"Fair" treatment for "experienced" pilots comes home to roost?

[UndauntedFlyer]

making ALPA, the APA, ATA or whoever liable for a law that congress passed..... is..... amazing....
quote]

Can't you read or what? It's for the law they didn't change by 11/23/06, and the privileges given to others and not all.

Don't you believe in justice if a wrong was commited?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Can't you read or what? It's for the law they didn't change by 11/23/06, and the privileges given to others and not all.

Don't you believe in justice if a wrong was commited?

Congress wanted the law passed..... they know how to pass laws....

Your justice view is subjective....

 

[atrdriver]

Let's do the right and bring these guys back. We can show as a group, we are United against discrimination and will not tolerate it now nor will we accept its evil past.

Lets let them do the right thing and all retire when they hit age 60, just like the everyone before them had to do. It is not discrimination, any more than having to be age 23 to get an ATP is discrimination.

 

[PlaneDrvr]

Can't you read or what? It's for the law they didn't change by 11/23/06, and the privileges given to others and not all.

Don't you believe in justice if a wrong was commited?

Undaunted,

Read my post above and tell me where I am wrong in my logic. As I said, in order for them to prove their case, they would have to 'challenge' the law on the basis that it was/is 'discriminatory' and if successful, a Federal Judge would have NO Choice but to 'strike down' the law, and would be as though the law was NEVER enacted. Right??

PD

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

The lawsuits will go nowhere.
For what its worth.
PD

Thanks for your take on this and you may be right, but I prefer to listen to the attorneys who are experts on constitutional law.

There are many suits on this. One is the suit over why those requesting a waiver of the law following 11/23/06 were denied the requests. There is no real basis for the denial when all that is required is that the waiver requests prove an equal level of safety, such as was already being given to the foreign crews. How could the FAA say a B777 from ORD to FRA was OK to be flown by an over age-60 pilot for a foreign airline but not for an American pilot flying for UAL or American. Did the FAA put out warnings to the public that the foreign airlines were less safe? No. So the denial of the waiver requests was according to politics and not in accordance with law. The chickens will come home to roost on this one.

And your question about if the current pilots over age 60 who are flying could possibly lose their jobs if the recent change is found to be unconstitutional, the answer is NO. The over age-60 pilots are here to stay. There is no way any change is going to cause them to have to quit while the foreign crews can still fly in this country. Agan, it's all "equal protection-treatment." That's the law.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

I agree with you. So, go ahead and sue alpa. We, the active pilots will disband alpa so quick.

This is what many people want. ALPA is no longer serving the membership and should disban. Good point. This is very possibly an outcome.

For every action there is an equal and opposit reaction.

Don't you see it. ALPA is soon to be history on account of its failings. Just look as US Air. Soon it will be UAL and then that's it. The end.

 

[Cobraair75drvr]

Are you retired ual, and also were you scab?



quote=UndauntedFlyer;1593716]This is what many people want. ALPA is no longer serving the membership and should disban. Good point. This is very possibly an outcome.

For every action there is an equal and opposit reaction.

Don't you see it. ALPA is soon to be history on account of its failings. Just look as US Air. Soon it will be UAL and then that's it. The end.[/quote]

 

[PlaneDrvr]

Thanks for your take on this and you may be right, but I prefer to listen to the attorneys who are experts on constitutional law.

There are many suits on this. One is the suit over why those requesting a waiver of the law following 11/23/06 were denied the requests. There is no real basis for the denial when all that is required is that the waiver requests prove an equal level of safety, such as was already being given to the foreign crews. How could the FAA say a B777 from ORD to FRA was OK to be flown by an over age-60 pilot for a foreign airline but not for an American pilot flying for UAL or American. Did the FAA put out warnings to the public that the foreign airlines were less safe? No. So the denial of the waiver requests was according to politics and not in accordance with law. The chickens will come home to roost on this one.

You never answered my question; ultimately, how are they going to prevail in any lawsuit unless they 'challenge' the law based on 'discrimatory' basis, 'unfair/unequal treatment'???

And, if so, if they are successful, would that just 'strike down' the whole Law?? Bringing back 'age 60'

And, in fact that is what they may end up doing, whether it was their original intent or not. As lawsuits often end up with, 'unintended consequences' A very likely possibility??

PD

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

You never answered my question; ultimately, how are they going to prevail in any lawsuit unless they 'challenge' the law based on 'discrimatory' basis, 'unfair/unequal treatment'???

