Another Dagum 65 Rant!
12-15-2007, 08:24 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: Excessed WB Capt.
Posts: 1,084
I think they have already shown they are too cheap and too selfish to buy a round or buy dinner. Come to think of it, the guys who I know personally who strongly supported this bill have never bought a round.
12-16-2007, 05:06 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 221
If the old farts get to work to 65 and increase their YOS multiplier then the young guys ought to be able to retire when 25 YOS. This should be allowed without financial penalty and without age discrimination due to my youth.
12-16-2007, 06:55 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: unskilled laborer
Posts: 353
YJ,
I am in agreement about bumping up the raises for the FOs in the next contract. My proposal is to "model" a few typical careers at FDX before the age change, and a realistic career after the change with the pilot STILL retiring at 60. Then take a look at the differences in the numbers...
There is no way to recoup that whole loss, nor should there be. The captain's position is (almost) everyone's goal, and we want our captains rewarded. However, I also think there is room to bump up the pay scale for those trapped on the low side of the age 60 upgrade curve. The battle will be of course where we get the money...who gives up something?
I think there has got to be a way to share the "windfall" that some at our company will now reap. I'll probably get told to "stuff it", but with enough support from the junior blocks I don't think its unreasonable. Right now I think only 2 MEC reps or MEC reps elect are FOs. However, whenever the union has negotiatied, they always say "no one gets a free pass, and nobody gets left behind" I'm not the only guys only 100 numbers away from narrow body captain that will probably be waiting in the wings another 3-5 years, and I think there is enough "gravy" in those 5 extra years to share with some whose career expectations have taken a sudden setback.
Start throwing out some (reasonable) ideas. The whole "I won't eat with you, you are a greedy bastard" chat won't fix anything. However, maybe together we can mitigate some of the career damage.
I am in agreement about bumping up the raises for the FOs in the next contract. My proposal is to "model" a few typical careers at FDX before the age change, and a realistic career after the change with the pilot STILL retiring at 60. Then take a look at the differences in the numbers...
There is no way to recoup that whole loss, nor should there be. The captain's position is (almost) everyone's goal, and we want our captains rewarded. However, I also think there is room to bump up the pay scale for those trapped on the low side of the age 60 upgrade curve. The battle will be of course where we get the money...who gives up something?
I think there has got to be a way to share the "windfall" that some at our company will now reap. I'll probably get told to "stuff it", but with enough support from the junior blocks I don't think its unreasonable. Right now I think only 2 MEC reps or MEC reps elect are FOs. However, whenever the union has negotiatied, they always say "no one gets a free pass, and nobody gets left behind" I'm not the only guys only 100 numbers away from narrow body captain that will probably be waiting in the wings another 3-5 years, and I think there is enough "gravy" in those 5 extra years to share with some whose career expectations have taken a sudden setback.
Start throwing out some (reasonable) ideas. The whole "I won't eat with you, you are a greedy bastard" chat won't fix anything. However, maybe together we can mitigate some of the career damage.
Albie --
1. Every rep should be required to address their members at least 1 once every 2 weeks with info.
2. Every vote or resolution should be published with the names of yes and no voters.
3. Comments should be read at meetings from a member who have at least 2 additional signers if all were on a trip. (poor grammar)
4. Contract negotiations should not be allowed in any city other than a city where a crewmember is based or is the subject of being based. i.e. HKG or CDG during LOA negotiations.
5. No contract may be presented to the membership without the full and complete text to include all side letters and T. A.' d agreements.
This is just my short list.
Thanks and good luck!
12-16-2007, 12:27 PM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
Albie --
1. Every rep should be required to address their members at least 1 once every 2 weeks with info.
2. Every vote or resolution should be published with the names of yes and no voters.
3. Comments should be read at meetings from a member who have at least 2 additional signers if all were on a trip. (poor grammar)
4. Contract negotiations should not be allowed in any city other than a city where a crewmember is based or is the subject of being based. i.e. HKG or CDG during LOA negotiations.
5. No contract may be presented to the membership without the full and complete text to include all side letters and T. A.' d agreements.
This is just my short list.
Thanks and good luck!
1. Every rep should be required to address their members at least 1 once every 2 weeks with info.
2. Every vote or resolution should be published with the names of yes and no voters.
3. Comments should be read at meetings from a member who have at least 2 additional signers if all were on a trip. (poor grammar)
4. Contract negotiations should not be allowed in any city other than a city where a crewmember is based or is the subject of being based. i.e. HKG or CDG during LOA negotiations.
5. No contract may be presented to the membership without the full and complete text to include all side letters and T. A.' d agreements.
This is just my short list.
Thanks and good luck!
