Age 65 and the "F" word.

[The Prussian]

Instead, senior (old) pilots successfully lobbied in a post-9/11 environment to change the rule, providing them with a career windfall (enjoying a career of seniority advancement as pilots older than them hit 60 and retired, then post-change gaining up to 5 years more years at the top) at the expense of their juniors.

...and yet you fail to recall that junior pilots successfully lobbied in a pre-9/11 environment to delay changing the rule for over 20 years. Had this rule passed, as it almost did, back in '91(?), and on a couple of other occasions, this thread and this discussion would not exist today.

...and to top it off,...AA sure knows how to spread the blame, and distract the pilots into a "fist fight"...:erm:

 

[BoilerUP]

...and yet you fail to recall that junior pilots successfully lobbied in a pre-9/11 environment to delay changing the rule for over 20 years.

I fail to see how that has anything to do with the career windfall given to senior pilots by the passage of the "Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots" Act.

If the law had been passed in 1991, there would have been the same gnashing of teeth then as there is now...there just wasn't the internet for it to be so readily apparent

You're right though - had the rule been changed 19 years ago we'd all have adjusted as a matter of necessity...much as everyone will have adjusted by 2016, 19 years after this bill was signed by GWB.

 

[Flopgut]

...and yet you fail to recall that junior pilots successfully lobbied in a pre-9/11 environment to delay changing the rule for over 20 years. Had this rule passed, as it almost did, back in '91(?), and on a couple of other occasions, this thread and this discussion would not exist...:erm:

No, you'd just be crying for age 70.....

 

[Flopgut]

This is from ATW's January 2010 Perry Flint interview with Captain Babbitt:

Flint: "Can you provide an update on the status of the new flight and duty time regulation? The [ARC] made it's reccomendation in Sep. When might we see a NPRM?"

Babbitt: "We take those reccomendations and we have to convert them into regulatory language. We also have to do a cost benefit analysis. The we turn it over to the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. Eventually it goes before the Office of Management and Budget and then we put it out as an NPRM. I'm hopeful we can get it out in 2010. One of the issues we have run into has been that's it's a complicated cost benefit analysis because you essentially have to ask carriers to run these models in their software. You have to see what the cost side of it is, meaning if wew implement these changes, and do nothing else,would it in fact require more pilots?"



Clearly Babbitt doesn't want more pilots to have jobs. Pretty much the same sentiment the age 65 crowd holds on here.

Duty time changes could bring back furloughed pilots. In fact it could put everybody back where they should be. But just as it happens with retirement age change, there are those weakling members like Prussian, Undaunted, Kwick and Roman who will be happy to accept a partial improvement that helps their own needs in place of one that helps all. Retirement age change is no longer the problem. However, it is these same pilots who champion pulling up the ladder that continue to drag us down. They are the type members that think it's fine for Babbitt to shelve duty time changes since it won't upset their own lives.

 

[Caveman]

I asked a few questions about this in the other AA furlough thread. Since nobody answered I'll ask again here.

What if a pilot junior to you was awarded an upgrade ahead of you because he claimed he needed the money more than you did?

What if a pilot junior to you displaced you out of your seat because he claimed he needed the money more than you did?

What if you were displaced out of the domicile you lived in to allow pilot junior to you to be there because he claimed he couldn't afford to commute any longer?

What if you were forced to retire because a pilot junior to you claimed he needed your seat and your paycheck more than you did?

The argument about changing the rules mid-game doesn't hold water. Contracts change and we abide by the new contract. FARs change and we comply with the new rules. Ownership changes and we deal with the consequences. None of us get to opt out and stay with the old contract or ignore the new FARs. Why is age 65 any different?

I don't dispute that moving the retirement age to 65 sucks if you are junior and waiting for an upgrade. Life's hard, then you die. I know some of you are angry and disappointed. Grow up. The rule applies equally to everyone. Nobody is being singled out. The timing was good for those nearing 60 and it was crappy for those of us way down the seniority list.

If I had my way I'd ditch the age 65 rule too. It's an arbitrary standard. You should be allowed to work as long as you want providing you're still capable and healthy.

