legislation all along. Thanks for that, kiss any hope of every receiving any PAC money from this pilot goodbye.
2.Nice job of politics and blaming the impending change on President Bush. Yeah, he is the guy to blame for the US caving to ICAO idiocy. That is really rich.
3. We lost some support on the hill. Too fng bad. You still have to fight for what is right and what the majority wants. You guys just decided it is time to quit so you can continue to line your pockets with the future earnings potential of those of us unfortunate enough to not have had our chance to upgrade yet.
4. The legislation, if passed, will have nothing negotiated about it. All the details will be done after the fact and between the various MECs and the companies at contract time. You say we can only have a voice if we cave on our principles, and then you say that we must stick to our principles on as issue we can't even win (retroactivity) because all of a sudden we are worried about doing the right thing. You can't have it both ways.
What makes you think you will have any say in the legislation if you fight against the principal feature of the change (retroactivity) but not if we fight against the change itself? That makes absolutely no sense and destroys any credibility you might have had with the membership.
5. Probably true, but with the representation (er, lack there of) that you are providing for the membership I would rather take my chances with the FAA reauthorization bill. If you guys get involved with the NPRM you will only continue to cut my legs out from under me. No thanks.
I'm sorry that you think my comments are weak. Personally, I don't recall telling any of you guys that your arguments were weak, but thanks for pointing out my shortcomings to me. This is one of the problems with internet message boards.
I thought if I merely tried to explain my insights into the process that it might help things out some. I guess it doesn't help you, but maybe it will help some on here.
If you have more input for me, please feel free to call, my cell number is on page 2,3, or 4, not sure now. Or you can catch me at the town hall meeting on Tuesday at some point. Have a good one.
05-13-2007, 09:15 PM
#513
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Hey Sleepy,
You're a good man. Don't take it personally. I think SNAFU may have missed a few days at charm school. His delivery has a bit to be desired. I'm sure he'll make a fine capt. some day.
And, I know you will.
I especially liked the "so you can continue to line your pockets" part.
Anyway, thanks for all your SPC work and mixing it up here.
By the way SNAFU...I don't think we can recall Sleepy until he takes his new office on July 01.
You're a good man. Don't take it personally. I think SNAFU may have missed a few days at charm school. His delivery has a bit to be desired. I'm sure he'll make a fine capt. some day.
And, I know you will. I especially liked the "so you can continue to line your pockets" part.
Anyway, thanks for all your SPC work and mixing it up here.
By the way SNAFU...I don't think we can recall Sleepy until he takes his new office on July 01.
05-13-2007, 09:28 PM
#514
Trust but Verify!!
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD11 CRA
Posts: 684
"In one manner of speaking, the issue only affects a small number of Over-60 Second Officers. In another manner of speaking, it affects every one of us, and every pilot that follows us, as seniority is a cornerstone of our profession. The downside just doesn't justify abandoning such an important principle."
Very eloquent Tony. You make some good points. You seem to be OK, and even enamored with Dave Webb's leadership and decision making style. I would disagree that allowing a vote or poll where the membership had a chance to be heard by their leadership before making decisions is a bad thing. You used 2 or 3 posts out of over 500 to make your point about voter ignorance. How about the other 497 or so that made excellent and factual points to support their side? I think, although it was likely not your intention, this is being disingenuous to those that feel differently than you do about this issue. There have been good points made by both sides of the aisle on this issue, and as you said, it has been rather civilized considering the huge implications to everyone here.
I also see you are agreeing with the MEC by saying that there are not enough of those who will return from the panel to really make a difference. It's funny, but neither my block rep, other MEC members, or you make me feel any better here. How many come back or where they go is not the main issue. It is an MEC Chairman that continues to lead MEC's to take these tough stands you talk about , (without allowing input from his members), for only one group of pilots. How do you answer the pilots here who have raised the question of their seniority rights, and contractual rights, being ignored when they were not allowed pass over pay? It sure looks to me like they were due some. If seniority is the cornerstone, then why was it apparently ignored here?
My bigger question is if Dave Webb and this MEC think they know what is right here, then why don't they take the time to educate us, give us a chance to ask some questions, and then allow us our right for a say. If they are so convinced they are doing the right thing, for the right reasons, it should be easy to convince enough of us of this to win any vote they put out. Your comparison of taking an issue this big to this pilot group, and comparing it with the ridiculous idea of everyone having a say on who we buy copiers from, is insulting to me. I am disappointed and surprised you would make such a false analogy. I know fully well there are everyday issues to be solved without my democratic vote. Allowing me to have a say on an issue as big as this, one that will have a huge effect on my career and quality of life, isn't one of them. I think you know that.