2. I agree 100%. I expect to eat $hit on this issue. However, I will tell you how I voted on everything and why. I hope during "lunch with Albie" or "breakfast with Albie" sessions to give you insight into why goes voted how they did. Personally--I expect Vic and I will fight (some) in the future if I push for raising FO rates. Since block 2 is largely Capt, and block 7 is largely FO, we'll probably have different inputs at times. That doesn't make him a bad guy...it makes him a good rep for his people. I've said before if we voted things in 7/5 instead of 12/0 every once in a while I think the guys we represent would have bit more faith we were working FOR them. Not everyone agrees with this train of thought--but hey--I got voted in for a reason and I plan to vote for MY block. Let me go on record now--before I am on the inside and have restrictions--that ALPA National can kiss my @ss. I'm here for FDX pilots. To the extent that our collective work helps the industry, the whole team...great. The fact our own membership is begging for info but our comm chairman can't get a #$$@ word out on the 6 December meeting until today but seem to care about National shows me the tail is wagging the dog. From what I hear it isn't a comm chair issue, but the fact that message line has had the same request for help due to national tasking is embarrassing. I suspect that the anger and frustration some of you feel is still not know to some on the MEC. This is why I say if we are going to make changes--I need your help--no hiding behind trees when we put out word to "call/email your reps!".
3. How about you say it yourself on a teleconference? How about we find a way to include more and more out of town members? How about you WATCH your block reps in action...and get to listen to the arguments on both sides of various issues. Not every meeting is going to be suitable for webcasts. Some info needs to remain confidential. However--a bunch more doesn't require that protection, and I am convinced we'll all benefit if more people are involved.
4. ? Are you saying we should limit LOAs to one city at a time or negotiations on issues in HKG mean ALL of us have to go to HKG to negotiate? I'm fuzzy on this.
5. Agree. The "city purity" letter now taints our previous contract, and creates a conspiracy theory around a what I still consider a "pretty solid" document, despite some notable flaws. Trust is earned, and our union probably lost some serious credibility with some members on that. I don't want to see that mistake happen again.
12-16-2007, 02:08 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: unskilled laborer
Posts: 353
For #4 I was intending that negotiations would occur where we WORK.
Not saying this did or did not happen yet, but I don't think negotiations should occur in popular vacation cities like Vegas and Orlando. Have heard of negotiators trying to get away from everything, but all the guys working the line think GOLF TRIP!
Not saying this did or did not happen yet, but I don't think negotiations should occur in popular vacation cities like Vegas and Orlando. Have heard of negotiators trying to get away from everything, but all the guys working the line think GOLF TRIP!
12-16-2007, 03:45 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: unskilled laborer
Posts: 353
I'll buy that busboy - to a degree. I am no expert.
Who pays the mediators travel?
Who pays his lodging?
Does the mediator determine the location?
Does the mediator get a choice in the location determination?
Given that the answers to one or all of these questions could affect the location please explain further.
Who pays the mediators travel?
Who pays his lodging?
Does the mediator determine the location?
Does the mediator get a choice in the location determination?
Given that the answers to one or all of these questions could affect the location please explain further.
12-16-2007, 06:36 PM
#48
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 55
White House Signs Age 65 into LawBill includes ALPA Executive Board Recommendations
December 14, 2007 - In the late evening of December 13, President Bush signed into law a bill to raise the mandatory retirement age for U.S. pilots to 65. Days before, both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives unanimously approved H.R.4343. (To read Age 65: How it Works, please click here.)
“ALPA appreciates President Bush for swiftly signing this piece of legislation into law. With the inclusion of ALPA’s recommendations, it will protect the piloting profession in the face of a change that was certain to come, given the harmonization with the International Civil Aviation Organization standard,” Capt. John Prater said.
“I am pleased to report to our members that, pursuant to the decision by ALPA’s Executive Board to change ALPA’s policy on Age 60 in the face of legislation to change the mandatory retirement age that was rapidly moving through Congress, your union’s leaders exerted extensive influence on the legislation that is now law. The bill’s language to raise the upper age limit for airline pilots to 65 is consistent with ALPA’s Executive Board resolution and directive adopted on May 23. It represents months of hard work, both from fellow pilots and our government affairs department, which produced a tangible result.”
What more needs to be said...
December 14, 2007 - In the late evening of December 13, President Bush signed into law a bill to raise the mandatory retirement age for U.S. pilots to 65. Days before, both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives unanimously approved H.R.4343. (To read Age 65: How it Works, please click here.)
“ALPA appreciates President Bush for swiftly signing this piece of legislation into law. With the inclusion of ALPA’s recommendations, it will protect the piloting profession in the face of a change that was certain to come, given the harmonization with the International Civil Aviation Organization standard,” Capt. John Prater said.
“I am pleased to report to our members that, pursuant to the decision by ALPA’s Executive Board to change ALPA’s policy on Age 60 in the face of legislation to change the mandatory retirement age that was rapidly moving through Congress, your union’s leaders exerted extensive influence on the legislation that is now law. The bill’s language to raise the upper age limit for airline pilots to 65 is consistent with ALPA’s Executive Board resolution and directive adopted on May 23. It represents months of hard work, both from fellow pilots and our government affairs department, which produced a tangible result.”
What more needs to be said...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
