Class Action Lawsuits – Is It Time??!!

[AA767AV8TOR]

Well, it now appears we have finally reached the boiling point. Junior crewmembers, you just got royally screwed.

Thank you very little Southwest. You have now replaced AA (with our B-scale) as the scurge of the industry.

Age 65 is more than a serious abrogation of seniority. It means financial harm to every junior crewmember both active and furloughed. It also means “diminished career expectations” to thousands of active and furloughed pilots. Because of the acute stagnation problem we face at AA and at other carriers, it means a major loss of income over the next couple of contracts.

The combined numbers of F/O's between APA and ALPA for any class action lawsuit could approach almost 40,000 -- no chump change.

Is it right to have such a major disparity between the winners and losers? This just might be a question that has to be answered through the court channels.

The legal profession will be closely watching the developments here.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[vtech]

Congress passed some legislation and the President signed it into law. So who ya gonna sue?

 

[navigatro]

take a deep breath....

Honestly, can't we all just get along?

For the record, I was against Age 65.

That being said, it is now law, and unlikely to be changed, at least in the near future.

No one said life was fair. Things change, sometimes for the better and sometimes for worse. It is called LIFE. You have 4 options:

1. Accept reality and deal with it. (move on)
2. Fight it (a losing proposition, in my opinion.)
3. Complain and whine endlessly.
4. Deny reality.

It is time to move on and deal with other pressing issues in the industry, the ones where we can make a difference, and improve the pay and working conditions and contracts.

BTW, Merry Christmas, Happy and healthy New Year, and Happy Holidays to all!

 

[snow-back]

You guys contest that all the senior guys are greedy by working past 60 and that your future earnings are in jeopardy. Why do you think that current junior pilots will be any less "greedy" when they turn 60. Do the current generation of F/Os have a higher so-called moral standard than their senior counterparts? I doubt it. I would bet that a higher percentage of pilots will be working past 60 in 2 decades than will continue past 60 now.

Lawsuit...why don't you take your ball and go home?

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

I would bet that a higher percentage of pilots will be working past 60 in 2 decades than will continue past 60 now.

Lawsuit...why don't you take your ball and go home?

Snow-back,

You are a fool. Of course F/O's will be forced to fly to 65 in order to simply earn back the money they lost in the first place.

This is not right.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Congress passed some legislation and the President signed it into law. So who ya gonna sue?

Have you ever heard of the Constitution you idiot!

Unconstitutional laws are passed all the time. Just because your idiot Congressman and moron Senator make a law the unpopular president signs is not the end of it.

The case needs to be pursued. If APA would do something and needed support I am in.

Lets get the ball rolling on this class action suit NOW!

 

[Nindiri]

Age 65 is unconstitutional? Who would have known? :laugh: Those Founding Fathers were ahead of their time.

 

[Andy Neill]

Have you ever heard of the Constitution you idiot!

Unconstitutional laws are passed all the time. Just because your idiot Congressman and moron Senator make a law the unpopular president signs is not the end of it.

The case needs to be pursued. If APA would do something and needed support I am in.

Lets get the ball rolling on this class action suit NOW!

...and the unconstitutional part of this law is what?

 

[vtech]

Unconstitutional laws are passed all the time. Just because your idiot Congressman and moron Senator make a law the unpopular president signs is not the end of it.

The Age 60 rule wasn't unconstitutional was it? So you're saying changing it to Age 65 will likely be held to be unconstitutional? Go figure.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

Congress passed some legislation and the President signed it into law. So who ya gonna sue?

Vtech,

Don’t be so quick to pass judgment. The government has been sued before and will be sued again. We are exploring our legal avenues at this point. A class action lawsuit consisting of over 30,000 disenfranchised pilots would exercise considerable power and influence.

This think is far from over and will revolutionize our industry both in work rules and pay – for better or worse.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[Jim]

Congress passed some legislation and the President signed it into law. So who ya gonna sue?

APAAD as a start. Let's make sure those greedy idiots have big bills to pay during their extra 5 years of screwing over the junior pilots.

 

[ironspud]

Vtech,

Don’t be so quick to pass judgment. The government has been sued before and will be sued again. We are exploring our legal avenues at this point. A class action lawsuit consisting of over 30,000 disenfranchised pilots would exercise considerable power and influence.

This think is far from over and will revolutionize our industry both in work rules and pay – for better or worse.

