Any Gouge on the FDX ALPA mtg in AOC?
05-10-2007, 03:26 PM
#72
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: A300 Captain
Posts: 257
Bs
OK enough BS; Where do any of you think the MEC officers have some golden tap into cash? They bid a line they can hold and get trip removed. Period. Various expenses are allowed if they don't normally live here. Ask Lori Webb how much they've given up with her health and the BS over the years? You're all so glib to jump on the band wagon when the first thing you don't agree with pops up, but where were 99% of you when the trench work needed doing? I personallly disagree with Webb on this back seat to front seat reversion, but I understand the argument concerniing seniority. I personally don't agree that we should go along with the Executive Board decision to be unanimous. I feel that Webb should vote our wish and if other MEC Chairmen vote theirs let the chips fall where they may. I feel that the IATA argument that an under 60 crew member needs to fly with an over 60 crewmember makes the safety argument. I feel a major pr campaign to the public would benefit us greatly IF the majority still are against the raising of the age. People have a choice if they go to a 77 year old doctor, they don't have a choice who's in the cockpit.
As far as who can do the job? Anybody that fights our wishes. Web is very talented and has done an incredible job, but he has to represent our pilot group and let the chips fall where they may.
As far as who can do the job? Anybody that fights our wishes. Web is very talented and has done an incredible job, but he has to represent our pilot group and let the chips fall where they may.
05-10-2007, 04:23 PM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: B757 Capt
Posts: 177
I talked to my LEC rep and asked if they have a recorded voted on this issue. His answer was no the MEC has not 'voted' on the issue. The issue has been the subject of many discussions, but there never has been a vote to officially establish our union's position. This is very disturbing to me. Our MEC Chair will be attending an ALPA Executive Board meeting later this month and may have to opportunity to vote on this issue. Without really knowing where our rank and file stand, how will he cast his vote and whose interest will he represent when he does vote. Right now all he has to go on is a lot of advice from ALPA National, their experts on polling and lobbying, other MEC Chairs and our own MEC discussions. For this issue, advice is nice but a recorded vote should be mandatory. Our MEC Chair is supposed to represent us on the Executive Board. For this issue, he cannot know what our position is. Even ALPA National's Wilson poll called it a "statistical dead-heat" (at 52% to maintain current policy), yet our Chair knows what our position should be. With all due respect, he may think he knows, but does he really. I know we've moved away from the kum-by-ya (sp) cockpit at FedEx....BUT CAPTAIN...I HAVE A CONCERN!
After my discussions with my LEC rep and the Comm Chair, they know where I stand on the issue. Both have told me its a done deal, its gonna happen, we need to get on the train before it leaves the station. So what! If the change is gonna happen, it will happen. But, we need to establish our union's position using the proper procedures. Our MEC needs to have a recorded/published vote on this issue and our Chairman should take it with him to this months Executive Board meeting and vote accordingly. If everybody else on the Executive board votes the other way, we're overruled and ALPA changes its long standing policy. Does ALPA miss the "fly to 65" train...no! Does ALPA National lose its seat at the table of fine print...no! Do our dues go up...no! The final Executive Board vote tally will be lost to the archives of history and life will go on. However, we, the rank and file at this union, will have re-established some control of our union as allowed under our current By-Laws. Remember, our voice is recorded thru the votes of our LEC reps. Communicate with them, let them know you want a recorded vote on this issue before our MEC Chairman attends the Executive Board later this month.
PS MD11Fr8Dog...look I found the rest of the keys!
After my discussions with my LEC rep and the Comm Chair, they know where I stand on the issue. Both have told me its a done deal, its gonna happen, we need to get on the train before it leaves the station. So what! If the change is gonna happen, it will happen. But, we need to establish our union's position using the proper procedures. Our MEC needs to have a recorded/published vote on this issue and our Chairman should take it with him to this months Executive Board meeting and vote accordingly. If everybody else on the Executive board votes the other way, we're overruled and ALPA changes its long standing policy. Does ALPA miss the "fly to 65" train...no! Does ALPA National lose its seat at the table of fine print...no! Do our dues go up...no! The final Executive Board vote tally will be lost to the archives of history and life will go on. However, we, the rank and file at this union, will have re-established some control of our union as allowed under our current By-Laws. Remember, our voice is recorded thru the votes of our LEC reps. Communicate with them, let them know you want a recorded vote on this issue before our MEC Chairman attends the Executive Board later this month.
PS MD11Fr8Dog...look I found the rest of the keys!
05-10-2007, 04:27 PM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 349
Had nothing to do with rates, hours worked. I'm fully aware how the business works. Time will teach you also. Don't confuse my junior status with me being a young man. And yes, a majority of the captians I worked with would have taken a pay cut (worked less) to keep fellow pilots working. The MEC went against the majority. Where have I heard that before?
