"Fair" treatment for "experienced" pilots comes home to roost?

[SuperFLUF]

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1130-full.html#197946


[FONT=arial,helvetica,geneva]The Fight For Pilots Hurt By New Age 65 Rule[/FONT]


Now that U.S. airline pilots can fly to age 65, litigation is now moving forward to overturn wording in the 2007 law that also specifically barred some 3,000 pilots forced into retirement before age 60 from being rehired with their prior pay, position and benefits. Congress last year passed the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act that raised the mandatory retirement age for pilots to a more internationally recognized age of 65, but wording in the law excluded some 3,000 veteran pilots forced to retire between November 23, 2006, and December 17, 2007, from being rehired at their previously held seniority levels. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley has brought a motion to have the U.S. Court of Appeals determine the constitutionality of the congressional law before it can be used to dismiss petitions filed on behalf of those pilots forced into retirement. "That motion allows the court to review the law faster than it would have otherwise," according to a posting to LegalTimes.com blog.


"The law arbitrarily strips pilots of their position, seniority, and benefits at the age of 60," Turley said.

 

[Max Powers]

THE PAST 30 YEARS HAS HAD THE POLITICALLY POWERFUL OLD PEOPLE DESTROYING the young people's future.

 

[atrdriver]

I said there would be lawsuits for this within a year of the leglislation passing. The age 65 pundits on the board said no, that could never happen because of the wording of the bill.

 

[Spooky 2]

I said there would be lawsuits for this within a year of the leglislation passing. The age 65 pundits on the board said no, that could never happen because of the wording of the bill.

I think the major players in this suit are USAir guys but certainly there will be more. The attorney who is handling this, Johnathon Turley (sp?) is nobody's fool and not given to wild goose chases.

 

[Flopgut]

I say let em come back to CAL.

No problem....Just bring that lump sum check back. We're going to need it.

 

[AAflyer]

I say let em come back to CAL.

No problem....Just bring that lump sum check back. We're going to need it.

No kidding... names have removed from seniority lists, lumps sums have been cashed, manning has been readjusted due to vacancies.

Are these pilots going to pay for the cascade in seat movements due to them coming back?

Are they expecting to keep ALL their retirement while they hop back into the left seat of 777.

Good Times,

AA

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

What about guys that retired on Nov. 22nd?

 

[iflyhigh]

I now firmly believe that this group of pilots are truely "Herpies".

They never go away.

 

[atrdriver]

What about guys that retired on Nov. 22nd?

It was before the bill was passed, they stay out. Period. They never should have allowed this in the first place. Just a bunch of greedy whiny a$$holes who benefited from the rules all their careers and then wanted to change them at the end to benefit again. Nothing like the "me generation."

 

[~~~^~~~]

ATR - You were correct.

 

[SMOE]

Perhaps its time to stiffen the medical requirements for a Class I or II. Maybe a good expose to the press about how easy it is to shop around for a certificate might weed some of the old bastards out.

 

[pkober]

Everyone calm down!!!

ALPA National will fight hard to prevent this from happening. They fought hard to stop age 65 and they will fight hard to stop this lawsuit.

I have all the confidence in the world in our "leadership".

 

[Flopgut]

Here's the deal: These guys don't want to come back. They just want the money. ALPA is going to be the single entity without a chair when the music stops. This could be the end of ALPA. (I don't think any of us will pay assesments to keep it going) This could be a good thing in the end.

 

[NuGuy]

I said there would be lawsuits for this within a year of the leglislation passing. The age 65 pundits on the board said no, that could never happen because of the wording of the bill.

Heyas ATR,

I warned of the very same thing. This was a HUGE Pandora's Box that has been open, and it's going to cost each of us dearly.

If they continue to press to test this, I say that ALPA's position should be "Fine, overturn it, and it reverts back to previous FAA policy, IE age 60"

Nu

 

[Superpilot92]

It was before the bill was passed, they stay out. Period. They never should have allowed this in the first place. Just a bunch of greedy whiny a$$holes who benefited from the rules all their careers and then wanted to change them at the end to benefit again. Nothing like the "me generation."

Absolutely!! :uzi:Over 60 Pilots :smash:

 

[Superpilot92]

If they continue to press to test this, I say that ALPA's position should be "Fine, overturn it, and it reverts back to previous FAA policy, IE age 60"

Nu

Now thats an idea.:beer:

 

[Dizel8]

Now thats an idea.:beer:

How is ALPA going to do that, remember ALPA HQ said age 65 was coming with or without their approval.

So what makes anyone think, ALPA has the power to change it? I would say the odds are between non existant and none!

 

[atrdriver]

Here's the deal: These guys don't want to come back. They just want the money. ALPA is going to be the single entity without a chair when the music stops. This could be the end of ALPA. (I don't think any of us will pay assesments to keep it going) This could be a good thing in the end.

If they didn't want to come back we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

 

[MILF Hunter]

How is ALPA or John Prater going to go forward protecting its membership? They (ALPA and APAAD) sold this bill in Washington based on a pilot shortage, and keeping our most experienced pilots employed. We are looking at possible furloughs at every major. How are they going to protect the junior guys and gals. My guess is ALPA won't do sh!t, as usual. I'm still waiting for a pilot shortage.

 

[ualdriver]

You anti-ALPA guys are UFB. First of all, you blame ALPA for a change in the Age 60 rule that was going to happen anyway, whether you, I, or ALPA liked it or not. But it's ALPA's fault. Fine.

Fortunately, ALPA leadership doesn't come to flightinfo.com for legislative advice. Despite having been able to keep Age 60 over the past decade or two, this time ALPA sees the writing on the wall months ago and sees that Age 60 is going to change, like it or not. They realize that they can "fight to the death" and not get a role in the rule making that will ultimately decide how Age 65 is shaped or they can change their position and have a chance of receiving some "gets."

One of the "gets" that ALPA receives for not ridiculously "fighting to the death" is wording in the Age 65 legislation that will prevent guys who have already retired under the Age 60 rule from coming back, which would obviously be pretty bad for all of us.

So now you anti-ALPA guys confuse me. You complain that ALPA didn't "fight to the death" concerning Age 60 and blame ALPA for the change. ALPA wisely didn't "fight to the death" concerning Age 60 so that they could get this wording (among other things) into the legislation to keep the already retired guys from coming back, WHICH IS WORDING THAT ALPA ONLY GOT BECAUSE THEY WERE FORCED TO CHANGE THEIR POSITION ON AGE 60. The only reason you don't have guys flooding back to the seniority list RIGHT NOW is because of the wording ALPA was able to obtain by not foolishly "fighting to the death." But then you complain about that, too!

For those of you who bit**ed about ALPA not "fighting to the death" concerning the rule change, how can you come on here and complain about this protection ALPA was able to fight for ONLY by being forced to change its position on Capital Hill? If ALPA had done things "your way," we'd probably already have even more furloughs as there would have been NOTHING to prevent all of these guys from coming back in the first place. Again, some of you guys are UFB!