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

[MECH]

And if they win, then what??!! Did Prater and ALPA think of this ramification??

And someone mentioned Prater got exactly what he wanted. What exactly was that? The bill, except for allowing two over 60 pilots on domestic operations, is basically unchanged from the original.

AA767AV8TOR

The other language that ALPA wanted and got include.

1) Forcing companies to bargain with their unions over all changes.
2) All pilots must be actively flying 121 operations
3) The language preventing lawsuits against Unions and companies.

Please don't take the above post as supporting the age change. I am just answering your question.

 

[NuGuy]

Your appear to be full of yourself or or simply full of BS after looking at your profile. Only in your dreams di&k head. BTW what branch of the service were you in anyway. You f'n *************************! Have you ever done anything for anyoine but yourself? I doubt it. Please oh please tell me who you work for, I just gotta know.

Nice, intellegent discussion. Just goes to show that even if you serve in the miliarty, you can still be a twerp.

Nu

 

[doer42]

How about instead of donating to this fund, we donate to all the guys who were already retired before 911, and got their retirement wiped away in the bankruptcy courts. They were awarded the federal guarentee around $27,000 a year max. What about them? They lost their entire lifes work in one foul swoop, and were to old to go back to work in the only profession they new. Now thats a shame...

Why don't we take up a fund for Paris Hilton when her old man cut her off. Most of these senior so called "poor guys" made more in 1 yr in the hayday then I have made in 5 yrs or will make. Their failure to plan should not become my failure.

 

[capt. megadeth]

Sometimes you have to right a wrong. Age 65 should have been implimented with the international rule change over a year ago. I, for one, would be willing to give up some seniority so that those folks can come back to their rightful places on the seniority list.

This is either flamebait or you are the biggest idiot on the face of this earth.

 

[dash8driver]

This is either flamebait or you are the biggest idiot on the face of this earth.

or he/she is ~61 years old.

 

[Spooky 2]

Nice, intellegent discussion. Just goes to show that even if you serve in the miliarty, you can still be a twerp.

Nu

They have special courses dedicated to spelling as well.

 

[Kugelblitz]

I am far from a genius, heck, I am an anti-genius, but I said this was coming.

The next thing, mark my words, is a class action lawsuit from those pilots beyond 65 suing for being forced to retire too early.

Watch and see......

 

[BluDevAv8r]

I cannot believe that in 5 pages of commentary not one person except for MECH has posted anything factual regarding this issue. Here is the language in the Bill that will address the SPC issue:

​

(2) PROTECTION FOR COMPLIANCE.—An action taken in conformance with this section, taken in conformance with a regulation issued to carry out this section, or taken prior to the date of enactment of this section in conformance with section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect before such date of enactment), may not serve as a basis for liability or relief in a proceeding, brought under any employment law or regulation, before any court or agency of the United States or of any State or locality.

In other words, the Bill provides liability protection for both companies and unions. The SPC can try to sue all day long but it won't work.

-Neal​

 

[Lear70]

That's the whole point, Neal.

The SPC isn't trying to sue anyone; they're calling the bill "unconstitutional" on the very basis you are quoting and are pushing for a Supreme Court ruling to invalidate the bill.

Like I said before, our constitution is built on the basis that EVERYONE is entitled to the protection of the legal system. This bill takes that right away, making it unconstitutional as it's written.

Question is, will the Sup hear it? If they do, it could get changed or overturned. If they don't, then there's no further legal action anyone can take as you already stated.

I personally hope the Sup won't hear the case, as the bill is fine just like it is, but the legality of removing someone's right to the legal system is certainly "questionable"...

 

[capt. megadeth]

Dude! I hope they do invalidate it. That would be great!

 

[michael707767]

That's the whole point, Neal.

The SPC isn't trying to sue anyone; they're calling the bill "unconstitutional" on the very basis you are quoting and are pushing for a Supreme Court ruling to invalidate the bill.

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

 

[BeCareful!]

Yeah, if they succeed, can we just go back to Age 60?

 

[Lear70]

Have no idea... possibly. I'm not a lawyer and I didn't stay at a HIE last night, just understand what they're trying to do (and I don't like it).

Nasty catch-22 for the SPC. Hope they think before they go jumping off the deep end, might have some "unintended consequences".

 

[instructordude]

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

If the bill is ruled unconstitutional then it is toast, everything. Interested parties would be required to redo the process. Law would go back to its original form. Wow, that would get some guys fired up.:bomb:

 

[flatspin7]

If the bill is ruled unconstitutional then it is toast, everything. Interested parties would be required to redo the process. Law would go back to its original form. Wow, that would get some guys fired up.:bomb:

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.

 

[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