Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Let the Lawsuits Begin

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
There are some VERY interesting tidbits from that article...

“Unfortunately, our worst fears came to pass. ALPA threw us under the bus,” Speace said, in reference to the union that represents about 60,000 U.S. pilots.


Association members, most of them younger and with less seniority than the Vietnam-era pilots who hit mandatory retirement, had little interest in raising the retirement age and had said so in association polling.


Perspective...get some.
 
The question from me to these two yahoos is: If the rule had been changed before THEY hit 60, would they still be in favor of bringing back retired pilots that were senior to them?
 
I didn't say it was a USAirways PILOT its the USAirways Pilot Syndrome and its open to all pilots recently retired because they turned 60.
 
Imagine the ripple effect that would have on an airline. With the old farts needing training, plus all the displacements I would hate to see the training bill for that. Aren't our airlines struggling financially enough? Who cares about all the junior guys who finally got their dream job and now being furloughed. I guess the guys who get bumped back to the right seat don't matter either. For goodness sake guys, the law was passed a little too late. I'm sorry but it's just bad timing for you. We all know airline careers are all about timing. Sometimes it is in your favor and sometimes not.
 
Jeez, the one guy was hired in late 2003. He should be happy he got hired at all. Stuff happens that ain't your fault, but the article makes it sound like they were buddies with Orville and Wilbur, and lit off Whittle's turbine...
 
Take one arbitrary and discriminatory law, change it to another arbitrary and discriminatory law with with impunity for those who missed the deadlline and this is what you get.

Instead of going with the flow, try measuring twice and cutting once.
 
Now children there aren't enough lollipops to go around for the entire class, so we won't give them out at all. Is that what they wanted? It's obvious now that retroactivity was to problematic to pass the law any time soon, it sucks for them but it was the price that had to be paid to get it through.
 
Last edited:
I'd bet these guys have a law firm working for them on a contingent fee. They have nothing to lose. This is a high dollar item for them too. A couple of years of retirment without working and if they win, they may get back pay. Greed works for and against this issue.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom