Class Action Lawsuits – Is It Time??!!

[Secret Squirrel]

How can you guys argue that this is good for the industry? This will be a bigger problem then people understand. It will divide unions, stall negotiations, and It will take up union resources with lawsuits. This is a very sad day.

 

[whymeworry?]

Yes, they did vote: by unanimous consent. It is a procedural vote and is as valid as a roll call vote. There is no way you'll convince a court that the Senate didn't approve of this. They approved it unanimously

I will agree that what occurred was legal, and is part of the process. But no, they did not vote... according to my sources.

Obviously I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to ponder the legal ramifications about what occurred nor on what grounds it could be challenged. But I can tell you anything the Congress passes can be challenged at the Supreme Court level. At least that's my understanding. How it would be challenged and on what basis, I am not sure.

My real beef here is with ALPA. I expect my government to shaft our interests. By contrast, I expect ALPA to represent the will of the majority. I know ALPA changed course on this issue with the EB vote last summer, shameful and politically manipulative as it was, but we were told we would still have somewhat of a say in the matter as the process begins (NPRM, etc.).

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

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.

Caveman,

Glad to see you have it all figured out. Fortunately, you are not on our list of legal consultants.

There are many questions of law that must be answered. This came down with little to no thought and was quickly pushed through Congress. There are still issues of safety and career expectations to contend with that could torpedo the entire 65 process. Also, just because the government has invoked the rule change, we are still determining whether the unions have to impose it just like flying 100 hours per month.

Also, Age 65 will radically change any contract negotiations as F/O’s quickly realize the financial devastation on their career earnings. There is a firestorm going on now at APA from the junior guys.

Caveman, in pursuing any important litigation, there will always be the naysayers such as you. Luckily not everyone listens to you.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

Nor you.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

I'd just take my 500-600 grand in lost wages for a 5 year longer upgrade and be happy. The over 60's can stay but just don't make me pay for it.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

There are very few guarantees in life and even fewer in the aviation industry. Banking on age 60 retirements to progress YOUR career could be likened to banking on your pension plan for comfortable retirement.

Sounds like you're the fool.

Snow-back,

No, you made reference to the fact that F/O’s would want to fly when they reached the age of 60. I was trying to illustrate to you, that most F/O’s will have to fly all the way to 65 to recover income that was lost in the first place due to this rule change. This includes not only straight pay, but also the loss in pensionable earnings and compounding interest. The longer the stagnation, the worst the hit in career earnings for the junior crewmember. Do you understand that concept?

A massive transfer of wealth just took place two days ago that will have serious repercussions for the future of our industry and profession.

You are asking F/O’s to wait up to two decades for they see any positive income from Age 65.

How fair is that?

AA767AV8TOR

 

[PCL_128]

As anyone can see from my previous posts on this subject, I'm just as mad about this as any of you are. However, lawsuits against ALPA will not help anything. Trying to bankrupt the union will cause much more harm than good. If you want to stop this sort of thing from happening in the future, then get rid of Prater, but don't destroy the union.

 

[stratocoaster]

Snow-back,

No, you made reference to the fact that F/O’s would want to fly when they reached the age of 60. I was trying to illustrate to you, that most F/O’s will have to fly all the way to 65 to recover income that was lost in the first place due to this rule change. This includes not only straight pay, but also the loss in pensionable earnings and compounding interest. The longer the stagnation, the worst the hit in career earnings for the junior crewmember. Do you understand that concept?

A massive transfer of wealth just took place two days ago that will have serious repercussions for the future of our industry and profession.

You are asking F/O’s to wait up to two decades for they see any positive income from Age 65.

How fair is that?

AA767AV8TOR

Your argument is based upon the concept of recovery of "lost income."

Income is only "lost" if one had it in their hands in the first place.

The correct term is "projected income", and one is no more guaranteed "projected income" than they are guaranteed "projected earnings" on a stock.

Bankruptcies, furloughs, mergers and even personal injuries can diminish, dilute or demolish one's projected earnings over the course of one's career.

You can also sue the government for all of those instances. But your suit can also be thrown out as frivolous, too.

 

[Carl_Spackler]

PCL_128 is right, it doesn't make any sense to sue yourself.

Does ALPA publish PAC donations? If I had donated to the PAC in the past, I would stop now. I can see the PAC funds go way down in the next year.

What were the motives for the EB to do a 180 after the will of the membership was made known? At first glance it would seem to make no sense at all, but the motive in this situation was the same as many decisions. Money. ALPA revenue from dues has gone down due to post 9/11 cuts. If they start losing many senior pilots in the next few years, that would further hurt revenue. The EB was not looking out for their members, but for their own pocket book. That is what I call SELFISH.

