Alpa Fdx
05-15-2007, 08:21 AM
#571
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
I'm talking about the DAL, UAL, USAir, etc. guys suing to get their jobs back if the new reg/law allows our over 60 guys back in the front seat.
How bout this...Why would ATA, ALPA Nat'l and every other airline not want retroactivity for active over 60 pilots? Why would they care?
How bout this...Why would ATA, ALPA Nat'l and every other airline not want retroactivity for active over 60 pilots? Why would they care?
Look The FedEx MEC just wants protection for all Active Pilots on the List.
Pilots not on the list are not covered by contract.
All I or the rest of us can go by is OUR Contract:
SECTION 22 Seniority
Contract Administration
Section 22.B. Seniority - Seniority Accrual and Application
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
1.Retirement.
2.Resignation.
3.Termination for just cause pursuant to Section 19, 20, and 21.
If a Pilot has Retired, resgined our is fired he/she is off the list.
What if what if..........
What if FEDEX wants to terminate our A-Plan?
What if FedEx wants to hire Forieng Piulots in China?
What if FedEX want to furlough out of Seniority?
You can play "What IF" all what if all youwant. I can't control who sues who over what. We already have Pilots suing over Age discrimination. All we can do is look to our contract and defend it the best we can.
05-15-2007, 08:22 AM
#572
New Hire
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 8
I personally know of 2 people at FDX that are on a LOA since they turned age 60 in anticipation of coming back via the congressional legislation. Im sure there are more.........
05-15-2007, 08:32 AM
#573
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: unskilled laborer
Posts: 353
Redeye--
There are many different viewpoints. I think we understand that the MEC feels strongly about protecting seniority rights and defending the contract. You have made that point.
From your response, you seem to be missing Busboy's argument. No less than DW himself said in the crewroom that retro is going to be difficult to achieve because some feel this will enable a legal argument from those forced to retire at other airlines. That does not argue against your point of the MEC's intentions.
Busboy asked why ALPA national would care since there aren't many backseaters anywhere else. It was rhetorical because he wants you to see the point I clarified above (attempted to anyway).
Can we all agree that FDX ALPA wants the legislation to be different than ALPA leadership at this point in time?
You may continue.
There are many different viewpoints. I think we understand that the MEC feels strongly about protecting seniority rights and defending the contract. You have made that point.
From your response, you seem to be missing Busboy's argument. No less than DW himself said in the crewroom that retro is going to be difficult to achieve because some feel this will enable a legal argument from those forced to retire at other airlines. That does not argue against your point of the MEC's intentions.
Busboy asked why ALPA national would care since there aren't many backseaters anywhere else. It was rhetorical because he wants you to see the point I clarified above (attempted to anyway).
Can we all agree that FDX ALPA wants the legislation to be different than ALPA leadership at this point in time?
You may continue.
05-15-2007, 08:54 AM
#574
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Redeye--
There are many different viewpoints. I think we understand that the MEC feels strongly about protecting seniority rights and defending the contract. You have made that point.
From your response, you seem to be missing Busboy's argument. No less than DW himself said in the crewroom that retro is going to be difficult to achieve because some feel this will enable a legal argument from those forced to retire at other airlines. That does not argue against your point of the MEC's intentions.
Busboy asked why ALPA national would care since there aren't many backseaters anywhere else. It was rhetorical because he wants you to see the point I clarified above (attempted to anyway).
Can we all agree that FDX ALPA wants the legislation to be different than ALPA leadership at this point in time?
You may continue.
There are many different viewpoints. I think we understand that the MEC feels strongly about protecting seniority rights and defending the contract. You have made that point.
From your response, you seem to be missing Busboy's argument. No less than DW himself said in the crewroom that retro is going to be difficult to achieve because some feel this will enable a legal argument from those forced to retire at other airlines. That does not argue against your point of the MEC's intentions.