Real gains only come from a strong union. When the leadership differs from the majority it weakens the whole.
Real gains only come from a strong union. When the leadership differs from the majority it weakens the whole.
The contract we got is a good one. All the retirement stuff will benefit everyone not just the senior guys.
Did you do recurrent last week?
Past...
05-10-2007, 05:42 PM
#75
Trust but Verify!!
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD11 CRA
Posts: 684
This is my latest email to my LEC reps..
Gentlemen..
I was hoping to hear more about the MEC not allowing the membership a say on the important issues I asked about in my previous correspondence. Can you tell me if there is any change in your stance about retroactivity being part of any change to Age 60? I still fail to see the logic in saying we need to be in agreement with ALPA national on any Age 60 change while in the same breath we say we are going to fight them on how it is applied. I understand just how emotional this issue can be which is why I feel it needs to be addressed by a majority of members as opposed to just the MEC. What I would like to propose is a vote on whether or not we should go along with ALPA's position in it's entirety or if we should continue with our majority held stance against the change for safety. That takes the emotional issue of retroactivity out of the equation, makes our stance more solid and understandable, yet still allows the MEC to protect seniority rights if the rule comes out written with retroactivity as a part of it. As seniority rights are part of our CBA, that CBA is between FDX ALPA and FDX Corp, not with the FAA or Congress. If the rule change comes about with retroactivity as part of it and FDX Corp refuses to honor that I will be first in line to fight for those over 60 to come back. The big issue for us as a union right now is to stay unified and not allowing a majority say on this issue is leaving a large percentage of our membership feeling disenfranchised and angry. I truly believe there is a better way here. Please let me know what I can do, as a dues paying member in good standing, to ask for the above vote to be taken before the MEC takes a position that may not be in agreement with a large majority of their membership. Thank you again and as always I appreciate your time..
Gentlemen..
I was hoping to hear more about the MEC not allowing the membership a say on the important issues I asked about in my previous correspondence. Can you tell me if there is any change in your stance about retroactivity being part of any change to Age 60? I still fail to see the logic in saying we need to be in agreement with ALPA national on any Age 60 change while in the same breath we say we are going to fight them on how it is applied. I understand just how emotional this issue can be which is why I feel it needs to be addressed by a majority of members as opposed to just the MEC. What I would like to propose is a vote on whether or not we should go along with ALPA's position in it's entirety or if we should continue with our majority held stance against the change for safety. That takes the emotional issue of retroactivity out of the equation, makes our stance more solid and understandable, yet still allows the MEC to protect seniority rights if the rule comes out written with retroactivity as a part of it. As seniority rights are part of our CBA, that CBA is between FDX ALPA and FDX Corp, not with the FAA or Congress. If the rule change comes about with retroactivity as part of it and FDX Corp refuses to honor that I will be first in line to fight for those over 60 to come back. The big issue for us as a union right now is to stay unified and not allowing a majority say on this issue is leaving a large percentage of our membership feeling disenfranchised and angry. I truly believe there is a better way here. Please let me know what I can do, as a dues paying member in good standing, to ask for the above vote to be taken before the MEC takes a position that may not be in agreement with a large majority of their membership. Thank you again and as always I appreciate your time..
05-10-2007, 06:18 PM
#77
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
This is my latest email to my LEC reps..
Gentlemen..
I was hoping to hear more about the MEC not allowing the membership a say on the important issues I asked about in my previous correspondence. Can you tell me if there is any change in your stance about retroactivity being part of any change to Age 60? I still fail to see the logic in saying we need to be in agreement with ALPA national on any Age 60 change while in the same breath we say we are going to fight them on how it is applied. I understand just how emotional this issue can be which is why I feel it needs to be addressed by a majority of members as opposed to just the MEC. What I would like to propose is a vote on whether or not we should go along with ALPA's position in it's entirety or if we should continue with our majority held stance against the change for safety. That takes the emotional issue of retroactivity out of the equation, makes our stance more solid and understandable, yet still allows the MEC to protect seniority rights if the rule comes out written with retroactivity as a part of it. As seniority rights are part of our CBA, that CBA is between FDX ALPA and FDX Corp, not with the FAA or Congress. If the rule change comes about with retroactivity as part of it and FDX Corp refuses to honor that I will be first in line to fight for those over 60 to come back. The big issue for us as a union right now is to stay unified and not allowing a majority say on this issue is leaving a large percentage of our membership feeling disenfranchised and angry. I truly believe there is a better way here. Please let me know what I can do, as a dues paying member in good standing, to ask for the above vote to be taken before the MEC takes a position that may not be in agreement with a large majority of their membership. Thank you again and as always I appreciate your time..