 

[alaskaplt]

You hit the nail on the head! The new young breed coming into the industry are the typical Gen Y's. You owe us everything, we're entitled! The older generation owes you nothing! Seniority is seniority and that is the way it goes. When you are junior you can't wait until you're senior. Then seniority comes and the junior folks must wait their turn. All you young guys need to stop whining, it will be your turn at seniority soon enough. Time does go very fast. By the way , this is your typical ALPA move. Feed the old, starve the young.

I think you have confused gen y with baby boomers. Sure sounds like that is who you are describing in your post. Not to mention I believe most of the alpa members that oppossed the change were gen x and young boomers (as in barely part of the "me generation"). All boomers benefited from the age 60 law. This change comes within 1 year after the first boomer hit 60. Like as if any of us need any further proof of why they are called the "me generation".

 

[Superpilot92]

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.

Yeah They should have said anyone from now on who gets a commercial certificate can fly past 60 and guess what the old guys would have had a heart attack. This isn't about being fair its about the guys at the top getting theirs and screwing the guys at the bottom. We all knew getting into this 60 was it so if this would have applied to anyone from now on getting a commercial certificate i would have been all for it!!

 

[Flopgut]

You hit the nail on the head! The new young breed coming into the industry are the typical Gen Y's. You owe us everything, we're entitled! The older generation owes you nothing! Seniority is seniority and that is the way it goes. When you are junior you can't wait until you're senior. Then seniority comes and the junior folks must wait their turn. All you young guys need to stop whining, it will be your turn at seniority soon enough. Time does go very fast. By the way , this is your typical ALPA move. Feed the old, starve the young.

Seniority is seniority. Could not agree more.

Say, just let me know when the last scab list get's thrown away, would you? Cause I won't mind "waiting my turn" as long as I don't have to listen to any of you boomer gen types gripe about that anymore.

Scabs took seniority from your generation, just like you have from us here and now.

 

[StopNTSing]

+1 atafan

If you feel that an injustice has just been dealt out, rather than crying lawsuit go and take over your union.

I hear all the time how the union is so unfair and your just a victim. If there is so much support against this latest ruling and you have the numbers try to remedy this injustice the only effective way possible, work within your own union and balance the contract your way.

But whatever you do, step away from your PS3, put down your I-phone and man up. Please quit acting like little children that just got your toy taken away.

AA767AVIATOR:

I'll be the first to agree that this will be a raw deal for many (it will mean I'm gonna be a commuter for a few more years). But the place to effect change is within YOUR UNION. APA is on record as opposing the change...fine, then y'all should have no trouble including language in your next contract that still shoves them out the door at 60, or knocks them back to FOs, or lets them reapply as a new-hire. Whatever. This change gives more potential options to all airline pilots. How your airline chooses to implement it is totally up to your MEC or negotiating committee. Tell THEM what you want, instead of wasting keystrokes whining and making sweeping indictments on a forum where no one really gives a damn about you & your plight anyway.

 

[Caveman]

Caveman,

Glad to see you have it all figured out. Fortunately, you are not on our list of legal consultants.

There are many questions of law that must be answered. This came down with little to no thought and was quickly pushed through Congress. There are still issues of safety and career expectations to contend with that could torpedo the entire 65 process. Also, just because the government has invoked the rule change, we are still determining whether the unions have to impose it just like flying 100 hours per month.

Also, Age 65 will radically change any contract negotiations as F/O’s quickly realize the financial devastation on their career earnings. There is a firestorm going on now at APA from the junior guys.

Caveman, in pursuing any important litigation, there will always be the naysayers such as you. Luckily not everyone listens to you.

AA767AV8TOR

1. I don't have it figured out. I asked a rhetorical question based on what essentially will be the whole point of your case. You're going to have to convince a judge that a law mitigating age discrimination is unconstitutional. Good luck.

2. The safety issue is still a valid question, but with mandatory 1st class medicals required every six months it's going to be tough making the case that it wasn't considered. You may not agree with the standard required by the statute but to say it wasn't considered is erroneous.

3. As I said in my post, IMO career expectations will be a nonissue. Even if we agree up front there is clear demonstrable damage, the idea of allowing continued discrimination because you will be financially damaged if the discrimination is eliminated isn't gonna fly. In my uneducated opinion you'll never get that past a court. They'll agree you've been harmed and then tell you to suck it up for the greater good.

4. There may be an argument about whether or not a union and it's CBA have to abide by the rule. I'm guessing that's more of a contractual issue between the two parties than it is a constitutional issue. I don't know jack about contractual law or labor law. Just my 2 cents.

5. I'm not a naysayer. I told you you should go ahead and file. I just think you'll lose and it won't even be close. Why do you think this breezed through congress so quickly? Once it was unencumbered by language regarding any other issues it was a no-brainer.

6. I'm obviously not an attorney nor a constitutional scholar (but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night). Seriously though, I'm a dumbass Marine and I can poke holes in your argument/case. What do you think a team of lawyers will do? Hey, knock yourself out. It's your dime and your time. I still think you're pissing into the wind.