Busboy asked why ALPA national would care since there aren't many backseaters anywhere else. It was rhetorical because he wants you to see the point I clarified above (attempted to anyway).
Can we all agree that FDX ALPA wants the legislation to be different than ALPA leadership at this point in time?
You may continue.
I see his point and from what I have read there are a few MECs around that might still vote to keep opposing the Rule change. Different pilot groups within ALPA have different views..........depending on their circumstances.
Obviously a Group that has had their Pensions Stolen from them feel more passionately about certain provsions than others.
Obviously a group that has 1800-2000 Pilots on Furlough looks at things differently too.
This DW email has certainly taken on life of its own.
I was merely pointing out the simple view of it.
Seniority rights are defined in our contract.......as I previously pasted.
The FDX MEC is not adovcating any retiree coming back>
But you can already thank the DAL MEC for setting that precident over a year ago, when they allowed (with an LOA) retired 777 pilots to return to active service to fly the 777 while the company had Pilots on Furlough.
The FedEx MEC is not advocating any such thing, I would hope they would fight just as vigorously againt that, because it is not in our contract.
None of us can say with any certainty what the rule changes will eventually be.
We can fight amongst ourselves, which the company absolutely loves BTW,
or we can attempt to see some common ground.
The best place to start is with our contract. Our contract has specific language. WE have Pilots over 60 who are dues paying members, most other ALPA carriers do not, (NWA has a very few, I believe Gemini and Polar has a small # as well as ATA, but FedEx is an "A" group Airline within ALPA, and No other ALPA contract (or any Airline Contract for that matter that I am aware of) has the "Regualted AGE" provision that our contract currently does.
The FedEx Pilots are better prepared for the eventual change than most.
Our contract at least states that 60 is the normal retirement age should a higher AGE be regulated. Yes we will have to defend that section vigorously next time, just like we defended our Vacation section last time.
Yes we all agree that this change will have some negative affects on all of us (under 60) with respect Upward movement. Again ALPA never wanted this change. Thank your Senators, Congressmen and current Administration for this.
I hope by now that most Pilots realize that the change in AGE 60 is coming.
We don't have to be happy about it but denial won't help anything.
We need to look long term and try to influence legislation that will affect all of us..........not short term at the few.
Last edited by RedeyeAV8r; 05-15-2007 at 09:00 AM.
05-15-2007, 09:45 AM
#575
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: unskilled laborer
Posts: 353
Redeye--
I did not say the FDX MEC wants to get retirees back!!
My question was about whether letting the over 60 FE's back (we agree they want that in the rule right?) was different than the Alpa national view.
Read the posts. I AGREE with you in regards to the contract, but that isn't really what busboy was saying - hate to speak for someone else.
Let me lay out some facts AS I SEE THEM!
1. The rule hasn't changed yet. We cannot possibly apply anything to our contract yet but a hypothetical.
2. The FDX MEC is communicating the need to apply retroactivity to any rule change. This would not include retirees - only those still on the active seniority list.
3 The FDX MEC is communicating that AGE 60 is dead. The change is coming. It is in an NPRM. It is in legislation as well but the legislation has not passed. They say it is possibile it will in some form. Alpa would rather get some influence so it can be returned to the NPRM process.
4. We (ALPA national) have little or most likely no input unless we stop our opposition to the change.
5. ALPA national has not even officially changed its position on AGE 60. The MEC chairman are going to meet and most likely vote to do so. DW has indicated this and that he will attempt to apply the above retroactivity to the ALPA national position.
6. DW said in the crewroom meeting ( i heard him ) that achieving retro for those over 60 but still on the list will be difficult to achieve because many at the Nat'l level believe it provides a legal argument for those retired but under 65.
**THis is where Busboy was going**
I did not say the FDX MEC wants to get retirees back!!
My question was about whether letting the over 60 FE's back (we agree they want that in the rule right?) was different than the Alpa national view.