And, if so, if they are successful, would that just 'strike down' the whole Law?? Bringing back 'age 60'

And, in fact that is what they may end up doing, whether it was their original intent or not. As lawsuits often end up with, 'unintended consequences' A very likely possibility??

PD

I have edited in the answer to your question in my prior post. My answer is the opinion of everyone who seems is legally informed on this, but you are right, no one knows exactly how all this will fall out. We all hope it's for the best for everyone.

And your question about if the current pilots over age 60 who are flying could possibly lose their jobs if the recent change is found to be unconstitutional, the answer is NO. The over age-60 pilots are here to stay. There is no way any change is going to cause them to have to quit while the foreign crews can still fly in this country. Again, it's all "equal protection-treatment." That's the law.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Are you retired ual, and also were you a scab?

This board always suggests than anyone who says anything negative relating to ALPA or the old age 60 rule is some kind of scab. And furthermore, it usually comes from someone who has never proven their loyalty. They are just bystanders who suggest that others are scabs. Is that you?

I think this will answer your question.

I threw my ALPA "Battle star" pin in the toilet along with my ALPA "Retirement" pin. It made me feel good.

And just for the record, I also threw my Company "Retirement" pin in the toilet too. That made me feel good too.

I now only wear my GWRRA pin. So that's the way it is!

"Live to Ride, Ride to Live"

 

[Flopgut]

I now only wear my GWRRA pin. So that's the way it is!

"Live to Ride, Ride to Live"

You would have a lot more personal and professional credibility if you had come back as an FO like you said you were going to. Would have helped your cause greatly as well. Especially if a large number of you guys came back. By not coming back you've made it clear it was only about the seniority.

 

[Cobraair75drvr]

I have a battle star also. OK, you are not a scab officially but greedy none the less. You, and your cohorts that lived the high life and benefited from the upward movement due to retirements somehow fine it unfair when it was your turn to move on. Again, I would have a lot more respect for you guys if you would donate a portion of your income(if allowed back) to the guys past 65 along with any retirement monies accepted from the company returned in full plus interest, and also some form of lump sum to be determined to a fund for pilots past 65 or their dependants due to your premature upgrades throughout your careers at their expense. If you agree with all the above you will prove you have character and this is not about your poor planning or greed.

quote=UndauntedFlyer;1593761]This board always suggests than anyone who says anything negative relating to ALPA or the old age 60 rule is some kind of scab. And furthermore, it usually comes from someone who has never proven their loyalty. They are just bystanders who suggest that others are scabs. Is that you?

I think this will answer your question.

I threw my ALPA "Battle star" pin in the toilet along with my ALPA "Retirement" pin. It made me feel good.

And just for the record, I also threw my Company "Retirement" pin in the toilet too. That made me feel good too.

I now only wear my GWRRA pin. So that's the way it is!

"Live to Ride, Ride to Live"[/quote]

 

[SteelerMan]

Huh????

 

[Mamma]

Does anyone know what would happen if the age 65 law was struck down? Would the guys who got to stay on after 60 be allowed to remain with an exemption until a new law is crafted? I am not a lawyer but I don't understand how you can sue ALPA or APA if congress was the body that agreed upon and passed the legislation that is currently in effect. I imagine they understood the ramifications and hardships that would be be incurred upon the airlines and pilots if guys who had been out of flying for however many years were allowed to return to their old seniority positions. Just curious.

 

[Southbound]

As our career destruction checklist is nearly complete any enthsiasm I once held for debating this pathetic and even more pathetically named law has been sucked away. The Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilot Act huh? Ayn Rand would be proud. However, what a-holes keep funding this lobby/legal effort??

 

[NuGuy]

Does anyone know what would happen if the age 65 law was struck down? Would the guys who got to stay on after 60 be allowed to remain with an exemption until a new law is crafted?

If and when this thing ever sees the light of day, the "envrionment", as compared when 65 passed will be drastically altered.

1. Many, or most carriers will have pilots on furlough, and we'll be in the midst of recession. No claims of a "pilot shortage".

2. The prospect of pilots dropping BACK onto the list from above will mobilize even the largest couch potato.

3. The airlines have experienced the wildly unpredictable manning issues caused by age 65 (old guys seem to get sick more and/or burn off more sick leave). Some airlines have found it necessarily to increase staffing on senior equipment for this very reason, which is NOT welcome in the current fiscal envrionment.

Assuming the rule that changed the age 60 reg drops dead, the rule will revert BACK to what it was: IE age 60. The FAA was in the process of a NPRM, but that process would have to be restarted.

