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

[atrdriver]

Be careful what you wish for. Stricter medical standards would probably weed out some over 60 pilots. Unfortunately it would get rid of a heck of a lot of pilots under 60!! I'm amazed at the number of pilots I see (and some I know personally) in their 30's 40's and 50's, who are overweight anywhere from a few pounds to God knows how much. I don't think they have heard of exercise, eat healthy, no smoking, cut down on the coffee etc. Don't believe me? Just look around.

I'd be willing to bet that if the US went to the same medical standards that IACO has 30-40% of pilots over 40 would lose their medicals. And It WILL happen, it's just a matter of when. As soon as the 65 thing passed it was a guarantee that the medical standards would get tougher at some point.

 

[Fubijaakr]

Solution: Let them all come back...to the bottom of the list.

They can do that now. Under the law, they are not precluded from returning to their airlines, only from sueing for their seniority.

They can all come back as new hire F/Os.

 

[vetrider]

They should just be happy for their experienced brothers who made the 17th cutoff, congratulate them, stfu, and call it a day. But noooooo.....

If I were king for a day I'd just change it back to 60. Look, you children can't behave, so we're turning this car back around right NOW.

Seriously, though, just let em sue. Fight it out in the courts, its the American way.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Justice in this case will come forward in the courts. No one can argue against justice if it is righteous and true. If anyone’s actions, ALPA, FAA, APA, ATA or individual airlines were acting against the law or the Constitution, then those affected by such actions should be made whole. In the case of the age 60 law, after 11/23/06, the FAA did not grant equal protection under the law when it allowed some Americans (those flying for a foreign airline) to fly in this country when others in this country could not. While the FAA failed and may have to pay, ALPA/APA did everything they could to help perpetuate this injustice. What will happen is up to the Federal Courts

Can anyone argue against justice? Basically, wrongdoers should pay and those wronged should be righted. Does anyone have a problem with this?

After 12/13/07 the injustice of the law became worse and a greater target. Yes, it did allow many to keep flying, but it prevented those born before that date from working for no reason except their birthday.

Justice will come, it will either strike down the age 65 law altogether or it will sustain the change and award compensation to those wronged. Personally, I think most would just as soon take the cash and run. It's mostly all about money! Not all, but mostly.

So if ALPA, APA, and the DOT/FAA have to pay for their wrongdoing, why shouldn't they? They all knew what they were doing was wrong at the time and were warned over and over of the lawsuits that would follow after 11/23/06 if the age 60 law was not changed for all American as well as foreign crews.

There are about 3,000 pilots affected who will be expecting about $1,000,000 each. Would that be difficult for ALPA and APA to pay? If so, it's just as this thread implies, "The Chickens are Coming Home to Roost."

 

[Patriot328]

They can do that now. Under the law, they are not precluded from returning to their airlines, only from sueing for their seniority.

They can all come back as new hire F/Os.

Too bad no one is hiring.... Just think, if we had some retirements coming up, we might have some hiring this year.... but whoops...

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Justice in this case will come forward in the courts. No one can argue against justice if it is righteous and true. If anyone’s actions, ALPA, FAA, APA, ATA or individual airlines were acting against the law or the Constitution, then those affected by such actions should be made whole. In the case of the age 60 law, after 11/23/06, the FAA did not grant equal protection under the law when it allowed some Americans (those flying for a foreign airline) to fly in this country when others in this country could not. While the FAA failed and may have to pay, ALPA/APA did everything they could to help perpetuate this injustice. What will happen is up to the Federal Courts

Can anyone argue against justice? Basically, wrongdoers should pay and those wronged should be righted. Does anyone have a problem with this?

After 12/13/07 the injustice of the law became worse and a greater target. Yes, it did allow many to keep flying, but it prevented those born before that date from working for no reason except their birthday.

Justice will come, it will either strike down the age 65 law altogether or it will sustain the change and award compensation to those wronged. Personally, I think most would just as soon take the cash and run. It's mostly all about money! Not all, but mostly.

