JethroFDX

As a token civilian who slugged it out over these years I knew the retirement age was 60 when I decided to go for the airline route. If I'm not prepared for it then that's on me. As with most of the folks who have posted on this subject if age 65 comes around I want the option to bail out after I have done my 20 here and not be penalized for it. I'll take my 40%, thank you.

I want to spend the next 40 years of my retirement doing whatever I please.

MaxKts

Now we will have 2 things for the next CBA - Protect our right to retire at 60 and fix the POS LOA. Wonder which one will cost the most because neither will be free

FreightDawgyDog

"Now we will have 2 things for the next CBA - Protect our right to retire at 60 and fix the POS LOA. Wonder which one will cost the most because neither will be free "

Agree with number one. A complete freebie for FDX and one will we spend a lot of negotiating capitol on IMO. Thanks again to all those like FH that have pushed for their own selfish wants to be put ahead of fairness and their own dignity at a huge cost to everyone else.

On point two, if we have all volunteers in these FDA's as DW has said will happen (Of course he also said we had to make a decision on age 60 by Memorial Day or be left behind) then they know what they bid into. Don't expect me to give up anything to make it better for them. If DW is wrong (I mean maybe he meant Memorial Day 2010?) and we get non vols there it will be a different story. Bid what you want, want what you bid. Anyone bidding FDA's under this LOA will get what they deserve so I hope they like the package that 68% of their fellow pilots voted for. Our priorities next contract need to take care of the needs of all, not just a few (like those in DW's and BC's age group). Just one 32%er's opinion..

FreightDawgyDog

To answer the first question on this thread, I still have a huge problem with the way the retroactivity issue was handled. The guys who needed it the most, those that have lost their pensions, were mostly cut out. The guys who need it the least were pushed into it. As has been said many times, this was not a contractual issue and should never have been addressed as such until it became one. How many times did you hear from the MEC members that we didn't have to worry because the retro clause would never fly anyway? They said it wouldn't fly with ALPA, nor with Congress, or the FAA. The MEC pushed it because they thought it was the "right thing to do" but there was no way it would go through. Now we have it in ALPA's official policy, and it is written into the legislation coming out of Congress. Does anyone think that the FAA won't jump on that bandwagon as well? So we were told by our leadership it was a contractual issue when it really wasn't, that we didn't have to worry about it ever making it in writing anyway, and that we had to act soon because it would all be done without us by Memorial Day if we didn't. What did they get right here? As far as manipulating the poll data to support actions they had decided to take before the data was available, I'm tired of hearing that too. As had been pointed out here by pilots smarter than me, taking the answers to two different questions and combining their results to support their position is Carvillesque to say the least. The Spin starts with our MEC on this one and it is a pathetic attempt to justify their actions against a substantial majority of their membership's will IMO. Other than that I have let it go though..LOL

fdxmd11fo

I am against spending anything to fix a loa that only effects 200 out of 4800 pilots. I would rather work on the contract for all 4800 of us.

I'm a 32% voter

Gunter

One needs a decoder ring to discern the blunt meaning of the MEC when it speaks.


"Do the Right thing"- Doing something against the membership that the senior guys want. I wish it applied to the LOA as well age 60, but the concessionary LOA is what the senior guys want.

"Best we can get"- Unless the company panics and gives back on the worst part of STV faster than prom dress coming off. This statement means we (the MEC) will agree to and promote a concessionary LOA because the worst parts do not affect the senior guys (us) and it promotes more FO's so more CA slots for us senior guys.

"Better Scope" - This apparently has no meaning and is just brought out when other pro arguments do not surface. Remember the "great" scope protection in the last CBA as one of it's high points? This was followed rather quickly with the claim we need the better scope that is in the LOA. Where it is in the LOA is anyone's guess. Someone on the MEC needs to study how UPS wrote theirs. Are the UPS guys really that much smarter than us? But they aren't ALPA! Rest assured we will be grappling with better scope language during contract talks in 2020.

"Don't let emotion over age 60 affect your vote on the LOA" - This means the memership should think rationally like the MEC. Because if you don't agree with us (the MEC) there must be something bothering you and clouding your judgment. You say we did something wrong? You, Sir, are out of order!