Read the posts. I AGREE with you in regards to the contract, but that isn't really what busboy was saying - hate to speak for someone else.
Let me lay out some facts AS I SEE THEM!
1. The rule hasn't changed yet. We cannot possibly apply anything to our contract yet but a hypothetical.
2. The FDX MEC is communicating the need to apply retroactivity to any rule change. This would not include retirees - only those still on the active seniority list.
3 The FDX MEC is communicating that AGE 60 is dead. The change is coming. It is in an NPRM. It is in legislation as well but the legislation has not passed. They say it is possibile it will in some form. Alpa would rather get some influence so it can be returned to the NPRM process.
4. We (ALPA national) have little or most likely no input unless we stop our opposition to the change.
5. ALPA national has not even officially changed its position on AGE 60. The MEC chairman are going to meet and most likely vote to do so. DW has indicated this and that he will attempt to apply the above retroactivity to the ALPA national position.
6. DW said in the crewroom meeting ( i heard him ) that achieving retro for those over 60 but still on the list will be difficult to achieve because many at the Nat'l level believe it provides a legal argument for those retired but under 65.
**THis is where Busboy was going**
05-15-2007, 09:49 AM
#576
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Flyer,
Thank you. You're right on the mark.
And, how about this?
From our CBA:
Section 26.C. General - Applicable Laws and Government Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is understood and agreed that the provisions of this Agreement are subject to all applicable laws and governmental regulations now or hereafter in effect and all lawful rulings and orders of all regulatory agencies now or hereafter having jurisdiction. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or contrary to law, the parties shall consult concerning the effect of that law on this Agreement.
Now, I'm no lawyer, thank God. But, I wouldn't you think that a lawyer could argue that the choice of an involuntary downgrade with a 40% paycut due to a regulation(regulated age) , or retiring...Is not really much of a choice. But, that is the choice our retirees had.
Reading the above section, I would have to say that nothing is set in concrete. Could this be any more vague?
I agree, that age 60 is going to happen. If not this year, sometime before I retire. And, I agree we should try and steer the legislation and rulemaking to benefit us.
However, I believe that our MEC's push for retroactivity is misguided.
Thank you. You're right on the mark.
And, how about this?
From our CBA:
Section 26.C. General - Applicable Laws and Government Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is understood and agreed that the provisions of this Agreement are subject to all applicable laws and governmental regulations now or hereafter in effect and all lawful rulings and orders of all regulatory agencies now or hereafter having jurisdiction. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or contrary to law, the parties shall consult concerning the effect of that law on this Agreement.
Now, I'm no lawyer, thank God. But, I wouldn't you think that a lawyer could argue that the choice of an involuntary downgrade with a 40% paycut due to a regulation(regulated age) , or retiring...Is not really much of a choice. But, that is the choice our retirees had.
Reading the above section, I would have to say that nothing is set in concrete. Could this be any more vague?
I agree, that age 60 is going to happen. If not this year, sometime before I retire. And, I agree we should try and steer the legislation and rulemaking to benefit us.
However, I believe that our MEC's push for retroactivity is misguided.
Last edited by Busboy; 05-15-2007 at 09:55 AM.
05-15-2007, 09:52 AM
#577
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Redeye--
I did not say the FDX MEC wants to get retirees back!!
My question was about whether letting the over 60 FE's back (we agree they want that in the rule right?) was different than the Alpa national view.
Read the posts. I AGREE with you in regards to the contract, but that isn't really what busboy was saying - hate to speak for someone else.
Let me lay out some facts AS I SEE THEM!
1. The rule hasn't changed yet. We cannot possibly apply anything to our contract yet but a hypothetical.
2. The FDX MEC is communicating the need to apply retroactivity to any rule change. This would not include retirees - only those still on the active seniority list.
3 The FDX MEC is communicating that AGE 60 is dead. The change is coming. It is in an NPRM. It is in legislation as well but the legislation has not passed. They say it is possibile it will in some form. Alpa would rather get some influence so it can be returned to the NPRM process.