So if ALPA, APA, and the DOT/FAA have to pay for their wrongdoing, why shouldn't they? They all knew what they were doing was wrong at the time and were warned over and over of the lawsuits that would follow after 11/23/06 if the age 60 law was not changed for all American as well as foreign crews.

There are about 3,000 pilots affected who will be expecting about $1,000,000 each. Would that be difficult for ALPA and APA to pay? If so, it's just as this thread implies, "The Chickens are Coming Home to Roost."

Your take on reality....is amazing...

making ALPA, the APA, ATA or whoever liable for a law that congress passed..... is..... amazing....

Where do you people come from?

There are 3000 pilots effected? 300 million people in this country?

So this country is going to take time for .0001% of us....

 

[instructordude]

Can anyone argue against justice? Basically, wrongdoers should pay and those wronged should be righted. Does anyone have a problem with this?

“It is often easier to become outraged by injustice half a world away than by oppression and discrimination half a block from home.”

Carl T Rowan

Let's do the right and bring these guys back. We can show as a group, we are United against discrimination and will not tolerate it now nor will we accept its evil past.

 

[CopilotDoug]

Justice in this case will come forward in the courts. No one can argue against justice if it is righteous and true. If anyone’s actions, ALPA, FAA, APA, ATA or individual airlines were acting against the law or the Constitution, then those affected by such actions should be made whole. In the case of the age 60 law, after 11/23/06, the FAA did not grant equal protection under the law when it allowed some Americans (those flying for a foreign airline) to fly in this country when others in this country could not. While the FAA failed and may have to pay, ALPA/APA did everything they could to help perpetuate this injustice. What will happen is up to the Federal Courts

Can anyone argue against justice? Basically, wrongdoers should pay and those wronged should be righted. Does anyone have a problem with this?

After 12/13/07 the injustice of the law became worse and a greater target. Yes, it did allow many to keep flying, but it prevented those born before that date from working for no reason except their birthday.

Justice will come, it will either strike down the age 65 law altogether or it will sustain the change and award compensation to those wronged. Personally, I think most would just as soon take the cash and run. It's mostly all about money! Not all, but mostly.

So if ALPA, APA, and the DOT/FAA have to pay for their wrongdoing, why shouldn't they? They all knew what they were doing was wrong at the time and were warned over and over of the lawsuits that would follow after 11/23/06 if the age 60 law was not changed for all American as well as foreign crews.

There are about 3,000 pilots affected who will be expecting about $1,000,000 each. Would that be difficult for ALPA and APA to pay? If so, it's just as this thread implies, "The Chickens are Coming Home to Roost."

Other's should be taking notes, the man has a point.

 

[Cobraair75drvr]

I agree with you worthless SCAB and all of the other baby boomer douchbags that have benefited from the guys before you retiring at 60. You all get to come back with seniority, however your pay, retirement you have already received, and earnings adjusted using a lookback at your career advancement due to pilots having to retire at 60 that are past 65 and can't come back is recouped for those pilots via your current paycheck and a lump some to buy back in. If you won't agree to that it just proves what a bunch of greedy SCUMBAG SCABS you are. So, go ahead and sue alpa. We, the active pilots will disband alpa so quick you senile greedy old losers won't have anyone to sue.

Justice in this case will come forward in the courts. No one can argue against justice if it is righteous and true. If anyone’s actions, ALPA, FAA, APA, ATA or individual airlines were acting against the law or the Constitution, then those affected by such actions should be made whole. In the case of the age 60 law, after 11/23/06, the FAA did not grant equal protection under the law when it allowed some Americans (those flying for a foreign airline) to fly in this country when others in this country could not. While the FAA failed and may have to pay, ALPA/APA did everything they could to help perpetuate this injustice. What will happen is up to the Federal Courts

Can anyone argue against justice? Basically, wrongdoers should pay and those wronged should be righted. Does anyone have a problem with this?

After 12/13/07 the injustice of the law became worse and a greater target. Yes, it did allow many to keep flying, but it prevented those born before that date from working for no reason except their birthday.

