Gooch121

Correct, this is a recommendation, a non-binding resolution. Our MEC Chair can still go to DC and vote any way he sees fit.

Now, do I think he will vote against his LEC reps, no. On this issue, there should be enough horsepower at the ALPA Executive Board Meeting to achieve their objective and still provide 'cover' for our Chairman. After all, he did the dirty work last time (Age 60) and is in need of a hall pass on this issue.

Funny, when I did 'click here' to read the full resolution, I found I was reading a 'DRAFT-SUBJECT TO APPROVAL-DRAFT' copy and there wasn't a listing of how our LEC reps voted on this issue.

I'm sure it's only a clerical error and the final copy with a full accounting of LEC rep voting will be posted shortly.

YES, LJ it nice to see our LEC reps, as a block, represent us. Good job!

Now lets see how each individual LEC rep voted on this issue.

Laughing_Jakal

A little bird told me that the vote was unanimous!

Gooch121

I hope so!

Huck

Amen brudda. I can't believe the bean-counters haven't figured this out yet.

MaydayMark

Are we kidding ourselves here? Can anyone name even one time management did something the union suggested even if it benefited both of them? Quite seriously, I'm disappointed that the management of this Fortune 100 company is so very unreceptive to suggestions form the worker bees? Simply amazing

nightfreight

Personally, I couldn't care less if ALPA decides to endorse a candidate. It wouldn't effect even one of our votes. This isn't something that will turn the tide of the presidential election.

This is a nonsense issue. I am now supposed to be happy that our union, which is really quite an embarrassment, chooses not to support a candidate? Who cares!

We've been failed time and time again by this group and now I should be grateful that they did the right thing? It is way too late for these guys.

Maybe if they would have "done the right thing" in a few matters that actually have some effect on us (i.e., Age 60, retroactivity, FDAs). Many of us will be severely hurt financially and our quality of life will be tremendously effected by DW and gang's stance on retroactivity. Cancelled bids, near as many excesses, etc., would not have happened if DW didn't push for retroactivity.

But, thanks for not endorsing a presidential candidate. Whatever....

Micro

While I'm not happy about how this age 60 mess was handled, I find this "battle cry" (the right thing) about retroactivity to be TOTAL BS. Let's run your argument...you're saying that a pilot on our seniority list shouldn't have the right to exercise their seniority in the event of a bid on this property because they are over 60??? Is that what you're saying??? While I don't like DW and the sooner he leaves the MEC the better, he IS right on this one AND did do the RIGHT THING. Who are you to tell a seniority number holder on this property (I don't care if they are senior or junior to you) that they don't have the right to exercise their seniority????? Your argument holds no water. Our union and DW ensured the right thing was done. And just so you know, I'm not an over 60 guy and this affected me also but I'll never B**ch about the seniority rights of guys above me.

nightfreight

My arguement isn't about allowing over 60 guys the right to exercise their seniority. It's the law now and they have the right. Period.

My arguement isn't about them bidding back, it is about how they got this privilege in the first place.

My arguement is that the only reason retroactivity was placed into legislation was due to ALPA's desire for this to happen. DW decided "it was the right thing to do" and pushed for this to be added to ALPA's agenda. No one else besides NWA (and they were against retroactivity) really had a dog in the fight (except some smaller cargo carriers).

While you might say he was "doing what was right", I say otherwise. These individuals had every career expectation met, and had the opportunity to stay on the seniority list as Second Officers. He let down the majority of the membership by pushing for this legislation. He mentioned at a hub turn meeting that we should be reviewing the furlough section of our CBA. He said he thought this was in issue well before he pushed for retroactivity. Now we find ourselves extremely overmanned, many have had bids cancelled, many more will most likely find themselves excessed.

Putting 100+ pilots (many of which can receive a full pension) and placing them once again on the top of the seniority list has been a negative experience for most of us.

Was the intent to allow guys like Foxhunter the ability to wait it out to see if legislation was passed? Or our ex system chief pilot who only scrambled for second officer school the moment this legislation was enacted?

Sorry, but I think it was just another sell out of the majority of the membership.

Micro

If retoactivity was not put into the law, then you're saying it would be alright to deny someone to exercise their seniority rights who is on the property just because they were over 60?? These guys were active flight crews and I don't care if they were S/O's!!! It's not a "given" privilege it's their right by seniority. Whether they waited like fox or jumped through their bu*t like JL, they have the right by their seniority. You and I might not progress up the seniority ladder as fast as we might have wished, but I feel you need to re-think your reasoning on limiting someone right to exercise their seniority rights.

Gunter

Doesn't matter if these cats were SOs on the list or just retired flying for NetJets. If retroactivity was not in the legislation they would not have been denied anything. Just like they weren't denied anything when the mandatory age was 60.

Proactive rulings are common when people are adversly affected on such a grand scale. Retroactivity is relatively uncommon.