AA to furlough 178 more

[Kugelblitz]

It amounts to a DOH of June 2001. I say "amounts" because, unfortunately, it is impacting recalled ex TWA pilots, who, in that seniority range, are all grouped in to the June 2001 seniority group. If they furlough more and start hitting the "Natives", the next DOH affected would be May 2001.

As if the TWAers haven't been through enough already. This sucks beyond words reason or meaning. I would suspect that over 60 folks and folks picking up open time are gonna start taking some heat in the cockpits from now on.

I am not trying to flame-bait here, but since the affected are TWA pilots, do you really suspect that the over-arching population of AA pilots will give two hoots about how picking up open time affects them? I recall that when I got furloughed in 2003, I didn't notice a whole lot of sympathy from the the APA until it hit the 'natives', then suddenly the e-mails poured out and this was a travesty beyond imagining. Perhaps I am just a bit too cynical at this point.........

More importantly, my sympathies to the TWA pilots getting re-furloughed and those still on the street. I would truly write this recall situation off at this point if one hasn't already done so.

 

[MCDU]

TWA pilots got hosed. Another aviation travesty.Pilot greed trumps all emotions.

M

 

[satpak77]

I think the bigger issue here is that a major airline is furloughing and "the airline job recovery" has not happened in the industry yet, and in my opinion will never return to late 90's levels.

Between oil prices ($70+ for extended time), a recession in America, and Age 65 passage, RJ's taking over mainline flying, a perfect storm hit the pilot profession and it will never be the same.

What is that, 2,000 AA pilots on furlough??? Sad state of affairs, this profession.

Long live Kit Darby. His projections for 2006 include 35,000 (!!!!) pilot jobs

http://books.google.com/books?id=J5...as_brr=3&cd=1#v=onepage&q="kit darby"&f=false

His chart of retirements is cool except that four of the airlines listed no longer exist today. Uh, oops

Page 26 of his book states that "if you are 29 when hired at a major...."

 

[rjpilot7667]

For all you pilots that have a problem with the retirement age being changed to 65, here is what you should do. I want each of you to contact an attorney and have him draw up a contract. In this contract I want your attorney to put down language that on your 60th birthday, you will voluntarily retire. I want you to sign this contract. Then I want you to take it to the airline you work for and turn it in to your chief pilot. If you are willing to sign a piece of paper now, stating you will volunteer to retire at age 60, then you can complain about age 65 and career expectations all you want. If you can't sign a contract to volunteer to retire at 60 no mattter what your age is today, then you have no right to complain about this change again.

If the lord continues to bless me with good health, I have several more decades left in this industry. I don't see why people have a beef with a person that meets medical standards wanting to continue his career. The retirement age in this country is 65 for full benefits in most professions. Please stop using career expectations as your argument. Your career expectations are tied to the performance of your company and its ability to compete and survive and that's it.

Nice... keep in mind that the age 60 rule was written in the 1950's so either you were a pilot protegy flying airliners at age 15 or that rule was in effect when you got into the cockpit so you should have expected to retire at 60 and planned accordingly. Or maybe your memory isn't what it used to be and forgot that fact. Once again gents we get screwed by the baby boomers.

 

[Kugelblitz]

I think the bigger issue here is that a major airline is furloughing and "the airline job recovery" has not happened in the industry yet, and in my opinion will never return to late 90's levels.

Long live Kit Darby

No question, the heyday for this industry is well behind it. Not only from a jobs standpoint, but a quality of life standpoint. How many more anti-terror procedural permutations will we have to adapt to? All the while, our management gets more out of us for less money (or here come more RJ's where less money for pilots is the rule). Just wait until the Open Skies situation really gets the chance to kick in, I don't believe we have seen anything yet. It is a perfect storm of industry scab-like opportunism by regional airlines (that is to fly traditional major airline sized equipment on trunk routes for less than half the pay for the sake of "being an airline pilot"), Harvard management teams at the majors, and everyone else too disillusioned to give a sh#t.

 

[100 c.i.]

I was just numbers away from being recalled last year and was very upset at the time. Since then I have moved on to brighter pastures and forgot about AA and the saga that goes with it. I hope every one of my TWA brothers and sisters do the same and wake up and relize that AA will never be the same, if there still around in a couple of years. I believe as soon as the 70 seaters hit the property youll see even more layoffs. Wish everybody the best of luck and encourage moving on this TIME.