The above are known knowns. The below are the unknown (or soon to be known) knowns. (Remember the Rumsfeld quote?) Think of them as my predictions.


"The FDA's will only go senior and we need to give them (senior FO's) the extra money in this LOA"-This is one the biggest whoppers I've heard in a long time. I'm betting anyone I see in the Hub a six pack on this one. I won't need to buy beer for a year when the newhires start going.


"The best we can get"-This is so silly the full meaning of it is still in its infancy. We will find the company probably planned at least $12-25K more a year, especially for newhires. Which, of course, the NC failed to negotiate. We are saving the company a ton of cash by not doing it SIBA. But why would that extra cash be needed? Senior guys are going to man the domiciles, right? Maybe they meant NO SENIOR guys are going to man the FDA's so no extra cash is needed. Mission accomplished--senior guys (and their penion, VEBA, age 60) are covered and not endangered.

"Retro won't matter, they won't put it in there anyway"- This is still an unkown because it's not done yet. But why put it in there if you think it won't make it? Why say this sort of thing? It sounds ridiculous and was meant to appeal to those with weak minds. Retro has a shot at making it in there now since ALPA is pushing for it. Retro is now in one of the bills so it has a chance to become law. Thanks for the rush job to try and confuse the opponents to retro as you slide it thru to National.

"We are working on 777 pay rates, don't worry" - Means the 757 pay rate is set in stone and we won't burn any capitol trying to make it better. But the senior soon to be 777 drivers deserve more. Don't even mention there are so few 777s coming and so many 757s.

If someone else tells me to trust the MEC when not enough info is coming in, I'm going to laugh in their face. The MEC communicates just as they intend to. When there is a gap in knowledge the average guy will trust. It's laughable.

HerkDriver

Fr8Dog -

My problem with the MEC and the process stems solely from the fact that while they threw the "62% want us to get on the bus" number around, they conveniently FORGOT the "66% who don't want it to change in the first place" number. To me, as a dues paying member, you have and obligation to represent the majority of the members....period, dot, end of discussion. I don't care about guys older than me staying longer...laws change and seniority rules. I accept those facts. What I have a hard time dealing with is paying 1.5% of my paycheck to an organization that has made it quite clear that they are going to do whatever they want to do, regardless of what the majority says. On a side note, did you notice how DW's letter CONVENIENTLY failed to mention the the 66%....again!

USNFDX

Actually I think it's 1.95%, but who cares as long as it's going to a good cause

Fr8rdog

Could not agree more. I'm a proud 32 percenter on the LOA. The way I see it, our MEC and negotiating committee had the ability to affect the outcome of the LOA. I believe that had they dropped a set and told the company, "Hey, you say that's the best we can get, fine, we'll submit it to the membership for a vote without an endorsement," our LOA would have been much better than it wound up being.

I'm still waiting for somebody to post an argument as to how we could have affected the outcome of the age 60 controversy. Yes, the majority of us want age 60 to stay. That's not going to happen. What should have the MEC done? Should they have just said that they oppose any change in the regulated age, period, end of sentence, and watch the bus roll over them? If the age is going to change, what should we, as FedEx pilots, do about it? Our entire relationship with the company is controlled by the CBA. Maybe we should start talking about what language we want in the CBA to mitigate the affects of age 65 rather than just proclaim that we don't like it.

MD11HOG

[QUOTE=FreightDawgyDog;219109]"Now we will have 2 things for the next CBA - Protect our right to retire at 60 and fix the POS LOA. Wonder which one will cost the most because neither will be free "

"Agree with number one. A complete freebie for FDX and one will we spend a lot of negotiating capitol on IMO."

I don't understand. I think the company is going to save money by not having to fund as large of a retirement for the pilots who work past 60. Your saying the company wants us to spend negotiating capital for a benefit for the company? I don't follow the logic and I've heard it several times. Here's my logic: Some guys keep flying past 60 and save the co. retirement dollars. Next contract we do away with the early retirement penalty and some guys retire early costing about the same. It's (and to use a term that makes me want to wash my mouth out) "cost neutral".