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

[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