AirTran Pilots and Union Board Support Changing FAA Age 60 Rule

[Ty Webb]

You will be more than welcomed to retire at 60,nothing on the proposed bill that would force you to bless us with your presence past 60. It never has been a safety issue, just one of greed.

You're right about one thing- it is about greed. In this case, the greed of those without the grace to step aside and enter the next phase of their life.

The next thing to come about from "AGE 65" will be the degredation of our retirement benefit. . . . . the Company will argue that a reduced benefit is justified, since you will have 5 more years to contribute, and you will be drawing a paycheck for an additional 5 years. . . . . 65 will become the de facto age, all because of the greed of a few of you.

I say that if you want to be a pilot past age 60, you get busted back to FO. That way, you won't be crapping on someone else's upgrade at least, or someone else's recall from furlough. Surely even you can see the fairness in that . . . .

 

[Lear70]

I say that if you want to be a pilot past age 60, you get busted back to FO. That way, you won't be crapping on someone else's upgrade at least, or someone else's recall from furlough. Surely even you can see the fairness in that . . . .

You have a second.

Do we have an MEC resolution?

All in favor, say Heellll yeahhhh buuuoooyyy!

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I say that if you want to be a pilot past age 60, you get busted back to FO. That way, you won't be crapping on someone else's upgrade at least, or someone else's recall from furlough. Surely even you can see the fairness in that . . . .

Cute... what are willing to give up so this guy can retain pay, benefits, etc... Its all about negotiations...

 

[Lear70]

Cute... what are willing to give up so this guy can retain pay, benefits, etc... Its all about negotiations...

Who said we were willing to give up ANYTHING?

If they want to fly, they can continue to fly... in the right seat, at F/O wages equivalent for their longevity, with the SAME medical insurance and 401k match that we currently enjoy.

The insurance is a non-cost for the company, simply because they have to pay those for ANY pilot, whether he's a 2 year F/O or a 20 year F/O. The 401k match would, of course, be much higher than a 2 year F/O due to their higher pay scale, but it's better than paying a 65 year old CA's match, and I bet the company would accept this trade-off.

The FAA may change the rule, but that doesn't mean your CBA can't be modified to restrict them in such a way that it doesn't hurt everyone else.

I support age 65, but only if implemented in a way that doesn't screw everyone else in the process. They can continue to work, just not in the CA's seat. That way they draw SOME kind of pay and benefits until Social Security is available.

 

[The Victors]

I support age 65, but only if implemented in a way that doesn't screw everyone else in the process. They can continue to work, just not in the CA's seat. That way they draw SOME kind of pay and benefits until Social Security is available.

I agree with most of that, except pushing them back to FO is a bit unrealistic. The real THREAT to fo's future pay and uprade is not those that will work until 65, but those that are fighting for waviers to stay on property until the rule passes AND those total losers that are going to sue to come back online.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

I agree with most of that, except pushing them back to FO is a bit unrealistic. The real THREAT to fo's future pay and uprade is not those that will work until 65, but those that are fighting for waviers to stay on property until the rule passes AND those total losers that are going to sue to come back online.

The Victors,

What’s unrealistic about it?? Just as unrealistic is the rule stating that only one pilot above the age of 60 is allowed in the cockpit yet it’s still there.

If you want to fly to 65 – you do it from the right seat.

No one group should profit or receive a windfall off any change to the rule. It’s only fair. Under Part 121, we all were hired with Age 60 retirement expectations.

Moreover, anyone coming back, since they have already retired and lost their seniority number, goes to the end of the seniority list. You want more money, do it from the end of the list.

NO EXCEPTIONS!

AA767AV8TOR

 

[The Victors]

I'm with ya brother. This age 65 thing is going to cost me HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars. (and those of you out there that would say "but you can fly until 65 too and make it up" can eat the peanuts out of my sh?t.) I just think we'll be lucky, very lucky, to stop waivers and stop people from coming back.

 

[Lear70]

To get them back, management has to agree to it (they already separated from the company). Why would they want a 25+ year CA back at their applicable longevity wage when you can upgrade a 3 year guy?

That said, take a look at Section 14 - Retirement. It never says that a pilot must retire at age 60. In fact, the only two places that talk about it are the DC fund and insurance, where it says "Whereas the CURRENT FAA Mandatory Retirement age is 60" and "If a pilot retires at age 60 OR OLDER"...

The loophole exists in our contract for flying over age 60, and nothing in there says they can't come back after separation. If the company agrees to it, the contract wouldn't have to be amended and a grievance on it would probably be a loser.

This is a GREAT time to do a little reality check of who is leading the Association and what his agenda is.

This is also a GREAT time to try to get member ratification for ANY and ALL side letters that affect anyone's seniority, pay, or QOL issues and make it VERY specific to cover this contingency.

We might have a 60% poll in favor of age 65 right now, but can you imagine what would happen if suddenly half the F/O's were faced with a 5 year longer time to upgrade because all the retirees came BACK?

Somehow I don't think they'd get the same results back if polled again (or put to a vote).

Problem is, with no member ratification, the Association could sign a side letter and it would be all over before we heard anything about it. Too late to recall someone AFTER the side letter has been signed.

People should start SERIOUSLY thinking about pushing for MemRat.

 

[SLEDNECK]

Oh come on. If you believe that 60 percent of this group supports age 65 you're nuts! This has everything to do with the BOD and their agenda. They made their announcement supporting age 65 BEFORE the wilson polls even started. This issue has nothing to do with the majority of the pilots wishes and never will.

Membership ratification? If they were concerned about what the pilot group as a majority actually wanted they would poll the group before they acted on their behalf. Has any of the side letters in the past been put to membership ratification? It's all about the interests of who's in charge NOW and if you allow member ratification it takes the power away from the board and what benefits them. The word majority means nothing compared to seniority here as far as I have seen.

 

[Lear70]

Membership ratification? If they were concerned about what the pilot group as a majority actually wanted they would poll the group before they acted on their behalf. Has any of the side letters in the past been put to membership ratification? It's all about the interests of who's in charge NOW and if you allow member ratification it takes the power away from the board and what benefits them. The word majority means nothing compared to seniority here as far as I have seen.

That's my point EXACTLY.

MemRat, or Member Ratification, is a resolution that can be introduced AT ANY TIME to the BOD. I'm seriously considering starting a grass roots movement to see if we can get a resolution started and signed by the majority of the pilots and present it at the next BOD meeting.

Simply stated, it would require ANY side letter or agreement containing any change in pilot pay, work rules (including ANY change to ANY part of Section 4 - Compensation or Section 5 - Crew Scheduling), vacation, retirement, insurance, Seniority, or Scope, as well as SPECIFICALLY any changes, addition, or removal of any contract language regarding any pilots flying over age 60, absolutely MUST be put to FULL MEMBER RATIFICATION (everyone votes).

They want to do a side letter on leaves of absence or drug / alcohol testing, they can do it without a vote.

They want to do a side letter that waives people's right to refuse a Junior Assignment over Christmas? Sorry, gotta have a vote on that one.

Want our age 60+ pilots come back? Sorry, the members have to ratify any contract language that would allow it.

It's the only way to protect the line pilot from an MEC that may or may not have the interests of the MAJORITY of the pilot group at heart.

Not saying that's the issue here, I'm simply stating that there's a way to protect against problems BEFORE they're signed into the Agreement.

Incidentally, many ALPA carriers already have this policy in place.