Justice will come, it will either strike down the age 65 law altogether or it will sustain the change and award compensation to those wronged. Personally, I think most would just as soon take the cash and run. It's mostly all about money! Not all, but mostly.

So if ALPA, APA, and the DOT/FAA have to pay for their wrongdoing, why shouldn't they? They all knew what they were doing was wrong at the time and were warned over and over of the lawsuits that would follow after 11/23/06 if the age 60 law was not changed for all American as well as foreign crews.

There are about 3,000 pilots affected who will be expecting about $1,000,000 each. Would that be difficult for ALPA and APA to pay? If so, it's just as this thread implies, "The Chickens are Coming Home to Roost."

 

[PlaneDrvr]

Justice in this case will come forward in the courts. No one can argue against justice if it is righteous and true. If anyone’s actions, ALPA, FAA, APA, ATA or individual airlines were acting against the law or the Constitution, then those affected by such actions should be made whole. In the case of the age 60 law, after 11/23/06, the FAA did not grant equal protection under the law when it allowed some Americans (those flying for a foreign airline) to fly in this country when others in this country could not. While the FAA failed and may have to pay, ALPA/APA did everything they could to help perpetuate this injustice. What will happen is up to the Federal Courts

Can anyone argue against justice? Basically, wrongdoers should pay and those wronged should be righted. Does anyone have a problem with this?

After 12/13/07 the injustice of the law became worse and a greater target. Yes, it did allow many to keep flying, but it prevented those born before that date from working for no reason except their birthday.

Justice will come, it will either strike down the age 65 law altogether or it will sustain the change and award compensation to those wronged. Personally, I think most would just as soon take the cash and run. It's mostly all about money! Not all, but mostly.

So if ALPA, APA, and the DOT/FAA have to pay for their wrongdoing, why shouldn't they? They all knew what they were doing was wrong at the time and were warned over and over of the lawsuits that would follow after 11/23/06 if the age 60 law was not changed for all American as well as foreign crews.

There are about 3,000 pilots affected who will be expecting about $1,000,000 each. Would that be difficult for ALPA and APA to pay? If so, it's just as this thread implies, "The Chickens are Coming Home to Roost."

The lawsuits will go nowhere. Here's my take on it; in order for those pilots to have a 'cause of action' they would have to 'state and prove' that the law as enacted is 'discriminatory' on the basis of age, and did not provide for 'equal treatment' under the law. If they are successful in doing so, and a Federal Judge finds as such; the Judge would have No choice but to 'strike down' the Law. In such a case, it would be as though the Law was never enacted, and the previous law (age 60) would prevail. Thus, the day after the Judge's decision, everyone over the age of 60 would Not be legally allowed to fly. Then the advocates of age 65 would have to get the congress to enact a new, with a 'New' congress and probably even more opposition.

That's my take. Maybe Occam can chime in on this, as he always seems to have a very logical and reasoned outlook. Tell me where my logic has gone wrong??

For what its worth.

PD

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

making ALPA, the APA, ATA or whoever liable for a law that congress passed..... is..... amazing....
quote]

Can't you read or what? It's for the law they didn't change by 11/23/06, and the privileges given to others and not all.

Don't you believe in justice if a wrong was commited?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Can't you read or what? It's for the law they didn't change by 11/23/06, and the privileges given to others and not all.

Don't you believe in justice if a wrong was commited?

Congress wanted the law passed..... they know how to pass laws....

Your justice view is subjective....

 

[atrdriver]

Let's do the right and bring these guys back. We can show as a group, we are United against discrimination and will not tolerate it now nor will we accept its evil past.

Lets let them do the right thing and all retire when they hit age 60, just like the everyone before them had to do. It is not discrimination, any more than having to be age 23 to get an ATP is discrimination.

 

[PlaneDrvr]

Can't you read or what? It's for the law they didn't change by 11/23/06, and the privileges given to others and not all.

Don't you believe in justice if a wrong was commited?

Undaunted,

Read my post above and tell me where I am wrong in my logic. As I said, in order for them to prove their case, they would have to 'challenge' the law on the basis that it was/is 'discriminatory' and if successful, a Federal Judge would have NO Choice but to 'strike down' the law, and would be as though the law was NEVER enacted. Right??