Gentlemen..
I was hoping to hear more about the MEC not allowing the membership a say on the important issues I asked about in my previous correspondence. Can you tell me if there is any change in your stance about retroactivity being part of any change to Age 60? I still fail to see the logic in saying we need to be in agreement with ALPA national on any Age 60 change while in the same breath we say we are going to fight them on how it is applied. I understand just how emotional this issue can be which is why I feel it needs to be addressed by a majority of members as opposed to just the MEC. What I would like to propose is a vote on whether or not we should go along with ALPA's position in it's entirety or if we should continue with our majority held stance against the change for safety. That takes the emotional issue of retroactivity out of the equation, makes our stance more solid and understandable, yet still allows the MEC to protect seniority rights if the rule comes out written with retroactivity as a part of it. As seniority rights are part of our CBA, that CBA is between FDX ALPA and FDX Corp, not with the FAA or Congress. If the rule change comes about with retroactivity as part of it and FDX Corp refuses to honor that I will be first in line to fight for those over 60 to come back. The big issue for us as a union right now is to stay unified and not allowing a majority say on this issue is leaving a large percentage of our membership feeling disenfranchised and angry. I truly believe there is a better way here. Please let me know what I can do, as a dues paying member in good standing, to ask for the above vote to be taken before the MEC takes a position that may not be in agreement with a large majority of their membership. Thank you again and as always I appreciate your time..
You forgot to say *(*&+ and *&(& and *(&(&#( and up your #$^*! What's all this thoughtful, well written prose? Did you learn anything about how to communicate from these boards?
05-12-2007, 03:02 PM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
This is my latest email to my LEC reps..
Gentlemen..
I was hoping to hear more about the MEC not allowing the membership a say on the important issues I asked about in my previous correspondence. Can you tell me if there is any change in your stance about retroactivity being part of any change to Age 60? I still fail to see the logic in saying we need to be in agreement with ALPA national on any Age 60 change while in the same breath we say we are going to fight them on how it is applied. I understand just how emotional this issue can be which is why I feel it needs to be addressed by a majority of members as opposed to just the MEC. What I would like to propose is a vote on whether or not we should go along with ALPA's position in it's entirety or if we should continue with our majority held stance against the change for safety. That takes the emotional issue of retroactivity out of the equation, makes our stance more solid and understandable, yet still allows the MEC to protect seniority rights if the rule comes out written with retroactivity as a part of it. As seniority rights are part of our CBA, that CBA is between FDX ALPA and FDX Corp, not with the FAA or Congress. If the rule change comes about with retroactivity as part of it and FDX Corp refuses to honor that I will be first in line to fight for those over 60 to come back. The big issue for us as a union right now is to stay unified and not allowing a majority say on this issue is leaving a large percentage of our membership feeling disenfranchised and angry. I truly believe there is a better way here. Please let me know what I can do, as a dues paying member in good standing, to ask for the above vote to be taken before the MEC takes a position that may not be in agreement with a large majority of their membership. Thank you again and as always I appreciate your time..
Gentlemen..
I was hoping to hear more about the MEC not allowing the membership a say on the important issues I asked about in my previous correspondence. Can you tell me if there is any change in your stance about retroactivity being part of any change to Age 60? I still fail to see the logic in saying we need to be in agreement with ALPA national on any Age 60 change while in the same breath we say we are going to fight them on how it is applied. I understand just how emotional this issue can be which is why I feel it needs to be addressed by a majority of members as opposed to just the MEC. What I would like to propose is a vote on whether or not we should go along with ALPA's position in it's entirety or if we should continue with our majority held stance against the change for safety. That takes the emotional issue of retroactivity out of the equation, makes our stance more solid and understandable, yet still allows the MEC to protect seniority rights if the rule comes out written with retroactivity as a part of it. As seniority rights are part of our CBA, that CBA is between FDX ALPA and FDX Corp, not with the FAA or Congress. If the rule change comes about with retroactivity as part of it and FDX Corp refuses to honor that I will be first in line to fight for those over 60 to come back. The big issue for us as a union right now is to stay unified and not allowing a majority say on this issue is leaving a large percentage of our membership feeling disenfranchised and angry. I truly believe there is a better way here. Please let me know what I can do, as a dues paying member in good standing, to ask for the above vote to be taken before the MEC takes a position that may not be in agreement with a large majority of their membership. Thank you again and as always I appreciate your time..
The ALPA Exec BOD meets next week to make the big decision. Dod you think that we could do all this before then?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