 

[Plug]

Do your homework.

Management at AA, the same people that created the "B Scale, " in an
effort to screw the pilots, proposed the "Age 60 rule. " There was no
age rule until your buddies at AA came up with it.

Only a management clown, or some young guy without a clue, would
want to bring back the "B Scale" or the "Age 60 rule."

My buddies at AA? I don't think I know anyone there.....anyway your point is noted and so I did my homework.....here is what I came up with:

http://www.avweb.com/news/aeromed/181875-1.html

This just so happens to be written by a Check Airmen here at CAL on the 757/767. I think it is safe to say that any active pilot who lobbied for age 65 was hired after March 15, 1960. Just a guess.

Now as far as your B-scale comment.........I don't know where that came from......either way it has nothing to do with the point I've brought up and that is we were all hired under the same rules. The most coveted thing you have as an airline pilot is seniority. We all move up when someone at the top moves out. Really a simple concept.

 

[Plug]

...and yet you fail to recall that junior pilots successfully lobbied in a pre-9/11 environment to delay changing the rule for over 20 years. Had this rule passed, as it almost did, back in '91(?), and on a couple of other occasions, this thread and this discussion would not exist today.

...and to top it off,...AA sure knows how to spread the blame, and distract the pilots into a "fist fight"...:erm:

Hell....lets take it all the way back to the Wright brothers. Had those innovative bastards not come up with that crazy flying contraption this thread and this discussion would not exist!

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

What everyone wants is for pilots to be bound by the retirement rule that was in place when we all were hired.

How about ALPA being bound by their position on age-60 as it was when these "gummers" were hired? Let's see, that position was that there should be no age limit for pilots. ALPA and APA were historically against the age-60 rule. So you see the unions changed their own rules in the middle of the game. This change in union policy was driven 100% by the "get out of my seat crowd."

 

[Plug]

How about ALPA being bound by their position on age-60 as it was when these "gummers" were hired? Let's see, that position was that there should be no age limit for pilots. ALPA and APA were historically against the age-60 rule. So you see the unions changed their own rules in the middle of the game. This change in union policy was driven 100% by the "get out of my seat crowd."

Both true and false statements here.

ALPA opposed the age 60 rule but it was airline management that held 3 pilots hostage that got the rule made in back room deal. This all occurred in the 50's and the rule became effective in March 1960. If you research all laws and policy far enough you can probably find a sleezy back room deal involved, but the rules are rules. And in today's environment where every single active pilot was hired post age 60 it would be safe to say we all knew what the deal was. So age 60 was not devised by the "get out of my seat crowd" rather by the "I'm a cheap manager of an airline crowd."

 

[Flopgut]

I asked a few questions about this in the other AA furlough thread. Since nobody answered I'll ask again here.

What if a pilot junior to you was awarded an upgrade ahead of you because he claimed he needed the money more than you did?

What if a pilot junior to you displaced you out of your seat because he claimed he needed the money more than you did?

What if you were displaced out of the domicile you lived in to allow pilot junior to you to be there because he claimed he couldn't afford to commute any longer?

What if you were forced to retire because a pilot junior to you claimed he needed your seat and your paycheck more than you did?

The argument about changing the rules mid-game doesn't hold water. Contracts change and we abide by the new contract. FARs change and we comply with the new rules. Ownership changes and we deal with the consequences. None of us get to opt out and stay with the old contract or ignore the new FARs. Why is age 65 any different?

I don't dispute that moving the retirement age to 65 sucks if you are junior and waiting for an upgrade. Life's hard, then you die. I know some of you are angry and disappointed. Grow up. The rule applies equally to everyone. Nobody is being singled out. The timing was good for those nearing 60 and it was crappy for those of us way down the seniority list.

If I had my way I'd ditch the age 65 rule too. It's an arbitrary standard. You should be allowed to work as long as you want providing you're still capable and healthy.

You remember you wrote this when the economy improves, age 65 doesn't get changed to 70, and not one single pilot past age 65+1 day can get a job doing anything flying. What comes around goes around. It'll happen, then you'll get to show us all how to act.

Psst: Betcha cry like a wus...