 

[rjpilot7667]

You still didn't answer my questions. Would you be willing to allow someone to violate your seniority simply because they needed the money?

It doesn't matter whether or not the rules were changed because the rules apply equally to everyone. The rules change all the time. Contracts change. FARs change. What's the difference? It would be unfair if only some folks were allowed to work to 65 and everybody else had to quit at 60. However, that's not the case. EVERYBODY gets to stay to 65 if they so choose. I agree the timing sucks if you happen to be junior.

I don't have any excuses. I use logic, reason and consistency. As soon as you run up against a point of view that logically torpedoes your EMOTIONALLY driven rant you resort to lame insults. For the record, you got it wrong. I'm an FO and I'm no where near upgrading. So, unlike you, I'm consistent. I support age 65 even though it financially harms me in the near term. You just want to take from somebody else to satisfy your own selfish desires. Wait your turn.

Seniority has nothing to do with it unless you want a discount on a car wash, which i'm sure you will qualify for after your early bird $4.99 steak dinner. It has to do with changing legislation to suit your bank accounts not the other way around. When you started your career you were EXPECTED to retire at 60 and now that that day is here you change the game. The Heartburn is with the implications that it has now and not in the future. There are a lot of pilots on the street and while it would mean upgrades for some it would mean new jobs for many. In case you haven't noticed jobs are hard to come by.

 

[75M]

Okay, here's my take. I'm 42 and on furlough from American. I have heard over and over again that the rules were in place long ago and therefore those affected by the age 60 rule should have planned accordingly. Unfortunately, the fact that most of the other 'rules' changed seems to escape this argument, such as:

- Fully funded pensions including A plans and B plans were raided
- Arbitrated seniority integration (often by DOH) went away (for a while anyway)
- Medical benefits after retirement have become a thing of the past
- Contract improvements including cost of living adjustments are a rarity

There's gotta be more than that but, my point is, those rules changed. Don't the guys who slugged it out for the last thirty years (surviving deregulation, raided pension funds, B scales, and concessionary contracts) deserve the option to work for another five years to help to recoup some of their losses?

After all, without those concessions, there wouldn't be an AMR, DAL, CAL, UAL or USAir to...umm...not be working for???

 

[rjpilot7667]

Okay, here's my take. I'm 42 and on furlough from American. I have heard over and over again that the rules were in place long ago and therefore those affected by the age 60 rule should have planned accordingly. Unfortunately, the fact that most of the other 'rules' changed seems to escape this argument, such as:

- Fully funded pensions including A plans and B plans were raided
- Arbitrated seniority integration (often by DOH) went away (for a while anyway)
- Medical benefits after retirement have become a thing of the past
- Contract improvements including cost of living adjustments are a rarity

There's gotta be more than that but, my point is, those rules changed. Don't the guys who slugged it out for the last thirty years (surviving deregulation, raided pension funds, B scales, and concessionary contracts) deserve the option to work for another five years to help to recoup some of their losses?

After all, without those concessions, there wouldn't be an AMR, DAL, CAL, UAL or USAir to...umm...not be working for???

very well said...damn it.

 

[kwick]

Okay, here's my take. I'm 42 and on furlough from American. I have heard over and over again that the rules were in place long ago and therefore those affected by the age 60 rule should have planned accordingly. Unfortunately, the fact that most of the other 'rules' changed seems to escape this argument, such as:

- Fully funded pensions including A plans and B plans were raided
- Arbitrated seniority integration (often by DOH) went away (for a while anyway)
- Medical benefits after retirement have become a thing of the past
- Contract improvements including cost of living adjustments are a rarity

There's gotta be more than that but, my point is, those rules changed. Don't the guys who slugged it out for the last thirty years (surviving deregulation, raided pension funds, B scales, and concessionary contracts) deserve the option to work for another five years to help to recoup some of their losses?

After all, without those concessions, there wouldn't be an AMR, DAL, CAL, UAL or USAir to...umm...not be working for???

You get it, you're the kind of guy I'd look forward to flying with.

The "Debbie Downers" need to get a life.