4. We (ALPA national) have little or most likely no input unless we stop our opposition to the change.
5. ALPA national has not even officially changed its position on AGE 60. The MEC chairman are going to meet and most likely vote to do so. DW has indicated this and that he will attempt to apply the above retroactivity to the ALPA national position.
6. DW said in the crewroom meeting ( i heard him ) that achieving retro for those over 60 but still on the list will be difficult to achieve because many at the Nat'l level believe it provides a legal argument for those retired but under 65.
**THis is where Busboy was going**
I did not say the FDX MEC wants to get retirees back!!
My question was about whether letting the over 60 FE's back (we agree they want that in the rule right?) was different than the Alpa national view.
Read the posts. I AGREE with you in regards to the contract, but that isn't really what busboy was saying - hate to speak for someone else.
Let me lay out some facts AS I SEE THEM!
1. The rule hasn't changed yet. We cannot possibly apply anything to our contract yet but a hypothetical.
2. The FDX MEC is communicating the need to apply retroactivity to any rule change. This would not include retirees - only those still on the active seniority list.
3 The FDX MEC is communicating that AGE 60 is dead. The change is coming. It is in an NPRM. It is in legislation as well but the legislation has not passed. They say it is possibile it will in some form. Alpa would rather get some influence so it can be returned to the NPRM process.
4. We (ALPA national) have little or most likely no input unless we stop our opposition to the change.
5. ALPA national has not even officially changed its position on AGE 60. The MEC chairman are going to meet and most likely vote to do so. DW has indicated this and that he will attempt to apply the above retroactivity to the ALPA national position.
6. DW said in the crewroom meeting ( i heard him ) that achieving retro for those over 60 but still on the list will be difficult to achieve because many at the Nat'l level believe it provides a legal argument for those retired but under 65.
**THis is where Busboy was going**
I concur with all of that.
05-15-2007, 10:35 AM
#578
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 193
I hate to come off as a conspiracy theorist here but I can't believe ALPA National (or FDX Alpa) didn't see an economic windfall immediately when the age 60 issue was raised. What with all of the furloughs and pay cuts, we all know ALPAs revenues took it in the shorts. With this fact in mind, I'm not sure how hard ALPA was "fighting" for us knowing they could keep guys on the top of a carriers payscale for another five years.
And as far as DW's rant on seniority, I didn't realize guys senior to me had more of a voice than I did. I thought we operated on a majority rules system in our union. Do you guys remember how steamed the training guys got for the workrule / pay changes in our new contract? Our union leadership's answer to that was basically, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Well, I guess the seniority of a few guys in the back seat who've already had full careers (either here or in the military and here) outweigh the career progressions of the other 4000+ pilots here at FedEx.
I wonder if they'll waltz into the left seat without a vacancy posting like they were allowed to move into the backseat?
And as far as DW's rant on seniority, I didn't realize guys senior to me had more of a voice than I did. I thought we operated on a majority rules system in our union. Do you guys remember how steamed the training guys got for the workrule / pay changes in our new contract? Our union leadership's answer to that was basically, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Well, I guess the seniority of a few guys in the back seat who've already had full careers (either here or in the military and here) outweigh the career progressions of the other 4000+ pilots here at FedEx.
I wonder if they'll waltz into the left seat without a vacancy posting like they were allowed to move into the backseat?
05-15-2007, 10:53 AM
#580
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,068
Redeye--
6. DW said in the crewroom meeting ( i heard him ) that achieving retro for those over 60 but still on the list will be difficult to achieve because many at the Nat'l level believe it provides a legal argument for those retired but under 65.
**THis is where Busboy was going**
6. DW said in the crewroom meeting ( i heard him ) that achieving retro for those over 60 but still on the list will be difficult to achieve because many at the Nat'l level believe it provides a legal argument for those retired but under 65.
**THis is where Busboy was going**
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
