Class Action Lawsuits – Is It Time??!!

[snow-back]

DUH!!!

Of course we will....we will have no choice by then. 60 will be the new 55.

It seems you've answered the age-related safety question.

PS: Screaming will raise your blood pressure...that's bad for your health.
PPS: I've still got 20 to go to my age 60 retirement.

 

[Mamma]

Part of the reason this law got passed is because too many of you can't make a compelling argument to save your life. What are you trying to say here....all I got out of it was that you think I am an old geezer with three wives. Well, you are wrong on two accounts there. By the way, I didn't want to see this law passed. Believe it or not, I am on your side. But jeeze, no wonder this industry is going to hell in a hand basket. Too many idots open there mouths and let crap flow out! For those that can't truly do something good about it, shut the hell up so those that can make a legitmate argument can do so without you screwing up their cause.

Seems you cannot make a compelling arument either otherwise you would have got a litte more out of this other than you are a geezer with three wives. What I was saying was the system was intended to allow one to retire at 60. Things happened that screwed a lot of people. Some people made bad choices that are forcing them to work to 65, other just like to fly and still other just got plain screwed. The younger guys are trying to make a living on pathetic FO wags that are now extending out several years thanks to this law. That is my opinion and if an "old geezer" like yourself cannot figure out what an "idiot" like myself was saying then maybe it is time you hit the pasture.

 

[Eagle757shark]

Well, it now appears we have finally reached the boiling point. Junior crewmembers, you just got royally screwed.

Thank you very little Southwest. You have now replaced AA (with our B-scale) as the scurge of the industry.

Age 65 is more than a serious abrogation of seniority. It means financial harm to every junior crewmember both active and furloughed. It also means “diminished career expectations” to thousands of active and furloughed pilots. Because of the acute stagnation problem we face at AA and at other carriers, it means a major loss of income over the next couple of contracts.

The combined numbers of F/O's between APA and ALPA for any class action lawsuit could approach almost 40,000 -- no chump change.

Is it right to have such a major disparity between the winners and losers? This just might be a question that has to be answered through the court channels.

The legal profession will be closely watching the developments here.

AA767AV8TOR

Are you kidding me? Get over yourself. Folks the US just came up to the standards of ICAO. Around the rest of the world, airline pilots are allowed to fly until 65. Now that we live in a Global Economy, which over 45% of the worlds reserve currency is in Euros, the United States better learn to adapt and do it fast! I'm so tired of guys who get on this board with their, "oh my career expectations" bull crap! Where the hell have you guys been the last 7 damn years! Have you seen how this industry has changed on a dime? Terror attacks, high energy prices, and maybe a recession just ahead. Wake up, your career expectations are controlled by more than a few men and women that want to, if healthy, continue their flying careers. Over the last 7 years this industry has watched airline wages decrease, pensions be eliminated, and more and more mainline jobs outsourced to the lowest feeder! I have 25 years until I retire in this industry. Stop your whining and start thinking about how we can save this profession and make it worth staying in it until retirement. United we Stand, Divided we Fall! This me, me, me, me crap all over this industry has lead this profession to where it is today.

As far as your lawsuit, you'd be LAUGHED right out of the courtroom! We would see another waste of pilot resources for a lost cause instead of focusing on what the real issues are in this industry and using those resources to fix it.

 

[regionaltard]

Age 65 is more than a serious abrogation of seniority. It means financial harm to every junior crewmember both active and furloughed. It also means “diminished career expectations” to thousands of active and furloughed pilots.

Quite the sense of entitlement you've got on ya there. Good luck suing Congress. Oh yeah, one more thing: abrogate.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

GEt your union to negotiate age 60 retirement into your contracts.

Other than that...reading the posts on this thread have been too funny.....too doggone funny....you guys are too much !!!

 

[Matrix]

Thank you very little Southwest. You have now replaced AA (with our B-scale) as the scurge of the industry.
AA767AV8TOR

Don't you think Prater and ALPA'a members had the most to do with this being pushed through so fast. Afterall SWA only has about 5000 pilots at SWAPA, How many 10's of thousands are in ALPA???

 

[Skank]

Vtech,

Don’t be so quick to pass judgment. The government has been sued before and will be sued again. We are exploring our legal avenues at this point. A class action lawsuit consisting of over 30,000 disenfranchised pilots would exercise considerable power and influence.

This think is far from over and will revolutionize our industry both in work rules and pay – for better or worse.

AA767AV8TOR

I was going to let this all pass without comment, but this is too funny. "A class action lawsuit consisting of over 30,000 disenfranchised pilots (hold on, here is the funny part) would exercise considerable power and inluence." OK, stop, you're killing me. The average Joe doesn't give a crap about our career expectations. It's been proven over and over. THe government has waged a war against labor, and the middle class, and nobody cares.

 

[Jonny Sacko]

So Fight, Don't give in.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

We can point fingers, but sooner or later we'll all be dealing with this contractually. Most will bitch and complain. At APA, there's a movement afoot to simply require those pilots planning on staying past sixty, to move to the bottom of the list.

In the meantime though, it's time we all got involved with our union. Pissed? Good! So am I. Clean house at your MEC/LEC if required and send Prater packing if you think that will help. You'd better pay attention though cause' here's what's coming next:

• Open Skies
• Certificate Standardization/Commonality

If we don't get our collective poo together, we're going to be replaced by green-card holders who will do our jobs for a third of what we make.

As far as class action lawsuits? Forget it fellas. No plaintiffs attorney in the country is going to take your case unless you pay up front. The legislation indemnifies the airlines and ALPA.

Those of you calling for class action lawsuits are no better than the scalded McDonalds coffee woman.

Face it... you got beat. In your apathy and indifferrence change occured and now you are pissed. Shame on you. Not anyone else...

the Age 65 change occured legally within the realm of democracy. You got beat. Someone was better faster stronger...

Now that you have an understanding of how politics is everything in your Career... perhaps you'll use this as an educational experience to protect your jobs from Open Skies....

Age 65 is an annoying fly compared to the Polar Bear mauling you'll get from Open Skies...

Flying Jets is nothing.... anyone can do that.... the question is... can you be politically effective....

 

[FDJ2]

What I was saying was the system was intended to allow one to retire at 60.

The system was not designed to "allow" one to retire at 60, it was designed to "force" one to retire at 60.

Even if we accept your premise that the system was intended to allow one to retire at 60, that is not a compelling reason to keep the age 60 rule.

The only compelling reason to keep the age 60 rule was safety. Any other argument has no traction. Is a 60-65 year old pilot, who can pass a standardized aero medical evaluation and FAA approved training program, safe to fly? That is the only question.

While we can go back and forth on old vs. young, experience vs. age etc., at the end of the day it has to be determined whether or not 60 is as appropriate a standard today, given the the improvement in healthcare and health maintenence, as it was over 30 years ago?