JollyF15

Tony and Pinseeker,

Just curious, but do you guys think ALPA is ever wrong? I'm glad that we are keeping this civil and discussing this like adults. That's a good thing. I think we are all entitled to our respective opinions, but at the end of the day the Union should represent us and look out for our collective good. You will never make everyone happy, I understand that. This is a giant s--t storm brewing, and I think it's safe to say the majority are not happy with the position our Union is taking on retroactively bringing guys back to the left seat. All those over 60 pilots got to upgrade to the left seat and have some quality time in that seat because people retired and made that seat available. Bottom line, all you over 60 dudes----go enjoy your retirement and pass the torch!

Jolly

hamfisted

Let's see....we oppose changing the Age 60 until Rule we(no wait...the insiders of FDX ALPA leadership) are told that we need to get on the train or get left behind. So, despite an "overwhelming majority" of our pilots opposing Age 65 legislation, we(no wait, the insiders of the FDX ALPA leadership)decide they need to get on that train before it leaves the station. Thank God they have so much more faith in the legislation process being accelerated than has ever been possible before or we might have missed that train.
Then, although ALPA National was instrumental in our FDX ALPA getting on the Age 65 train because we(no wait, the insiders of FDX ALPA leadership) trusted their guidance and direction; ALPA National continues to oppose retroactivity for those over 60. But thank God again, we(no wait, the insiders of FDX ALPA leadership) decide they not only know what is best for us(without input they probably know would be an overwhelming majority disagreeing) and they oppose ALPA National AND their own pilots to support Age 65 retroactivity.
I just want to say I really appreciate OUR Union knowing that in my mid-40's, with one Union sponsored furlough behind me, they know so much more than I know about what is best for my career and when to selectively support and oppose ALPA National....without taking the time to ask the opinion of myself or the other 4800+ pilots I proudly work alongside. Again...thank you FDX ALPA from the bottom of my heart.

FEDEX Slug

Well said Mr. Ham

kronan

The thing that chaps my hide is that some 60+ year old French guy can fly to the good ole USA, but, a 60+ year old American can't fly to France.

When this FAR changes, there will be an impact on my career.....but so what. She!t happens. I've got too many buds still furloughed out there for me to moan woe is me too loudly for stagnating as an FO.

Shoot, one of the bro's at AA was just demoted from 777 FO to 767 FO and he was a Capt 7 years ago......and given all the exec $$ and discussion at his airline, his wife has more of a beak about the paycut than he does.

Yes, DW could have communicated better.

Yes, it would be nice if Marion would let us vote on whether we want to change the FAR. But, being the hard core administrator that she is, she just totally ignored ALPA and announced a NPRM to change the regulated age.....even though her blue ribbon Age 60 panel was split over the issue....with the ALPA members voting to maintain the Age 60 rule as is.

RedeyeAV8r

Just curious,
Do you still support George Bush who took us to war when the Majortiy of Americans were against it............OH wait, I'm ****ed cause I didn't get to vote on if we went to war or not..........

Come to think of it, I'm ****ed because I didn't get to vote agaisnt Open skies............

I didn't get to vote on this age 60 thing either.......................

You are acting like ALPA is GOD. ALPA often has influence on the Hill, but the leaders are telling you LOUD and Clear that they don't have any on Age 60........"Not this Tme"

Even if ALPA had created a ballot for a membership vote on whether to change the position, what would that really have served..........IT AIN"T GONNA MATTER and if you don't realize that by now well maybe you haven't been reading everything that is out there.

It's happening without ALPA input and probably pretty quickly.
We have already lost that battle, it is time to re-evaluate tactics and try to salvage what we can.

Just one guy's opinion who will suffer negative movement when the AGE Changes.

hamfisted

Redeye....comparing George Bush taking us into Iraq and ALPA(where I pay a sizable fee for their representation) acquiescing on the Age 60 issue is quite a stretch. You are wrong by the way... the majority of Americans SUPPORTED going into Iraq when we did it. And yes, I still support him after spending almost 2 years deployed to Iraq since Feb 2003.
And when did ALPA ask my opinion, or yours, about the Open Skies issue via a certified poll?? That red herring won't work here. ALPA asked my/your/our opinion about the Age 60 question. And then went completely against the results they received during the poll.
I will send you a check for 50 bucks for a steak dinner if any legislation reference Age 60 is signed into law by 1 Jan 2008. The train leaving the station will make a lot of stops before it gets to where our FDX ALPA leaders now THINK it's going at the speed of heat.