PD

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

The lawsuits will go nowhere.
For what its worth.
PD

Thanks for your take on this and you may be right, but I prefer to listen to the attorneys who are experts on constitutional law.

There are many suits on this. One is the suit over why those requesting a waiver of the law following 11/23/06 were denied the requests. There is no real basis for the denial when all that is required is that the waiver requests prove an equal level of safety, such as was already being given to the foreign crews. How could the FAA say a B777 from ORD to FRA was OK to be flown by an over age-60 pilot for a foreign airline but not for an American pilot flying for UAL or American. Did the FAA put out warnings to the public that the foreign airlines were less safe? No. So the denial of the waiver requests was according to politics and not in accordance with law. The chickens will come home to roost on this one.

And your question about if the current pilots over age 60 who are flying could possibly lose their jobs if the recent change is found to be unconstitutional, the answer is NO. The over age-60 pilots are here to stay. There is no way any change is going to cause them to have to quit while the foreign crews can still fly in this country. Agan, it's all "equal protection-treatment." That's the law.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

I agree with you. So, go ahead and sue alpa. We, the active pilots will disband alpa so quick.

This is what many people want. ALPA is no longer serving the membership and should disban. Good point. This is very possibly an outcome.

For every action there is an equal and opposit reaction.

Don't you see it. ALPA is soon to be history on account of its failings. Just look as US Air. Soon it will be UAL and then that's it. The end.

 

[Cobraair75drvr]

Are you retired ual, and also were you scab?



quote=UndauntedFlyer;1593716]This is what many people want. ALPA is no longer serving the membership and should disban. Good point. This is very possibly an outcome.

For every action there is an equal and opposit reaction.

Don't you see it. ALPA is soon to be history on account of its failings. Just look as US Air. Soon it will be UAL and then that's it. The end.[/quote]

 

[PlaneDrvr]

Thanks for your take on this and you may be right, but I prefer to listen to the attorneys who are experts on constitutional law.

There are many suits on this. One is the suit over why those requesting a waiver of the law following 11/23/06 were denied the requests. There is no real basis for the denial when all that is required is that the waiver requests prove an equal level of safety, such as was already being given to the foreign crews. How could the FAA say a B777 from ORD to FRA was OK to be flown by an over age-60 pilot for a foreign airline but not for an American pilot flying for UAL or American. Did the FAA put out warnings to the public that the foreign airlines were less safe? No. So the denial of the waiver requests was according to politics and not in accordance with law. The chickens will come home to roost on this one.

You never answered my question; ultimately, how are they going to prevail in any lawsuit unless they 'challenge' the law based on 'discrimatory' basis, 'unfair/unequal treatment'???

And, if so, if they are successful, would that just 'strike down' the whole Law?? Bringing back 'age 60'

And, in fact that is what they may end up doing, whether it was their original intent or not. As lawsuits often end up with, 'unintended consequences' A very likely possibility??

PD

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

You never answered my question; ultimately, how are they going to prevail in any lawsuit unless they 'challenge' the law based on 'discrimatory' basis, 'unfair/unequal treatment'???

And, if so, if they are successful, would that just 'strike down' the whole Law?? Bringing back 'age 60'

And, in fact that is what they may end up doing, whether it was their original intent or not. As lawsuits often end up with, 'unintended consequences' A very likely possibility??

PD

I have edited in the answer to your question in my prior post. My answer is the opinion of everyone who seems is legally informed on this, but you are right, no one knows exactly how all this will fall out. We all hope it's for the best for everyone.

And your question about if the current pilots over age 60 who are flying could possibly lose their jobs if the recent change is found to be unconstitutional, the answer is NO. The over age-60 pilots are here to stay. There is no way any change is going to cause them to have to quit while the foreign crews can still fly in this country. Again, it's all "equal protection-treatment." That's the law.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Are you retired ual, and also were you a scab?

This board always suggests than anyone who says anything negative relating to ALPA or the old age 60 rule is some kind of scab. And furthermore, it usually comes from someone who has never proven their loyalty. They are just bystanders who suggest that others are scabs. Is that you?

