Originally Posted by AerisArmis

What DW neglects to point out is without retroactivity, none of this would have happened. And..... he is solely responsible for it. He really does need to go and now. If he's scr**ing us, we expect it, if he's not, we think he's about too. He's a union president with no credibility, no loyalty, no trust and there are many with a deep dislike for him on a personal level for what he has personally done to them. It's time for him to admit it and step aside and let someone else try to pick up the pieces.

Originally Posted by FlyByNite

What else should we expect from DW than Clintonesque revisionist history. If blame can be laid at any one persons feet, then the blame belongs directly at his. He was the one person who pushed for retro activity, even when the original bill excluded those over age 60 from moving back to the front seats. ALPA motto is supposed to be "schedule with safety". There is little or no data available on pilots performance over 60. We could have gained this data going forward from day one if the rule had gone into effect without retro activity. Just because ICAO says it's safe doesn't make it so. The US has always set the standard. Without retro the change could have been a slow transition, will a lesser impact on the rest of the crew force. All the while, studying the safety impact of front seaters over 60. Yeah, I know, it's over and we've beaten this horse to death. What is even worse is DW now trying to lay blame. DW quotes his vast support at ALPA national when he asked to include retro. What he fails to mention is no one else cared. The only negative impact would be to our crewforce, and here's our MEC chair asking for it. Thanks DW, that's looking out for us. Now don't go back and blame the company for your mistakes....they make enough on their own. You have lost all credibility with this crew force. I think we should bring back some of those stickers from last year to remind you......ONE MORE DAY OF DW'S RETRO PAY.

Originally Posted by 1st overnite

I know the law can't be changed, but I am still struggling with the line ALPA gave us that nothing was in the way of change for age 65 and it was going to happen regardless. The thing that gets me is that the FAA planned a couple years of testing, then they would make a decision to raise the age or not. Then here comes the US Government and passes it with lightning speed. Nothing happens that quickly in DC. Not even passing out the money for the economy stimulus. So I decided to call my senators and congressman and ask how this was able to pass so quickly. I spoke with aides at each office, but spent the most time on the phone with an aide for Bob Casey D-PA. This is the summary of what I was told based on notes from Sen Casey's office. The aide said that at the time of the vote, the FAA still opposed change. What caused the vote to go through was basically ALPA's endorsement of the rule change. I asked, "what if ALPA still opposed the change?" The aide responded, "the bill probably wouldn't have been approved." Now, I know that I was only talking to an aide who doesn't have all of the info and there are two sides to every story, but this contridicts what we were told by ALPA. I am not crying sour grapes here, but this bothers me. If the majority of ALPA pilots were for the change and ALPA went and endorsed it, I would say "OK, I don't agree, but that is the majority vote". But that wasn't the case. The majority didn't want the change both within FedEx and nationwide, and ALPA went against the mojority and endorsed it. I came from a Teamster airline and I can tell you that ALPA is leaps and bounds better than the Teamsters, but this really hurts the level of trust between the members and the leadership.

Originally Posted by de727ups

If you have a problem with the moderation at APC, it's best to speak with the admins. That would be HSLD or Freight Dog. Smart remarks towards the folks who spend countless hours keeping APC professional don't belong at the forums.

Profanity, no matter how it's veiled, makes APC less professional and won't be tolerated.

Originally Posted by nightfreight

There has been a lot of talk about over 60 guys staying. It really doesn't bother me that they choose to stay, for whatever reason. It's the law, and thanks to DW and gang, they are allowed to bid back. My issue is with our MEC, and particularly, DW.

This message, once again, blames the company for the problem. No mention of allowing 150-170 guys back in the front seats. No problem with giving away city purity (and allowing more optimization of our schedules).

I don't blame the company. There job is to maximize profits and get the most of us. It is our job to make sure we aren't optimized to the point where we aren't dead by the time we retire (more likely now).

I agree that DW has completely lost our trust and needs to be gone yesterday...

Originally Posted by FredEx

Here's what I think happened......It's probably been said here already.

I think DW was assured by PC (or other FDX management) that if he delievered a "yes" vote on the LOA, that FDX would "take care" of the over 60 guys. He delivered.

65 happened a lot sooner than anyone, company or DW included, ever thought possible. The 07-02 and 07-03 bid was already a done deal at this point. In order for management to take care of the over 60 guys, something drastic had to be done.

The only way to repay DW for his efforts was for management to illegally cancel a legitimate equipment bid, taking it away from pilots whose seniority allowed such an award before 65 passed. By illegally cancelling a legitimate bid, bid 08-01 was born, creating "new" vacancies for the over 60 pilots to populate.

That's my theory. If true, I have to ask: Am I paying ALPA dues for this?

Fred