Strut

Just returned from MEM "Takin' it Up" tour. An inordinate amount of time was spent on "why aren't we (ALPA)", doing anything to stop it. Let's all finally realize that we can no more stop this than we can improve our position from number 54 at EWR/JFK by complaining about it. Interesting factoid from Prater, though - Legislative change (age 60) will happen this year, FAA regulatory change will take two. I vote for kickin' this can down the road for now, and concentrating on more dire issues (Open Skies, Cabotage (Tradewinds,the other airline in the Rainbow coalition?)).

Flying Boxes

First
RedEye leave our black and white world pilots and look with the BIG Grey that Lawyers see! letting ropes back (retroactive change to age 60) will drain our union funds (like Tony C said about the "junior varsity" seniority rights) defending something that is in the contract....retirement = no right of retrun!

Second
I think pilots, against retro, believe in seniority and the law. If the age is changed without retro provisions then our over 60 guys can't return per the contract. This means NO CONTRACTUAL ISSUES, per the above quote (provided by Busboy)! (again saves our union funds being expended on something that will be too costly and yet will not win..age discrimination as already stated by EEOC) ALPA National is opposed to retro...why do we make the push?

Third
Apperently pilots feel that not advocating retro is the way to go, is the majority opion, and is completely different from campaigning against retro as is currently happening! If retro provisions are in the law as legislated or regulated, EVERY MEMBER will understand that "the right thing to do" is protect seniority rights.(this time it will of course be defensible unlike junior senority!) The argument that the company will use this dysfunction against us is our leaderships doing. Had the leap to retro not been advocated against the majority, the only issue would be do we engage in shaping our future with respect to age 60 change or not! The toothpaste is already out of the tube and our leaderships inabilty to foresee this problem is a little troubling (not advocating any action!). I have felt it been alluded to as a necessary course of action for a campaign for retro pay....any comments on this (it is another can of worms)

DiamondZ

How would the seniority system be affected if retro was not implemented?

How does this protect a below age 60 individual's seniority?

If this precedent (non retro) is set, what scenario(s) would you envision happening to exploit this, thus destroying the senority system?

fdx727pilot

To give you an example off the top of my head, the company says "no pilot without prior experience in a glass cockpit and European flying experience may bid the 757." That would screw over a bunch of people of all seniorities, who can no longer execise the bidding privileges of their seniority. Since we have blown off the ropes, can ALPA fight this? Not likely.

The whole deal only applies to the over 60 crowd, if,
and even DW admit it's a long shot, the law (if by congress) or regulation (if by the FAA) specifically does not say "the rule only applies to pilots reaching 60 on a specific day, ie effective day or something of the sort."
If the rule does not make a prohibition, you are saying, "even though the Federal law now allows people of your age to fly front-seat, you have the Medical Certificate required (1st or 2nd class depending on seat,) you are a dues paying member of ALPA and are on our seniority list, and we are having a bid (I don't think anyone seriously advocates just letting them jump back without a bid) we will not let you exercise the bidding rights of your seniority, because, once upon a time, we thought you were gone for good."

FreightDawgyDog

... I am tired of these condescending excuses about why our MEC Chairman and the MEC is afraid to present their reasons for their position to the members and trust them to vote for what is right.

FDD



"Haven't you been listening? Haven't you been reading?"

Tony C

Well thanks for proving the "condescending" point for me Tony. Yes I have been listening and reading. Where did I miss the part that said this issue was being put to a vote after hearing what the MEC has to say? That is where the "afraid" part comes in. How you or any other poster could try and translate what I said into "the MEC is hiding" is beyond my understanding. I never said they were hiding or inaccessible. I said they were afraid to trust one of the most educated and professional pilot groups in the industry to agree with their viewpoint. If they are so sure they are right here, that shouldn't be the case. We obviously disagree about whether this group can be trusted or not. The MEC Chair and the MEC think they know better than this group, ALPA national, the FAA and Congress about what is right. Yep, I think arrogant is a word we can apply here.

RedeyeAV8r

That sounds like it is right of the Grocery store " NationalEquirer or Globe" magazine rack.

Since the 1960's how many rounds of Furloughs has the industry seen.
in 1967
in 1973
in 1979
1n 1991
in 2001

Using you logic ALPA should have endorsed the changes years ago due to lost revenue. Lets not Forget Braniff went down, CAL strike which Busted CAL ALPA, Fall of EASTERN, Fall of Pan AM and finally TWA. Talk about lost revenue.

Lets look at another simple fact: Most Airline contract top payrates Max out at the 12-15 year mark. So a Pilot with 23-25 years longevity is making the same hourly rate as one with 12-15 years
longevity.

hamfisted

Last post on this topic....getting tired of fighting that dang windmill.
ALPA uses the sense of impending legislation argument to justify going against the results of the "overwhelming majority". I fail to believe that Congress will isolate their energy on this one issue and rush it through the lawmaking process. Telling their constituents that they are "aggressively addressing" an issue and actually pushing through the legislation are two very different things. And why is ALPA so nervous about legislation as compared to an FAA rule change? Maybe because the FAA has spoken out against retroactivity and FDX ALPA is concerned they won't get it?
And finally(I promise), when a pilot has moved from the back seat to the front seat upon reaching 60 years old, there has NEVER been any type of understanding that they would get support from the Union on going back to the front seat....implicitly or explicitly. It is disingenuine to assert that they have any right to that front seat again and the Union is not responsible, legally or ethically, to support and fight for them moving back to the front seat.
Timing is everything and it should be just as critical for a guy forced to retire from an airline at 60 as it has been for a guy to move to the back seat at 60. You gave up the seat, involuntary, because of existing law. So did the guys who were forced to retire and didn't have a backseat to go to. I believe the membership would vote against retroactivity with an "overwhelming majority" because it is fair and just. Only a vote on this issue would prove where our membership stands.
Thanks you and..........good night.

DiamondZ

Wouldnt this example be exactly what happens when filling the position of a check airman. The company looks for specific qualifications of an individual not just the senior most person wanting to fulfill a position?

It seems that if retro was the law then pretty much everyone would accept it and go about his/her business.

Strut

Hamfist, we have noting to disagree with. Frats

Deuce130

Anyone else see this in USA Today this morning? Poor Captain Collins...45% pay cut! I mean, he's only got his military retirement, FDX retirement which was a cornerstone of our last contract, 17 years at the company, plus widebody capt pay for however long. Cry me a river. I wonder who called who for this ridiculous editorial? It's guys like this that make me hope the rule takes 5 years to pass, or better yet, never.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/...ing_.html#more