AA767AV8TOR

Well, don't forget to pick up your cup of coffee through the McDonalds Drive Up window on the way to the courthouse.

 

[ditchpilot]

age 65

I fly part 91 so I have no dog in this hunt.
After reading the post both pro and con makes me wonder if any one would have voted to extend retirement till age 65 if it applied ony to pilots hired after the FAA changes the retirement age regs.

 

[iaflyer]

Typical response by Americans - I feel wronged so I'm gonna sue.

Who you gonna sue? Your congressman and senator for voting for this? The President for signing the bill?

Hahahahahaha... Stupid idiots.

Realize you lost and move on with your life - you'll be a lot happier.

 

[JAM-BRO]

I say we make all 60+ pilots pay the van tips, drinks and layover food for the crew. It's the least those moderfokers can do!!!!!!

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

Snow-back,

You are a fool. Of course F/O's will be forced to fly to 65 in order to simply earn back the money they lost in the first place.

This is not right.

AA767AV8TOR

Did you retire from the AF?

 

[Caveman]

Do you really think you can convince a court that legislation diminishing the effects of arbitrary age discrimination is illegal, unjust, and unconstitutional? Good luck trying to make that argument. Even if they agree you've been harmed financially, the court will still rule against you because the rule of law will trump your personal inconvenience. You can't discriminate no matter how inconvenient it is.

Another thing you're forgetting is the argument will be made that you yourself are being protected from age discrimination by the same law you now oppose. It doesn't matter you don't want the protection, you will still be protected, therefore you aren't being harmed. In effect you are suing to discriminate against yourself. Like I said, good luck trying to make that case.

One thing that may come out of a suit like this is that obviously age 65 is discriminatory too. They could possibly toss the law because it is also arbitrary. That would bring us all back to square one and the original age 60 rule (not law, big difference) would once again be the current standard. However, there would also be a huge legal precedence for abolishing an illegal rule. The end result may be that there is no mandatory retirement age at all. That will really dump a large turd in your Wheaties.

Hey, stranger things have happend. O.J walked. Too bad Johnny Cochran is dead. You might have had a chance.

The other irony here is how many of you that would sign on to a class action lawsuit were opponents of the RJDC? Regardless of the nature of the suit, both the RJDC and you will be sueing your union and your fellow pilots. The RJDC was accused of a seniority grab, etc, etc. The EXACT same case can be made against you guys. The vitriol against the RJDC was uncalled for IMO. They, just like you, were just trying to look out for their own best interests. I may disagree with your lawsuit, but I won't condemn you for trying. I'm convinced you're pissing into the wind, but it's a free country. Do what ya gotta do.

 

[Fox-Tree]

Snow-back,

....Of course F/O's will be forced to fly to 65 in order to simply earn back the money they lost in the first place.

I'm totally p!ssed about the change - but,

most F/Os under the age of 50 probably don't HAVE to fly until they're 65. "Earn back the money they lost"? They're going to do this earning between the ages of 60 and 65 and somehow "save" their "trashed" career and retirement plans?

I've got 17 years to go until 60 and I'll make whatever sacrifices I need to in those years in order to make my retirement happen on MY terms at 60. Being smart with money you earn 15+ years before retirement will have a MUCH more positive affect on your situation at 60 than trying to stuff your pockets on the way out the door from 60-65. IMO.

This does $uck, though.

 

[Flopgut]

Here's an idea:

The legislation is called "Fair treatment for Experienced Pilots Act". These pilots aren't necessarily experienced so much as they are old. I mean, we're ALL experienced! This is even more discriminatory!! This act is not even what it says it is in the title, doesn't solve anything, and causes more discrimination than it ends. This act needs to be amended stat! Let's start our own version of APAAD and make this truly "Fair Treatment". Which would be something like: They can get rehired at the bottom of the list, just like the guys who turned 60 on Thursday?! Anyone hired yesterday can stay with their company until 65. If you were hired day before yesterday, you get surplused to the bottom at 60.

 

[Flash]

Vtech,

Don’t be so quick to pass judgment. The government has been sued before and will be sued again. We are exploring our legal avenues at this point. A class action lawsuit consisting of over 30,000 disenfranchised pilots would exercise considerable power and influence.

This think is far from over and will revolutionize our industry both in work rules and pay – for better or worse.

AA767AV8TOR

Did anyone sue back in the 50's when the age was changed to 60? What about guys who were planning to work until 65 back then and were forced to retire at 60? Was it fair then? or was that different?