I know there is little time here for a vote on Age 60 stances. My questions are:
How did we get so far behind the power curve that we were pushed into a corner and not allowed a vote?
Why hasn't the MEC been discussing these issues, especially about retroactivity, with the membership much earlier?
Why do we (or the MEC) have to decide on retroactivity right now?
I disagree wholeheartedly with those that try and make this a contractual issue. If the law is passed, and has retroactivity in it, and FDX refuses to follow it, then it becomes a contractual issue and I will be the first one to fight for those over 60 who want to get back. But that's not what we are talking about here.
Let me ask you this Tony. Let's say FDX sees this coming and doesn't want to deal with it. They then put out and close a bid that has training dates 5 years into the future. 6 months later, the regulated age changes with retroactivity. Would you support another MEC edict, again without allowing the members to have a say, that resolves to try and force FDX to make the bid retroactive as well so those pilots previously over 60 can hold what their seniority now allows? Of course, this would send those at the bottom of the award back to their previous seat. What if they were willing to sacrifice another part of our contract via an LOA to achieve this, again, without our say? Would you support that? Think it can't happen? I don't anymore. They have lost my trust for now. So just where does this "support for seniority rights" begin and end and at whose ultimate cost? If everyone concerned is not asking these questions of their MEC and LEC Reps right now, you are just setting yourself up for the next big "we didn't have time to educate the members here and allow their input before forming a policy " moment. Some may say that when Dave Webb and the MEC unilaterally decide issues for us, and lock out membership participation, they look heroic. I'd say refusing to allow a vote on issues you do not take the time to educate the members on, and one you are not sure will go the way "you" think it should is hardly heroic at all.
I respect you Tony, I really do. Honestly though, I am disappointed in your response . It has too many faulty comparisons to back up your points. I do look forward to your answers to the questions I posed though. Just where are we headed with this retroactive policy if Dave Webb and the MEC get what they want? Sleepy, feel free to chime in with your answers as well. I do appreciate your input here, even if I still disagree with some of your rationalizations.
Very eloquent Tony. You make some good points. You seem to be OK, and even enamored with Dave Webb's leadership and decision making style. I would disagree that allowing a vote or poll where the membership had a chance to be heard by their leadership before making decisions is a bad thing. You used 2 or 3 posts out of over 500 to make your point about voter ignorance. How about the other 497 or so that made excellent and factual points to support their side? I think, although it was likely not your intention, this is being disingenuous to those that feel differently than you do about this issue. There have been good points made by both sides of the aisle on this issue, and as you said, it has been rather civilized considering the huge implications to everyone here.
I also see you are agreeing with the MEC by saying that there are not enough of those who will return from the panel to really make a difference. It's funny, but neither my block rep, other MEC members, or you make me feel any better here. How many come back or where they go is not the main issue. It is an MEC Chairman that continues to lead MEC's to take these tough stands you talk about , (without allowing input from his members), for only one group of pilots. How do you answer the pilots here who have raised the question of their seniority rights, and contractual rights, being ignored when they were not allowed pass over pay? It sure looks to me like they were due some. If seniority is the cornerstone, then why was it apparently ignored here?
My bigger question is if Dave Webb and this MEC think they know what is right here, then why don't they take the time to educate us, give us a chance to ask some questions, and then allow us our right for a say. If they are so convinced they are doing the right thing, for the right reasons, it should be easy to convince enough of us of this to win any vote they put out. Your comparison of taking an issue this big to this pilot group, and comparing it with the ridiculous idea of everyone having a say on who we buy copiers from, is insulting to me. I am disappointed and surprised you would make such a false analogy. I know fully well there are everyday issues to be solved without my democratic vote. Allowing me to have a say on an issue as big as this, one that will have a huge effect on my career and quality of life, isn't one of them. I think you know that.
I know there is little time here for a vote on Age 60 stances. My questions are:
How did we get so far behind the power curve that we were pushed into a corner and not allowed a vote?
Why hasn't the MEC been discussing these issues, especially about retroactivity, with the membership much earlier?
Why do we (or the MEC) have to decide on retroactivity right now?
I disagree wholeheartedly with those that try and make this a contractual issue. If the law is passed, and has retroactivity in it, and FDX refuses to follow it, then it becomes a contractual issue and I will be the first one to fight for those over 60 who want to get back. But that's not what we are talking about here.
Let me ask you this Tony. Let's say FDX sees this coming and doesn't want to deal with it. They then put out and close a bid that has training dates 5 years into the future. 6 months later, the regulated age changes with retroactivity. Would you support another MEC edict, again without allowing the members to have a say, that resolves to try and force FDX to make the bid retroactive as well so those pilots previously over 60 can hold what their seniority now allows? Of course, this would send those at the bottom of the award back to their previous seat. What if they were willing to sacrifice another part of our contract via an LOA to achieve this, again, without our say? Would you support that? Think it can't happen? I don't anymore. They have lost my trust for now. So just where does this "support for seniority rights" begin and end and at whose ultimate cost? If everyone concerned is not asking these questions of their MEC and LEC Reps right now, you are just setting yourself up for the next big "we didn't have time to educate the members here and allow their input before forming a policy " moment. Some may say that when Dave Webb and the MEC unilaterally decide issues for us, and lock out membership participation, they look heroic. I'd say refusing to allow a vote on issues you do not take the time to educate the members on, and one you are not sure will go the way "you" think it should is hardly heroic at all.
I respect you Tony, I really do. Honestly though, I am disappointed in your response . It has too many faulty comparisons to back up your points. I do look forward to your answers to the questions I posed though. Just where are we headed with this retroactive policy if Dave Webb and the MEC get what they want? Sleepy, feel free to chime in with your answers as well. I do appreciate your input here, even if I still disagree with some of your rationalizations.
Last edited by FreightDawgyDog; 05-13-2007 at 09:35 PM.
05-14-2007, 04:34 AM
#515
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,238
You lost me with the we're-kids-playing-in-traffic analogy (and our MEC is what - our benevolent father?)
Most f/o's I know are in their 40's with a little more life experience than you intimate (I don't, for example, need the lecture on representative democracy).
This costs us money, Tony. Either Dave finds a way to decrease that a little, or this becomes the Parking Lot Deal for our generation.
Even an empty gesture would be something at this point. "Hey guys, I know this sucks for you but I'll try and make it up somehow...."
Most f/o's I know are in their 40's with a little more life experience than you intimate (I don't, for example, need the lecture on representative democracy).
This costs us money, Tony. Either Dave finds a way to decrease that a little, or this becomes the Parking Lot Deal for our generation.
Even an empty gesture would be something at this point. "Hey guys, I know this sucks for you but I'll try and make it up somehow...."
Last edited by Huck; 05-14-2007 at 04:55 AM.
05-14-2007, 04:55 AM
#516
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Leader or Pollster?
What should your MEC Chairman be?
An MEC Chairman that based his actions solely on the popular vote of the constituents would be nothing more than a pollster. Anybody could do that, and he wouldn't deserve the salary he's paid. It would be in our best interest to apppoint the most junior pilot in the company to fill that position, because it would require no expertise, no judgment, no loyalty, no knowledge, and certainly no leadership. (He could even come from your block, Albie.
)
.
What should your MEC Chairman be?
An MEC Chairman that based his actions solely on the popular vote of the constituents would be nothing more than a pollster. Anybody could do that, and he wouldn't deserve the salary he's paid. It would be in our best interest to apppoint the most junior pilot in the company to fill that position, because it would require no expertise, no judgment, no loyalty, no knowledge, and certainly no leadership. (He could even come from your block, Albie.
).
I use your input to help me form opinions.
You have some good points. I see there are reasons why no poll was taken. DW knew the answer he would get and wanted to do the right thing, as he saw it, regardless of the uproar. It does take leadership to do that.
But there are things I don't like about this process of chairing a union that you call leadersip. Moving scope money into VEBA without input. Claiming the reason not to increase newhire training pay was that effort was better spent working HARD to get better retirement bennies and GRID penalties. All I ever got was the "peripheral" issues just weren't going to be solved at the expense of the most important ones. BS.
I really don't think it's mostly about leadership. That was the military. This is a union of supposedly equal members. An association if you will. There are going to be big fights amongst the members that need to be solved to one side's or no side's satisfaction. We are now experiencing the older members trying to throw the junior folks under the bus before they get thrown under the bus. It's about trying to get one over on the other guy. If you aren't savvy enough, you may buy into some pretty good stories about why things are why they are. Sadly, that is often how union politics is run. We shouldn't be fooled by claims of leadership and plausible other reasons for the decisions. They are what they are....using union power to the benefit of one group over another in the association.