In the meantime, you will see a repeat of what happened in the 60s. Junior guys will see a jackpot of retirements, and will do everything in their power to drag or simply kill any new legislation. By the time it sees the light of day, all the old guys will be past 65.

Nu

 

[PlaneDrvr]

As our career destruction checklist is nearly complete any enthsiasm I once held for debating this pathetic and even more pathetically named law has been sucked away. The Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilot Act huh? Ayn Rand would be proud. However, what a-holes keep funding this lobby/legal effort??

Actually, I hope that greedy 60+ morons who felt left out by the law change and are thus filing lawsuits against everyone (alpa, apa, faa, etc.); end up 'screwing' everyone over age 60, by resulting in the entire law being 'overturned' in court. Then the existing law, prior to the recent 'law' change, would be in effect, 'age 60 mandatory retirement'

Would be 'ironic' would it??

And, of course, 'age 60' when to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, and was not found to be 'age discrimination'

As I still believe that the only was that any lawsuit can be successful, would be to challenge the recently passed 'age 65 law' The 'greed' of some over 60, ending up 'screwing' everyone over 60, and returning it back to the original law. Again, would be 'ironic' to say the least.

For what its worth.

PD

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

I have a battle star also. OK, you are not a scab officially but greedy none the less. You, and your cohorts that lived the high life and benefited from the upward movement due to retirements somehow find it unfair when it was your turn to move on.

So I guess you are going to just retire at 60? No, the truth is you will want work beyond age 60 because there is just no reason to retire unless you must. So while you call me greedy when I, in fact, retired at age 60, it is you who will prove to be greedy. And how about the current pilots who are flying past age 60, are they greedy too, and "unofficial scabs" as you suggest? They are just trying to earn a living when the “Union” caved in and gave away their retirements.

I, and many others, would have liked to have had the opportunity to work past age 60, and that should have been our right and choice, not a decision made by others. You and your group wanted your senior colleagues out (fired) just so you could move up. That is what is sick about this and the so called "Union." What “Union” in the world tries to get one section of their membership fired so another can move up? None but ALPA and APA.

ALPA will die soon. Look at all the money they are losing. ALPA has just lost the money from US Air, Aloha and Frontier. 50 years ago they lost American as well as others along the way. Soon there will be more airlines who switch representation or just go out of business. When UAL goes that will be it for sure.

I do hope UAL lasts so you can be “greedy” too and keep working to support your family. I'm sure you want this too, right? And will that make you an unofficial scab too? Is name-calling for a person who chooses to work to support your his or her family really the right thing to do? When you keep working past age 60 I don't really plan to call you anything but a good taxpaying American citizen. What else should we call such a person: A greedy unofficial scab? I don't think so unless you really have a selfish agenda yourself. Is that it? That's what it looks like to me and many others too.

 

[Flopgut]

One of the stranger quotes I've ever read on FI--and that is saying something. Do you have clairvoyance? Otherwise, any post starting with the words, "personally, I think..." is destined to be ignored.

Is it not close to failing?

No one outside of CAL could possibly comment on this--too much inside dirty pool that only CAL guys could know about--so I won't comment.

Fact: Cal instructors, who were not required flight deck crew member, came back to the line. It was in perfect contrast to the rule. That's easy enough to understand you shouldn't need a reference.

"It is believed?" "Pressure that came indirectly?" By whom? Where is your evidence? These are some rather generic claims--but that is the beauty of them--without citing ANY specifics, you can say things like "it is believed" and mention "indirect pressure" (whatever that means) to disparage Prater when it is unwarranted--and you don't have to prove anything. "It is believed" by many that the moon landing was a fake and 9/11 was a conspiracy by the Jews/US government/take your pick. But where is the evidence?


Seems to me that he is a (rather loud) voice of reason. I don't think he is "behind" at all.

Discussion of the legal steps CAL ALPA took to oveturn/confirm the FAA interpretaion are on our website. It's out there, I'm not going to link it to you. I was individually briefed by a senior CAL ALPA official that we could not sue over the interpretation. FAA was not going to budge and ALPA National was in bed with them on it. John Prater would not even defend the rule he wrote at the airline where he works.

 

[atrdriver]

I would have liked to have had the opportunity to work past age 60, and that should have been my right and my choice, not a decision made by others.

No, you should have moved on gracefully, like the others that went before you. You knew what the rules of the game were before you started playing, and you lived with them fine as long as they benefited you. But when your turn came you decided that the rules weren't fair.