I think this will answer your question.

I threw my ALPA "Battle star" pin in the toilet along with my ALPA "Retirement" pin. It made me feel good.

And just for the record, I also threw my Company "Retirement" pin in the toilet too. That made me feel good too.

I now only wear my GWRRA pin. So that's the way it is!

"Live to Ride, Ride to Live"

 

[Flopgut]

I now only wear my GWRRA pin. So that's the way it is!

"Live to Ride, Ride to Live"

You would have a lot more personal and professional credibility if you had come back as an FO like you said you were going to. Would have helped your cause greatly as well. Especially if a large number of you guys came back. By not coming back you've made it clear it was only about the seniority.

 

[Cobraair75drvr]

I have a battle star also. OK, you are not a scab officially but greedy none the less. You, and your cohorts that lived the high life and benefited from the upward movement due to retirements somehow fine it unfair when it was your turn to move on. Again, I would have a lot more respect for you guys if you would donate a portion of your income(if allowed back) to the guys past 65 along with any retirement monies accepted from the company returned in full plus interest, and also some form of lump sum to be determined to a fund for pilots past 65 or their dependants due to your premature upgrades throughout your careers at their expense. If you agree with all the above you will prove you have character and this is not about your poor planning or greed.

quote=UndauntedFlyer;1593761]This board always suggests than anyone who says anything negative relating to ALPA or the old age 60 rule is some kind of scab. And furthermore, it usually comes from someone who has never proven their loyalty. They are just bystanders who suggest that others are scabs. Is that you?

I think this will answer your question.

I threw my ALPA "Battle star" pin in the toilet along with my ALPA "Retirement" pin. It made me feel good.

And just for the record, I also threw my Company "Retirement" pin in the toilet too. That made me feel good too.

I now only wear my GWRRA pin. So that's the way it is!

"Live to Ride, Ride to Live"[/quote]

 

[SteelerMan]

Huh????

 

[Mamma]

Does anyone know what would happen if the age 65 law was struck down? Would the guys who got to stay on after 60 be allowed to remain with an exemption until a new law is crafted? I am not a lawyer but I don't understand how you can sue ALPA or APA if congress was the body that agreed upon and passed the legislation that is currently in effect. I imagine they understood the ramifications and hardships that would be be incurred upon the airlines and pilots if guys who had been out of flying for however many years were allowed to return to their old seniority positions. Just curious.

 

[Southbound]

As our career destruction checklist is nearly complete any enthsiasm I once held for debating this pathetic and even more pathetically named law has been sucked away. The Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilot Act huh? Ayn Rand would be proud. However, what a-holes keep funding this lobby/legal effort??

 

[NuGuy]

Does anyone know what would happen if the age 65 law was struck down? Would the guys who got to stay on after 60 be allowed to remain with an exemption until a new law is crafted?

If and when this thing ever sees the light of day, the "envrionment", as compared when 65 passed will be drastically altered.

1. Many, or most carriers will have pilots on furlough, and we'll be in the midst of recession. No claims of a "pilot shortage".

2. The prospect of pilots dropping BACK onto the list from above will mobilize even the largest couch potato.

3. The airlines have experienced the wildly unpredictable manning issues caused by age 65 (old guys seem to get sick more and/or burn off more sick leave). Some airlines have found it necessarily to increase staffing on senior equipment for this very reason, which is NOT welcome in the current fiscal envrionment.

Assuming the rule that changed the age 60 reg drops dead, the rule will revert BACK to what it was: IE age 60. The FAA was in the process of a NPRM, but that process would have to be restarted.

In the meantime, you will see a repeat of what happened in the 60s. Junior guys will see a jackpot of retirements, and will do everything in their power to drag or simply kill any new legislation. By the time it sees the light of day, all the old guys will be past 65.

Nu

 

[PlaneDrvr]

As our career destruction checklist is nearly complete any enthsiasm I once held for debating this pathetic and even more pathetically named law has been sucked away. The Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilot Act huh? Ayn Rand would be proud. However, what a-holes keep funding this lobby/legal effort??