I would support a pollster. After the polls decisions still have to be made. And they will be made.
I support your junior candidate idea. I think they would bring some fresh blood to the process. I thought agency shop was a good idea. Now I'm not so sure. How do the junior guys (anyone?) exercise their rights when the "leaders" identify (finally reveal?) their most important ideas and decisions after an election and not before? Why choose to surprise us all with this info and claim an emergency? I don't just trust, I would like a full explanation before I offer that. We aren't in negotiations and we certainly aren't charging up the hill to take it from the enemy.
With all due respect, maybe DW just made a mistake in how he approached us. But now it looks like damage control. He could have come accross a little more apologetic to the junior folks and explained why no poll before there was a demand for one. Maybe that's not his style? I don't know.
What I do know---This was no emergency until DW waited long enough to try to make it so. That makes us all suspicious.
Last edited by Gunter; 05-14-2007 at 05:18 AM.
05-14-2007, 05:49 AM
#518
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Seniority rights is a cornerstone of our very existance in this profession, and it's a principle that was fought for at no small expense. To abandon a couple hundred or so folks at our airline (I don't know how many at others) on this issue would be abandoning a principle that we all value dearly. So, on the issue of retroactivity, I ask the same questions:
Is that the right thing? Debatable.
Is that the popular thing? Clearly not.
My opinion is that it is the right thing to do, and I commend Capt Webb for taking the right position, even when it is so unpopular.
.
Is that the right thing? Debatable.
Is that the popular thing? Clearly not.
My opinion is that it is the right thing to do, and I commend Capt Webb for taking the right position, even when it is so unpopular.
.
I commend you for wanting to do the right thing.
But I don't agree with your assumptions. For years the "right thing" has been to support age 60 as the end of a 121 career. Not much talk about how it hurt anyone's seniority rights until just recently. It was just the rule and we worked seniority in accordance with the Government rule.
Now it's a big issue at companies with lost pensions and benefits. We are not one one of those and actually find ourselves to be the premier carrier to work for (and retire from) in terms of pay and benefits. Suddenly when the age is being raised the way in which it is being raised, prospective vs. retroactive, it has turned into a very important seniority issue. What if the government chose not to raise it for another 2 years? Would that be a seniority issue? Of course not.
The issue, instead, is one of how best to implement this important change. It has been hard for many to retire at 60 for DECADES. It is no more difficult for those retiring now at FDX that a prospective change to the retirement age may occur. It's actually easier since we have a better contract now. Just because you miss the cutoff by 2 years, 6 months or even 15 days is not important. Your proximity to the cutoff does not elevate the importance of your side of the issue above how it affects junior folks, the guy who retired last year or the folks at SWA, CAL and AA who had no choice and retired one day too early. We have a good pension, the old guys are not getting the shaft. In fact, I'm very happy that over 60 is coming before we lose the 3 man cockpit.
So we have an issue where less than 300 guys/gals can just stay SO or retire or greatly impact over 2500 other pilots. I am very glad folks have been able to stay past 60 here. I'm sure all are thankful as well. As an association of pilots I think the choice is an easy one. The impact is minimal on the 300 (probably 150 or less) and huge on 2500+.
The right thing to do (for everyone) is prospective implementation.
Last edited by Gunter; 05-14-2007 at 06:23 AM.
05-14-2007, 06:36 AM
#519
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Tony and all retroactive supporters,
I'm sorry if you are bored by my reposting from another thread, but I really want to know your take on the NWA's MEC and UPS' IPA positions that are different than DW's. They claim to be doing the right thing too. It's just not a bunch of selfish, out of control, foaming at the mouth, low I.Q. junior guys at FDX that disagrees with DW and the FDX MEC.
It appears folks in the same position as our MEC came up with different conclusions. I call them peers who had every opportunity and pressure to assume the FDX ALPA position.
The IPA is officially "neutral". The letter below, to a crewmember who filed an EEOC complaint against the IPA, outlines our leadership's position.
----------------------------
April 10, 2007
Dear Captain XXXXXXXXX:
I am in receipt of your correspondence dated March 20, 2007, concerning the pilot age 65 retirement issue. As you are aware, the Association has not taken a position on either extending the pilot retirement age or on keeping the current rule. I do not believe you will find any Association minutes in which we have taken a position on this issue. The Association’s neutrality does not mean, however, that the issue lacks importance. On the contrary, all pilots have a stake in the current debate. Our failure to take sides is a reflection of the fact that the issue is divisive and works to serve the interests of competing demographic groups within the membership.
