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

LUV Will Grow Little Or None In 2009

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
Got it Stop...I don't blame you for not wanting to move to LAS.

I wasn't up to speed on the Lance CPT deal. What's that? They call you in to fly CPT if they need you? But you bid FO?

Interesting.
 
LuckyDad,


US pilots we were in the driver’s seat until worn down by the relentless assault on Age 65 driven first by a small group of Southwest pilots
AA767AV8TOR

Your hate is blinding you to the facts AA.

ICAO started in Chicago, prodded onto existence by the legacies, of which you are a willing participant.

Your statement that the US doesn't play by the rules is baseless, WE started ICAO, the US...

The push for 65 started a decade or more ago overseas to solve a pilot shortage, SWA had no part, SWAPA had no part. Your correct, a small minority in SWAPA did sell a package deal fraught with crap for their economic gains, BUT their/SWAPA impact on the situation was insignificant, as in ZERO effect to the end result, age 65 is here to stay. With or without input by SWAPA.

Why did the rule pass quickly? You show us the fact on that one... So far, your just spouting sour grapes.
 
Got it Stop...I don't blame you for not wanting to move to LAS.

I wasn't up to speed on the Lance CPT deal. What's that? They call you in to fly CPT if they need you? But you bid FO?

Interesting.

Basically, the top 8% of FOs at each domicile are Lances. They are fully-qualified as captains, but bid and are awarded FO lines of flying each month. They can pick up any captain trips that will fit into their schedule (they obviously try to give away all their FO trips). Some guys love it....to me it always seemed more like putting yourself on reserve the whole month. But if you absolutely, positively do not want to commute, it is a viable alternative.
 
I also had one of you jumpseating a couple of weeks ago and he was telling us all about how your new-hire classes are now mostly made up of the over 60 guys coming back to work.

Boy...did you ever get hooked in on that one.

So far we have hired 9 ( or so) New Hire classes this year. All of them have had 20-24 New Hires in each class. Although lately, they have all had 24 since we are pretty short of pilots.

the only class ( =1) that was made up of the returning retirees had only 14 in the class. Around 24 or so were hired out of all the retirees that interviewed...and some of that 24 have already decided not to come back.

New Hire classes "mostly" made up of over age 60 guys? Sounds like you need some new information sources
 
Last edited:
In your eyes I'm sure I'm just some punk kid, -->I don't believe I have ever referred to you or anyone else on FI as a "punk kid"but given your previous posts I could care less.--->Good, keep it that way. I've learned enough in my time to know that anyone that refers to themselves as from 'tejas' is a rod to be left alone at the bar regardless of a promise to buy a 'dollar' beer for you ...--->Waaaaahhhhhh...wa...wa..waaaaahhhhhhh
 
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
 
Last edited:
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

great question..
 
Boy...did you ever get hooked in on that one.

So far we have hired 9 ( or so) New Hire classes this year. All of them have had 20-24 New Hires in each class. Although lately, they have all had 24 since we are pretty short of pilots.

the only class ( =1) that was made up of the returning retirees had only 14 in the class. Around 24 or so were hired out of all the retirees that interviewed...and some of that 24 have already decided not to come back.

New Hire classes "mostly" made up of over age 60 guys? Sounds like you need some new information sources


Speaking of newhire classes.....

From the SWA People Dept yesterday.....as of right now, one to two newhire classes every month for the rest of the year.
 
Make no mistake about it – AGE 65 was all about taking money from the junior guy to make up either for an inadequate retirement plan or medical (as was the case of the Southwest pilots), outside economic events, or the terrorist acts of 911. What the senior pilots couldn’t negotiate with the company, they ultimately took from the junior guy’s portion to make up for their lack of success.

AA767AV8TOR

Ok Ace, then explain to me how a pilot at The All Great and Fabulous American Airlines cannot afford to leave at age 60? With your far superior retirement and medical plans, I wouldn't even think this was a problem at good old AA. In fact the MAJORITY of AA pilots OPPOSED age 65, exactly how many are staying, and why?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top