 

[52560]

Ok...I'm a little confused here. Many of you have called the old guys greedy because they want to hang around and earn more money. Then you rationalize your statement by saying that they are costing you money. Isn't that greedy on your part? I guess there is going to be a greedy party here...just this time the old guys beat the young ones.

 

[Draginass]

Ok...I'm a little confused here. Many of you have called the old guys greedy because they want to hang around and earn more money. Then you rationalize your statement by saying that they are costing you money. Isn't that greedy on your part? I guess there is going to be a greedy party here...just this time the old guys beat the young ones.

So because someone wants to pick your pocket, and you object, you're greedy??? His point was this is a change from the status quo rules that everyone lived under and planned for. It IS clearly a rich windfall for the older crowd, both in terms of quality of worklife and pay . . . . and that's coming right out of the future pockets of the junior pilots.

They can stay now till 65, but don't expect much respect from the younger guys.

 

[737ski]

As for the victory dance, the one thing I don't want to hear about is, how can you withdraw out of your 401k before mandatory retirement, use your sick pay, & your vacation to manipulate your schedule, etc., to get to 65 or retire at 60... BTW, I don't want to see your toys (2nd house, planes, boats, xx wives, etc.), until you want to talk about how current F/O's will be affected & compensated.

This is a great place to work, but a few greedy folks can spoil a good thing. Believe me, you are now on my bid avoid.

Rant off.

 

[Andy]

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!

Very nice post.

I fought 65 the best I knew how. I wrote to all of the elected officials; called several offices, etc. Tried organizing grass roots campaigns; even passed out blakey's e-mail/fax/phone number.

It's done. We lost. Pressing for a lawsuit at this time would not be productive.

I'm not asking anyone who opposes 65 to accept this; I'm merely asking them to channel their efforts toward battles that can be won. ALPA betrayed the majority and has created more dissention among the ranks than any divisive management scheme could ever have done. Our elected officials at national AND the MECs betrayed the majority. It wasn't just prater (POS) that betrayed the majority; it was an almost unanimous vote at national to pursue this course of action.
Geez, I feel like an idiot to have supported the union. What a waste of 1.95%. I'm now more trusting of United management than ALPA.

I just hope that once the lowered payscales as a result of this (this change WILL result in leaner pilot contracts) are enough to fire up people when the next age change gets pushed. I haven't been able to verify this, but I read where someone said that the JAA (Europe) has established a committe to increase pilot age to 70. Perhaps by the time that the next push for change rolls around, pilots will learn that the decreased wages more than offset additional years of work. It's coming. Soon.
Rather than looking in the rear view mirror, prepare for the battles ahead.

 

[LJDRVR]

One thing's for certain. Getting all angry and calling each other names on FI doesn't do a thing.

ALPA National got a blank check from the MEC's on age 65. At my airline the resolution said basically "do what you want". No kidding. ALPA leadership acted in their own best interests.

So now, the baby-boomers, the same generation that brought you the B-scale and RJ's, gets to have their cake and eat it too. Junior pilots will lose huge chunks of their career earnings. (3-year delay on upgrade = upwards of 250K. Let's figure 200K in cash, plus 50 in 401K. 50K invested for 25 years = pretty close to a million dollars.) How much of that are you going to make up in five years? What's not included is lost career earnings. Do you think your employer is going to pay for this legislation?

HA!

"Sorry guys, but we can't increase your B-fund, you get to work an extra five years, so you're fine!"

"We don't have that much of an hourly increase available, our LTD and sick call costs are through the roof."

We can point fingers, but sooner or later we'll all be dealing with this contractually. Most will bitch and complain. At APA, there's a movement afoot to simply require those pilots planning on staying past sixty, to move to the bottom of the list.

In the meantime though, it's time we all got involved with our union. Pissed? Good! So am I. Clean house at your MEC/LEC if required and send Prater packing if you think that will help. You'd better pay attention though cause' here's what's coming next:

• Open Skies
• Certificate Standardization/Commonality

If we don't get our collective poo together, we're going to be replaced by green-card holders who will do our jobs for a third of what we make.

As far as class action lawsuits? Forget it fellas. No plaintiffs attorney in the country is going to take your case unless you pay up front. The legislation indemnifies the airlines and ALPA.

 

[Dude]

I love the responses from the "experts" on this board. There will be NO definitive data regarding the effects of this legilation until the first round of old farts retire at 65! Until then, this is useless rhetoric and speculation and that energy should be placed where it is needed.......back at your respective negotiating tables. This lightning rod issue is doing precisely what most companies want; it is dividing every pilot group out there. Not standing unified, right now, will have disasterous effects on our bargaining power in the upcoming years and your management knows it. Being an FO for a few more years isn't pleasant but what the hell am I going to do about it? Not much. You guys are bitching about scenarios that already exist. Albeit this legislation amplified it a bit, but those issues are a reality. Long upgrades, stagnation, eroded pay and benefits; come on, these are today's reality. Your chosen profession provides two guarantees. A PC every six months accompanied by a medical. It used to guarantee the retirement age of sixty, but I digress. Focus on where you are and what you have today, not a speculative and unforecastable tomorrow.