Because our members hold strong views on both sides of the question, the Executive Board has not made an endorsement nor have we expended Association funds for lobbying efforts. Because we represent the entire pilot group and collect dues money from all members, the Executive Board has to date not thought it appropriate to choose sides. I have personally reviewed the issue of our neutrality on this issue with Association legal counsel. The Association is not in violation of either the IPA Constitution and By-Laws nor any applicable statue by virtue of our neutral position. We have created a committee to deal with implementation issues should the rule change.
Having said the above, a couple of addition points are in order: 1) The current age 60 rule was a product of the carriers and government working hand in glove. I believe energy spent blaming IPA (formed in 1990 after the rule had been in place for decades) is misdirected. To allow controversy over this rule to weaken and divide the very organization that speaks for and represents all UPS pilots would be absolutely wrong. 2) Individual IPA members have the capacity and are encouraged to become as active as they wish in supporting or opposing the rule change. Advocacy organizations have sprung up that are focused on lobbying efforts supporting each respective point of view—individual IPA members are free to participate.
As a 60 year old pilot, I have personal experience with the rule, and, not surprisingly, have strong personal views on the subject. As the president of the entire organization, however, I have a responsibility to the group as a whole—not to one demographic group. Thank you for sharing your views on this subject.
Fraternally,
Robert M. Miller,
President, IPA
cc: Executive Board
I'm sorry if you are bored by my reposting from another thread, but I really want to know your take on the NWA's MEC and UPS' IPA positions that are different than DW's. They claim to be doing the right thing too. It's just not a bunch of selfish, out of control, foaming at the mouth, low I.Q. junior guys at FDX that disagrees with DW and the FDX MEC.
It appears folks in the same position as our MEC came up with different conclusions. I call them peers who had every opportunity and pressure to assume the FDX ALPA position.
The IPA is officially "neutral". The letter below, to a crewmember who filed an EEOC complaint against the IPA, outlines our leadership's position.
----------------------------
April 10, 2007
Dear Captain XXXXXXXXX:
I am in receipt of your correspondence dated March 20, 2007, concerning the pilot age 65 retirement issue. As you are aware, the Association has not taken a position on either extending the pilot retirement age or on keeping the current rule. I do not believe you will find any Association minutes in which we have taken a position on this issue. The Association’s neutrality does not mean, however, that the issue lacks importance. On the contrary, all pilots have a stake in the current debate. Our failure to take sides is a reflection of the fact that the issue is divisive and works to serve the interests of competing demographic groups within the membership.
Because our members hold strong views on both sides of the question, the Executive Board has not made an endorsement nor have we expended Association funds for lobbying efforts. Because we represent the entire pilot group and collect dues money from all members, the Executive Board has to date not thought it appropriate to choose sides. I have personally reviewed the issue of our neutrality on this issue with Association legal counsel. The Association is not in violation of either the IPA Constitution and By-Laws nor any applicable statue by virtue of our neutral position. We have created a committee to deal with implementation issues should the rule change.
Having said the above, a couple of addition points are in order: 1) The current age 60 rule was a product of the carriers and government working hand in glove. I believe energy spent blaming IPA (formed in 1990 after the rule had been in place for decades) is misdirected. To allow controversy over this rule to weaken and divide the very organization that speaks for and represents all UPS pilots would be absolutely wrong. 2) Individual IPA members have the capacity and are encouraged to become as active as they wish in supporting or opposing the rule change. Advocacy organizations have sprung up that are focused on lobbying efforts supporting each respective point of view—individual IPA members are free to participate.
As a 60 year old pilot, I have personal experience with the rule, and, not surprisingly, have strong personal views on the subject. As the president of the entire organization, however, I have a responsibility to the group as a whole—not to one demographic group. Thank you for sharing your views on this subject.
Fraternally,
Robert M. Miller,
President, IPA
cc: Executive Board
Last edited by Gunter; 05-14-2007 at 06:41 AM.
05-14-2007, 10:52 AM
#520
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,813
But there are things I don't like about this process of chairing a union that you call leadersip. Moving scope money into VEBA without input. Claiming the reason not to increase newhire training pay was that effort was better spent working HARD to get better retirement bennies and GRID penalties. All I ever got was the "peripheral" issues just weren't going to be solved at the expense of the most important ones. BS.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
