AA767
Thanks for your reply, but it still does not answer my basic question. How could any US carrier with a code share partner in Europe claim that 60+ was unsafe in the US, yet safe for their codesharing connecting passengers abroad? Defend that, from a company position, and you have to draw the logical conclusion that it was not just the unions wooing the lawmakers, but the companies as well. To say that SWAPA influenced ICAO is a bit far fetched, yet the ramifications of the ICAO change had to impact the rules here, because to not legislate the same level of "safety" is indefensable. I think you need to get past the contempt you hold for SWA(PA), and look at ALL those who held the pen that porked us all.
Did SWAPA help, you bet, but there were many other players on the field, probably a lot more than you and I will ever know.
I agree, 65 is a crock. Believe me, as a 46 year old 5 airline twice furloughed 6+ year FO, I'm effected pretty harshly (though not as bad as the really jr guys -- but I am in their boat). I agree with much of what you have said. I am watching with some interest on how AA is gonna handle what I see is a tremendous PR problem. After being so verbous about how unsafe a 60+ year old is, how are they (AA) handling pilots that age flying for them now. It would seem to be a pretty easy turd to drop in the punchbowl.
Lastly, there are a number of European carriers, SAS stands out, that (despite the rule change), still expect their pilots to retire at 60. Like you said, I don't think a company can prevent a greedy bastard from hanging on, but certainly a company and union can negotiate to the expecation that a pilot can financially and should retire at 60. Too bad that'll never happen, but it makes it a lot easier to point the finger of blame back at our own respective unions, instead of blaming someone elses.
Dad