Actually, I hope that greedy 60+ morons who felt left out by the law change and are thus filing lawsuits against everyone (alpa, apa, faa, etc.); end up 'screwing' everyone over age 60, by resulting in the entire law being 'overturned' in court. Then the existing law, prior to the recent 'law' change, would be in effect, 'age 60 mandatory retirement'

Would be 'ironic' would it??

And, of course, 'age 60' when to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, and was not found to be 'age discrimination'

As I still believe that the only was that any lawsuit can be successful, would be to challenge the recently passed 'age 65 law' The 'greed' of some over 60, ending up 'screwing' everyone over 60, and returning it back to the original law. Again, would be 'ironic' to say the least.

For what its worth.

PD

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

I have a battle star also. OK, you are not a scab officially but greedy none the less. You, and your cohorts that lived the high life and benefited from the upward movement due to retirements somehow find it unfair when it was your turn to move on.

So I guess you are going to just retire at 60? No, the truth is you will want work beyond age 60 because there is just no reason to retire unless you must. So while you call me greedy when I, in fact, retired at age 60, it is you who will prove to be greedy. And how about the current pilots who are flying past age 60, are they greedy too, and "unofficial scabs" as you suggest? They are just trying to earn a living when the “Union” caved in and gave away their retirements.

I, and many others, would have liked to have had the opportunity to work past age 60, and that should have been our right and choice, not a decision made by others. You and your group wanted your senior colleagues out (fired) just so you could move up. That is what is sick about this and the so called "Union." What “Union” in the world tries to get one section of their membership fired so another can move up? None but ALPA and APA.

ALPA will die soon. Look at all the money they are losing. ALPA has just lost the money from US Air, Aloha and Frontier. 50 years ago they lost American as well as others along the way. Soon there will be more airlines who switch representation or just go out of business. When UAL goes that will be it for sure.

I do hope UAL lasts so you can be “greedy” too and keep working to support your family. I'm sure you want this too, right? And will that make you an unofficial scab too? Is name-calling for a person who chooses to work to support your his or her family really the right thing to do? When you keep working past age 60 I don't really plan to call you anything but a good taxpaying American citizen. What else should we call such a person: A greedy unofficial scab? I don't think so unless you really have a selfish agenda yourself. Is that it? That's what it looks like to me and many others too.

 

[Flopgut]

One of the stranger quotes I've ever read on FI--and that is saying something. Do you have clairvoyance? Otherwise, any post starting with the words, "personally, I think..." is destined to be ignored.

Is it not close to failing?

No one outside of CAL could possibly comment on this--too much inside dirty pool that only CAL guys could know about--so I won't comment.

Fact: Cal instructors, who were not required flight deck crew member, came back to the line. It was in perfect contrast to the rule. That's easy enough to understand you shouldn't need a reference.

"It is believed?" "Pressure that came indirectly?" By whom? Where is your evidence? These are some rather generic claims--but that is the beauty of them--without citing ANY specifics, you can say things like "it is believed" and mention "indirect pressure" (whatever that means) to disparage Prater when it is unwarranted--and you don't have to prove anything. "It is believed" by many that the moon landing was a fake and 9/11 was a conspiracy by the Jews/US government/take your pick. But where is the evidence?


Seems to me that he is a (rather loud) voice of reason. I don't think he is "behind" at all.

Discussion of the legal steps CAL ALPA took to oveturn/confirm the FAA interpretaion are on our website. It's out there, I'm not going to link it to you. I was individually briefed by a senior CAL ALPA official that we could not sue over the interpretation. FAA was not going to budge and ALPA National was in bed with them on it. John Prater would not even defend the rule he wrote at the airline where he works.

 

[atrdriver]

I would have liked to have had the opportunity to work past age 60, and that should have been my right and my choice, not a decision made by others.

No, you should have moved on gracefully, like the others that went before you. You knew what the rules of the game were before you started playing, and you lived with them fine as long as they benefited you. But when your turn came you decided that the rules weren't fair.