All Alpa Members; Recall John Prater From Office

[Mud Eagle]

I swear I saw this thread a couple years ago, but the name was "Duane Woerth" instead.

Plus ca change...

 

[Jonny Sacko]

Great Idea. Check it out



An Open Letter To The LECs/MEC of Northwest Airlines
​

December 15, 2007
Now that President Bush has signed H.R. 4343 ("age 65 mandatory retirement for pilots") into law, I would like the LECs/MEC to openly state their position on whether they will advance a change to our current contract to comply with the new law.
The majority of the NWA pilot force as well as the current LECs/MEC have stated their unequivocal opposition to changing the age 60 retirement age to the now legal age 65 mandatory retirement age.
I’m not a lawyer, never played one on TV or stayed at a Holiday Inn last night but in a reading of H.R. 4343, it appears there is no REQUIREMENT for the union to change the contract with respect to the current age 60 retirement age.
H.R. 4343, Paragraph (f) is specific that "Any amendment to a labor agreement or benefit plan of an air carrier that is required to conform with the requirements of this section or a regulation issued to carry out this section, and is applicable to pilots represented for collective bargaining, shall be made by AGREEMENT (my emphasis) of the air carrier and the designated bargaining representatives of the pilots of the air carrier."
Just as the FARs allow us to fly 1000 hours in a 12 month period but the contract limits us to less, so is the idea that the FARs can allow retirement at age 65 but we are under NO obligation to allow for it contractually.
The wording is pretty specific. Simply put, there is no OBLIGATION to modify the contract to change the retirement age to 65. I’m sure there are those who would like to challenge that view legally but the wording is VERY specific and indemnifies the union against such challenges.
The questions I put forth to you is will you stand by your previous vocal position against raising the contractual retirement age to 65? It’s nice to make a stand but the time has now come to put up or shut up. The majority of the NWA pilots have made their views known. It us up you as our elected reps to hold the line and comply with the wishes of your electorate. Will you?
Fraternally

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Way to go Jonny's Sacko!!

The apathetic young losers who just got thier asses handed to them by the old APAAD loser geezers can still protect age 60 in thier CBA's...

The problem is.. the young Apathetic/Angst crowd will have to reject thier M.O. and actually do something...

It's called political effectiveness! Who would have known??? Oh the APAAD guys......

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Great Idea. Check it out​

An Open Letter To The LECs/MEC of Northwest Airlines​

December 15, 2007
Now that President Bush has signed H.R. 4343 ("age 65 mandatory retirement for pilots") into law, I would like the LECs/MEC to openly state their position on whether they will advance a change to our current contract to comply with the new law.
The majority of the NWA pilot force as well as the current LECs/MEC have stated their unequivocal opposition to changing the age 60 retirement age to the now legal age 65 mandatory retirement age.
I’m not a lawyer, never played one on TV or stayed at a Holiday Inn last night but in a reading of H.R. 4343, it appears there is no REQUIREMENT for the union to change the contract with respect to the current age 60 retirement age.
H.R. 4343, Paragraph (f) is specific that "Any amendment to a labor agreement or benefit plan of an air carrier that is required to conform with the requirements of this section or a regulation issued to carry out this section, and is applicable to pilots represented for collective bargaining, shall be made by AGREEMENT (my emphasis) of the air carrier and the designated bargaining representatives of the pilots of the air carrier."
Just as the FARs allow us to fly 1000 hours in a 12 month period but the contract limits us to less, so is the idea that the FARs can allow retirement at age 65 but we are under NO obligation to allow for it contractually.
The wording is pretty specific. Simply put, there is no OBLIGATION to modify the contract to change the retirement age to 65. I’m sure there are those who would like to challenge that view legally but the wording is VERY specific and indemnifies the union against such challenges.
The questions I put forth to you is will you stand by your previous vocal position against raising the contractual retirement age to 65? It’s nice to make a stand but the time has now come to put up or shut up. The majority of the NWA pilots have made their views known. It us up you as our elected reps to hold the line and comply with the wishes of your electorate. Will you?
Fraternally

Nice letter...but what exactly do you want your LEC/MEC to do with it? YOu know how the process works....listen....INTRODUCE A RESOLUTION !!!

Oh...I almost forgot, that requires going to an actual LEC meeting...and it would require you to actually get involved.

Silly me....

 

[Jonny Sacko]

Bet I've been to more meetings than you. And yes you are silly, in every instance of the word.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Bet I've been to more meetings than you. And yes you are silly, in every instance of the word.

So whats the problem?

 

[Jonny Sacko]

That wasn't to you, and how old are you?

 

[airksk]

As someone who knows Jonny, and someone who's been very involved at my past airline, let me just say know who you're talking to before you spout off. I've been involved, he's been involved, and we still just got kicked hard in the nuts by alpa. I've been a big supporter in the past, that will never happen again. I'll support my local MEC in our contract negotiations, but my normal instinct for ANYTHING national wants my support on will be mistrust, and an inclination to do the opposite. Why, because I don't trust them to look out for me. I made that mistake once, and while I'm on probation with no voting rights, I get kicked in the nuts. Never again.