RedeyeAV8r

When did your government ask your opinion if you wanted us to go to war?

As far as that Steak Dinner, Your on.

You apparently do not hink it is going to Happen.
ICAO Pilots already flying in this country and the Administration's U.S. Sell out of open Skies were the 2 final nails in the Coffin.

And BTW you do pay dues to America, it's called taxes and it is alot more the 1.95%, and IMHO you get a bigger Bang for the buck from ALPA.

I ain't real happy about the ramifications of a Change in AGE 60, but apparently you feel that ALPA has a lot more power on the Hill than what your Leaders are telling you.

If you really want to fight, are you on the Capital or
Century Club in the ALPA PAC? I am

Curby

This entire argument hinges on the threat of having no input for implementation if ALPA opposes the rule. Why is it that ALPA must support the age 65 rule change in order to influence its development? This seems to be a flawed constraint that is undermining our union and its representation.

I say: Oppose the rule change – if it happens anyway – make our inputs known. In negotiations 101 we start with our desired position + something and bargain down to an acceptable position. If our elected officials will not listen to the professionals in the field then we vote them out.

Can someone out there rationally explain the blackmail? Who issued the ultimatum requirement for a yes vote to participate. Was this in writing or a drive-by threat in the parking lot? The blackmail pi$$es me off as much as the union not listening to its majority!

Curby

hamfisted

Just the opposite Redeye....I don't believe ALPA has much sway at all on Capitol Hill. Their neutered/fractured approach to pending legislation has proven minimally productive in recent years.....Open Skies, Cabotage ete etc.
And when you compare taxes to dues.....keep in mind that not all Americans pay taxes, yet they still have an equal voice. With ALPA, and maybe I am wrong but; I expect them to adhere to the voice of the majority when all of us sign on to their leadership with the understanding that they represent all of us, since all of us pay dues. I don't want a say in everything the Union gets involved in, but obviously the Age 60 issue and now their disregard for the voice of it's membership on the retroactivity issue are big issues to ALL of us. Otherwise, why the survey and the heated response when we learned of their intended stance on the retroactivity issue. Morton's or Ruth's Chris??
Appreciate your professional dialog.

machz990

I think this issue of retroactivity has more thorns yet to be uncovered. Many pilots have recently retired when they reached their 60th birthday and it was mandated that they could no longer fly in a front seat. Most retired as captains and left at the top of their game. The age 65 issue seemed distant on the horizon and not really an option. Others stuck around and went to the back seat for various reasons.........maybe high 5, retirement multiplier or maybe too many ex-wives and high overhead. Plus not all pilots have the option to stay due to manning limitations.....their are only so many engineer seats and the number is declining every day. Just because a pilot stuck around for whatever reason and this NPRM goes into effect how does that make him more rightfully eligible to bid the front seat than say a pilot who retired less than a year ago and is only 61? I can see more lawsuits coming out of this and a lot of money spent on litigation. It wreaks of discrimination if you have a retroactive clause. Now I know some will say you give up your seniority number when you retire but this age 65 thing has had the burner lit and gone into the mach to get passed. 12 months ago it was presumed that there was not going to be any retroactivity and the process looked like it was going to be lengthy. Now congress steps in and all of a sudden there is this rush to push this through. I'd like to be a fly on the wall in some of these back door meetings to see what the real imputus is to getting this passed so quickly and who are the major players pushing this through.

I'm going through a somewhat similar process with the military reserves. There is a bill right now to lower retirement age to 55 from 60 for the Air National Guard and other reserve components. I'm 11 years away from collecting any pension and if the bill were to pass tomorrow and retirement age went to 55 I would still have to wait until 60 to get mine even though I have 29 good years. No grandfather clause in that bill's language. Normally when a law changes it is effective on a certain date and from that date forward....not backward the law is changed. One day you get ticketed for speeding over 55 and the next week the speed limit is moved up to 65.....you don't get your ticket thrown out. At the time of the citation for speeding you were in violation of the law.

Marion Blakely stated there would be no retroactivity due to all of the potential problems it would create. ALPA has been against raising the retirement age for many years and now is saying we need to jump on this fast moving train. If that in fact is 100% true, then fine let's get on board but who's grandiose idea is it to also negotiate for a retroactive clause when Marion Blakely said there wouldn't be one? That brings me back to the question of what really is the true stance of the ALPA leadership on age 60?