1st overnite

I keep wondering why the company won't just offer an early retirement package to the 300 or so over 60 guys just to get rid of them. I'm starting to think that the company may partially blame ALPA for the overmanning and actually may get some benefit out of this situation. The company hired pilots based on projected retirements knowing the FAA may change the retirement age 2 or 3 years down the road. ALPA wants age 65 now. Congress, senate and the President take that as an endorsement and pass the legislation with lightning speed. That, along with the economy tanking puts us in the mess we are in. So now the company is lowering BLG, which means that the over 60 guys cost the company less than they did before, and they are still getting productivity out of them without paying a pension for them to sit at home. It is also causing the union to weaken. Now you have old guys against young guys. Guys against those that bid the 777. Guys upset about the foreign domicile. And if they have different BLG for aircraft and seat, there will be more guys bickering among themselves. All this weakens the union. 2010 isn't that far away and a weak union can only benefit the company in contract negotiations. Maybe this is just a conspiracy theory. All I know is regardless of what has happened, this is when we need a strong union and strong leadership to fight and protect us during this rough period.

Dracma

I think I understand your point and don't disagree, except that I believe airline managements actually orchestrated the reirement age change. I think that the ALPA endorsement of age 65 was just an extra benefit for management. I've read on this board and other places that airline managements pushed for the change long before the economy and airline industry crumbled. The day that the retirement age changed from 60 to 65, airlines that still have pension funds (FDX) were immediately overfunded and were able (required) to remove all that extra money. In my opinion, ALPA doesn't have very much influence on Capitol Hill. At least not when compared to management backed lobbyists. The ALPA proponents of the retirement age change were just lucky that management had already pushed their cause for some time.

Cargo Pirate

What is the purpose of this thread?
Are you promoting unity in some way here?
Blaming ALPA(who is ALPA?) for the age change or saying ALPA got lucky in saying they supported the age change is not supporting our cause.
We are ALPA. We elected the MEC. We are unified or not.
I am tired of members blaming the MEC for our problems.
I agree that unity is paramount. I don't agree that any of our elected officials generate unity as policy.
Perhaps recent MEC foibles have promoted unity.
There are some big fires burning.
Let's create unity 1 cockpit at a time.

MX727

Because upper management figures it will cost close to $1,000,000 per taker for the early retirement to be enticing. That isn't just cash, but includes the cost of the benefit package and other actuarial expenses. Even if it's half that amount, it'll cost $150 million to get those 300 moving towards the exits.

BigWatchPilot

FYI...on the corporate side of things I have word that FedEx is about to offer another nice early retirement package for all (non-pilot) employees, like the did a few years ago. Its the right thing to do of course and it is part of the cost of doing business when you are overmanned.

For example...a friend of a friend is making about 100k a year, he has been 'unofficially' told that he can expect to get 18 months salary (150K) and full 25 year retirement. How do you like them apples.

This will all be the icing on the cake as the pilots are not worthy of such an offer for the overmanning situation. This is all rumor for now, we will have to see how this plays out.

BWP

MD11Fr8Dog

Well, we still have a 401k $500 company match, which is nice!

tennesseeflyboy

I thought the Company match 401K was gone (?) $500 ???

BigWatchPilot

You kill me...it's good to have some humor with all thats going on.

BWP

a300fr8dog

Or, maybe we're really just too valuable an asset to let go of?

Gunter

Alpa is to blame for the company not offering early retirement packages?
Alpa is to blame for the needless 727 SO excess bid in '08 that put 50 over 60 guys back into the front seats?
Alpa is to blame for the company desire not limit carryover while they push to lower BLGs?

With all due respect this is a preposterous supposition.