Latest Age 65 BS...Group wants them all back...

[Lear70]

I thought the effect of the rule was going to be bad at CAL but I just had a Fedex guy on the jumpseat who told me that they have 150-200 over 60 FEs that are allowed to move back into the right seat, but they can only bid for vacancies... Apperently UPS is going to have a flush bid.

OW!

Holy crap... so much for working for one of those anytime in the next year or two...

 

[tie1on]

if they are gone. they can come back and throw gear for me at first year pay. they new the rules when the started.. screw them. they have screwed us long enough

 

[Lear70]

if they are gone. they can come back and throw gear for me at first year pay. they new the rules when the started.. screw them. they have screwed us long enough

That was the supposition that most of us who supported the change were going on.

Either that or they could get an ad-hoc 121 Supplemental gig flying freight an extra few years until age 65, OR, if they were still at their company, they could stay.

The entire idea was to give them a way to keep making money until they were eligible for Social Security with no reduction in benefit and Medicare. No big surprise that a few greedy bastards are trying to sneak in the back door, just didn't think they'd risk killing the whole deal over it.

All or nothing I guess...

 

[KCPilot]

I actually feel bad for these guys who were forced in to retirement. THEY were discriminated against because of their age and thrown out into the cold street with nothing else.

I think we owe it to bring these folks back with seniority and make a statement against discrimination! As a society we need to fight discrimination and hate. Together we can make it a better world.

Instructortard, you are an idiot! Go back to GoJets where you came from. I still cannot believe that Delta hired a moron like you!

 

[instructordude]

That is exactly what would happen... if the courts were to declare the law unconstitutional (not going to happen) then the age 60 rule would be back in effect... The other side of it is that it would take so long in the courts that anyone who turned 60 on December 12th would probably be very close to 65 or beyond it after it worked it way all the way through the courts and appeals and what not.
The airlines dont want to spend the money to re-train a pilot that has been retired for a year that they are only going to get 2-3 years of service from when they can hire a new person that they can abuse for 20-30 years.
So really its moot.


I thought the effect of the rule was going to be bad at CAL but I just had a Fedex guy on the jumpseat who told me that they have 150-200 over 60 FEs that are allowed to move back into the right or left seat, but they can only bid for vacancies... Apperently UPS is going to have a flush bid.

It would take years depending on the lower appeals courts schedule, which is probably booked way ahead but you never know.

 

[capt. megadeth]

The entire idea was to give them a way to keep making money until they were eligible for Social Security with no reduction in benefit and Medicare. No big surprise that a few greedy bastards are trying to sneak in the back door, just didn't think they'd risk killing the whole deal over it.

All or nothing I guess...

Then why didn't they try to make it so they get SS and Medicare at 60 since they are forced to leave? That way, it doesn't screw the rest of us.

 

[Lear70]

Then why didn't they try to make it so they get SS and Medicare at 60 since they are forced to leave? That way, it doesn't screw the rest of us.

Oh I agree completely, but then what?

Pilots are elligible for SS and Medicare at 60 but the rest of the country isn't? OK, discriminatory. Again unconstitutional. Thrown out, start over again.

The *BEST* solution would have been to require the airlines that are profitable again (all of them) to reinstate their pensions at 100% until the age of 65 then the PBGC takes over after 65 for those carriers who were in bankruptcy.

Unfortunately, the biggest pockets (airline management) would never have let that legislation pass either.

There's no good solution, the one that's currently on the books is the best of a bad situation, the SPC's greedy B.S. move notwithstanding. uke:

 

[capt. megadeth]

The *BEST* solution would have been to require the airlines that are profitable again (all of them) to reinstate their pensions at 100% until the age of 65 then the PBGC takes over after 65 for those carriers who were in bankruptcy.

uke:

Agree 100%. This is the fight that should have been fought, but of course, we eat our young.

 

[Poahi]

So let's recap the issues so far:

1. The constitutional question of whether or not a law can be passed that applies to some >60 year olds and not others.

2. Can >60 year olds come back with senority and longevity.

3. Can airlines reduce contributions/ distributions to DC and DB plans and can they 'hide' behind the new law to do this.

4. With the economy slowing and oil at $100, will there be furloughs...

Any others....

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

If 60 is age discrimination.... how is 65 any different?

 

[NuGuy]

which raises the question, if the Supreme Court declares the bill unconstitutional, does it mean everyone over 60 has to retire that day?

Heyas Mike,

That would be poetic justice, to be sure. Everything gets reset to the status quo the day before the bill was passed, and they can try to do it all over.

By then, the administration will have changed, the economy will have gone in the crapper, and the "pilot shortage" will have disappeared, so what little "legitimacy" they may have had would be gone.

Guys who are over 60 would be forced to retire overnight, and guys who were planning on suing their way back would be SOL.

Poetic justice indeed....

Nu

 

[Birddog]

I thought there was an ex post facto clause in the Constitution. It was put there so the government couldn't write a law on Tuesday, the prosecute you on Wednesday for your actions on Monday. Why wouldn't that apply here as well? Everyone is equally protected in that the divide applies equally to everyone. Everyone who turned 60 before the bill passed is not eligible. Everyone who turned 60 after, is. Just because it is not to your liking does not make it unfair.

 

[Poahi]

I thought there was an ex post facto clause in the Constitution. It was put there so the government couldn't write a law on Tuesday, the prosecute you on Wednesday for your actions on Monday. Why wouldn't that apply here as well? Everyone is equally protected in that the divide applies equally to everyone. Everyone who turned 60 before the bill passed is not eligible. Everyone who turned 60 after, is. Just because it is not to your liking does not make it unfair.

There are a lot of moving parts to this issue. It's going to take years before it's all sorted out. It wasn't thought through at all. That's why I don't understand why ALPA claimed victory on this one.

 

[NuGuy]

There are a lot of moving parts to this issue. It's going to take years before it's all sorted out. It wasn't thought through at all. That's why I don't understand why ALPA claimed victory on this one.

If someone on the anti-65 side where smart, they'd take this and run with it, and sue for a restraining order until it was all figured out.

That'd throw a REAL wrench into everyone's plans...

Nu