I will promise you this. Childish behavior and whining about how you were wronged will suck every fiber of credibility out of your arguments. EVERYONE in this industry has fallen on the sword at one time or another and this time, you're the bloody one. $hit happens.

 

[Andy]

Not standing unified, right now, will have disasterous effects on our bargaining power in the upcoming years and your management knows it.

That's the crux of the problem. The majority of the membership can no longer trust the union. There can be no unity with the current union.
This was a HUGE setback for unity.

 

[Vne]

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

No one can replace AA as the scurge of the industry ....No one.....ever.....

 

[charterpuke]

At every airline with a no-fly list, all F/Os should put any captain over 60 on their no-fly list!!

 

[SkiFishFly]

Don't waste your time and money on lawsuits. Only the lawyers will win (and pocket lots of your money).

Channel your energy into the union and at the bargaining table. FO pay rates need to come up before/at a greater percentage than CA rates to make up for the delay/loss of potential future earnings.

As someone posted - FOs did not lose actual income, we lost potential income. It was never guaranteed in any way, shape, or form. Lots of things can have a negative impact on projected or potential income - this just happens to be one of them.

 

[Jonny Sacko]

Yup, right with ya, SUE ALPA. FOR OUR LOST Potential. 5 year capt pay, at today's rate, with compounding.. The majority spoke against it. Where do I sign up?

 

[Mamma]

Ok...I'm a little confused here. Many of you have called the old guys greedy because they want to hang around and earn more money. Then you rationalize your statement by saying that they are costing you money. Isn't that greedy on your part? I guess there is going to be a greedy party here...just this time the old guys beat the young ones.

Hey Einstein,
The old guys have been beating the young guys forever. That is how a seniority based system works. Are you still a little confused? Here is where I have the complaint. You geezers say you want to stick around because you "love" flying and want to keep busy. The "young guys" want to make a living and support their families. That is the difference. The system was set up so you could retire at 60 and be OK. I know things have happened but I think if you managed your money well over the years you could retire just fine. If you have 3 wives and a host of other bad decisions that led you into forced servitude, then that is your fault. Oh, by the way:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/i...ngs.Testimony&Hearing_ID=1581&Witness_ID=4478

 

[Mamma]

Don't waste your time and money on lawsuits. Only the lawyers will win (and pocket lots of your money).

Channel your energy into the union and at the bargaining table. FO pay rates need to come up before/at a greater percentage than CA rates to make up for the delay/loss of potential future earnings.

As someone posted - FOs did not lose actual income, we lost potential income. It was never guaranteed in any way, shape, or form. Lots of things can have a negative impact on projected or potential income - this just happens to be one of them.

File an ASAP report everytme you fly with a geezer and include this link. Tell the union this is not safe. ALPA leads the way in safety issues!

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/i...ngs.Testimony&Hearing_ID=1581&Witness_ID=4478

 

[capt. megadeth]

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

DUH!!!

Of course we will....we will have no choice by then. 60 will be the new 55.

 

[whymeworry?]

No doubt, Capt rate will have to come down to pay for the FO rates that are going to go up. Fact is there are more FOs than Captains so the voting block will far exceed what the old farts want.

My suggestion to the negotiating committee is 90% of captain pay. All the contracts now have to be renegotiated. Want to stick around? Fine, but I'm not going to be the one financing your toys and your lifestyle.

 

[52560]

Hey Einstein,
The old guys have been beating the young guys forever. That is how a seniority based system works. Are you still a little confused? Here is where I have the complaint. You geezers say you want to stick around because you "love" flying and want to keep busy. The "young guys" want to make a living and support their families. That is the difference. The system was set up so you could retire at 60 and be OK. I know things have happened but I think if you managed your money well over the years you could retire just fine. If you have 3 wives and a host of other bad decisions that led you into forced servitude, then that is your fault. Oh, by the way:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/i...ngs.Testimony&Hearing_ID=1581&Witness_ID=4478

Part of the reason this law got passed is because too many of you can't make a compelling argument to save your life. What are you trying to say here....all I got out of it was that you think I am an old geezer with three wives. Well, you are wrong on two accounts there. By the way, I didn't want to see this law passed. Believe it or not, I am on your side. But jeeze, no wonder this industry is going to hell in a hand basket. Too many idots open there mouths and let crap flow out! For those that can't truly do something good about it, shut the hell up so those that can make a legitmate argument can do so without you screwing up their cause.