Age 65

[bluefin]

Not to be a dead horse that has been beaten to death, but how many countries actually have age 65 besides us? A couple months ago the French threatened or did go on strike to keep it from changing, the Canadians don't have it. I just talked to an Air Canada guy and he said the 270 are retiring so that will eliminate furloughs. Were we led down the path of, "other countries have age 65 we need it too?"

 

[Fubijaakr]

No. It was voted on by ICAO. Only 4 countries voted against it, the U.S. and France being the primary opponents.

Once the ICAO reg passed, it was only a matter of time before we were forced to comply.

 

[Fly4hire]

Were we led down the path of, "other countries have age 65 we need it too?"

YES

My understanding is that only Finnair and El Al in ICAO have over 60 pilots flying into the US. Probably numbers less than 50.

The difference between us and other ICAO countries is their individual companies can still set the mandatory retirement age vs. having to comply with the robust age discrimination laws here.

So while ICAO allows BA to fly to 65, BA sets their retirement age at 58. No legal challanges.

We were absolutly snookered and screwed by the PR on this.

 

[bluefin]

Thats what I figured, we were *************************ed.

 

[Mamma]

Once the ICAO reg passed, it was only a matter of time before we were forced to comply.

Fubi is right on this one. The European Defense Force was setting up off our waters and getting ready to deliver the final blow if we did not comply. Thank God Prater caved and saved us all!

 

[Andy Neill]

The difference between us and other ICAO countries is their individual companies can still set the mandatory retirement age vs. having to comply with the robust age discrimination laws here.

I don't see anything that would prevent a union and management from agreeing to set 60 or any other age below 65 as a mandatory retirement age in the US. The reg change allows airline pioots to age 65 - it doesn't require airlines to fly them till then.

That being said, the company would probably want a pretty hefty quid pro quo for lowering the retirement age below the legal limit and the unions would be unwilling to pay that price.

 

[IBNAV8R]

I don't see anything that would prevent a union and management from agreeing to set 60 or any other age below 65 as a mandatory retirement age in the US. The reg change allows airline pioots to age 65 - it doesn't require airlines to fly them till then.

That being said, the company would probably want a pretty hefty quid pro quo for lowering the retirement age below the legal limit and the unions would be unwilling to pay that price.

Quid Pro Quo? You mean management would want something in return for booting some from the highest payscale and hiring FNGs at Walmart wages? I believe it was the airlines that pushed for the age 60 rule in the first place.

 

[Superbird]

The rule was changed..fine.

It would have been nice that those over 60 would have been the first to go in lieu of furloughs.

That could have been a stipulation to the rule change.

 

[Andy Neill]

Quid Pro Quo? You mean management would want something in return for booting some from the highest payscale and hiring FNGs at Walmart wages? I believe it was the airlines that pushed for the age 60 rule in the first place.

Well in that case, it should be very easy for the unions to get that in their next contract, right? If the companies want it and the union supports the majority of the pilots, then it's a done deal.

 

[B-atch]

I just have one question. If the government believes that over 60 pilots can perform their job without compromising safety, how come TWO over 60 pilots cannot be paired together. It seems to me that the boyzz in DC do in fact have concerns. This little subtle rule proves it.

 

[PsubS]

Holy Jeebus...Ya'll going to debate this until when? The year 2525?

GET OVER IT...IT'S A DONE DEAL. Right or wrong, THAT HORSE HAS DONE BEEN BEAT.

Ya'll.

 

[skywdriver]

well, I for one am glad the rule changed. otherwise, I wouldn't have been furloughed, would still have a job, would still have an income, and would still be building seniority for pay longevity so I might eventually be able to make what the over 60 guys are going to be making for the next five years. ohh, and maybe able to have the best schedules like the over 60 guys have.

the likely response from them: "well, so many guys lost their retirements"

my response: "well guess what, i was never given a pension when I started. so as far as I can tell our equations are equal
pension + pension taken away = no pension
no pension = no pension

our difference is, i don't have a job and they have had their chance at the top pay for the length of their career that they signed up for + 5 extra years at my direct expense through my furlough.

i am sure they will remember us furloughed guys in contract negotiations right??? I wouldn't bet one cent on that happening.

Am I bitter at all the guys who decided to fly past 60? No, but I am bitter at the guys who won't at least admit that they are ****ing me over by doing it.

 

[contrail67]

They will also say that you get an extra 5 years at the end of your career at your highest wages....

I doubt if everyone will stay till 65. Hopefully they will start dropping at 62...12 months away. Not that I am counting.

 

[bluefin]

Twelve months away and making 10 + a month, and I am bringing my family 300 a week in unemployment. Enjoy your last 12 months A*(hole.

 

[Freight Dog]

Is it any wonder the baby boomers are called 'the worst generation ever' ?

 

[contrail67]

Twelve months away and making 10 + a month, and I am bringing my family 300 a week in unemployment. Enjoy your last 12 months A*(hole.

I am not the A*(hole)....think. I am just saying that I hope that they do not go till 65...and stop dropping like flies at 62. I am on your side.

 

[TWA]

Nothing good is going to come from beating this dead horse...again.