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.