RE: Age 65. Food for Thought

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
RE: Age 65. Food for Thought

Should age 60+ pilots be bidding their full seniority? Consider: After the CAL strike, pilots who returned were not allowed to bid their full seniority for 2 years. I suppose there are many reasons for this. But the result was a smoother transition for the many different pilot groups that made up CAL after the interruption of rightful seniority progression. Which is no less than what has happened with 65, and 65 is no less outside the CBA than the strike was. The difference: There was no union in place and no contract. If you've been marginalized by 65 (majority of us) consider what took place in the past. It breaks my heart to point this out, but if we had no union and no contracts, age 65 probably would have been handled more like the aftermath of the CAL strike and there would be fewer furloughs and less detriment being felt by a majority of airline pilots.

Re-cap: In a no union/no contract environment, replacement worker pilots were treated better than ALPA furloughs are now? Somebody prove me wrong. I'm just putting an idea out there as part of my effort at getting re-inspired in ALPA.

I think experienced pilots should be surplused to the bottom of the seniority list until all furloughs are back. Then let them bid 50% of their full seniority.
 
Last edited:

F/O

Smells like....
Joined
Mar 7, 2002
Posts
485
Total Time
8000
I agree with you. But there's what is and what should be. With ALPA's support (even though the majority of the membership voted against it when we were asked) this became law. Just U.F.B. Anyhow, good luck changing it....
 

Fubijaakr

Seniority is Forever
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Posts
2,537
Total Time
Enough
Give up, Floppy. Age 60 isn't EVER coming back. The regulatory age is 65. Get it? 65. And NO one is going to get aboard with punishing senior people for the benefit of newbies.

We've all faced adversity in our careers. This is their adversity. And they'll be better in the long run for it.

Give it up.
 

Phrogs4ever

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2001
Posts
176
Total Time
10000+
Give up, Floppy. Age 60 isn't EVER coming back. The regulatory age is 65. Get it? 65. And NO one is going to get aboard with punishing senior people for the benefit of newbies.

We've all faced adversity in our careers. This is their adversity. And they'll be better in the long run for it.

Give it up.
Boomers...good times.
 

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
Give up, Floppy. Age 60 isn't EVER coming back. The regulatory age is 65. Get it? 65. And NO one is going to get aboard with punishing senior people for the benefit of newbies.

We've all faced adversity in our careers. This is their adversity. And they'll be better in the long run for it.

Give it up.
Just getting ahead of the push for 70.
 

Fubijaakr

Seniority is Forever
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Posts
2,537
Total Time
Enough
Don't worry, that'll probably happen too. Something along the lines of "age discrimination."
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Posts
4,872
Total Time
4
Give up, Floppy. Age 60 isn't EVER coming back. The regulatory age is 65. Get it? 65. And NO one is going to get aboard with punishing senior people for the benefit of newbies.

We've all faced adversity in our careers. This is their adversity. And they'll be better in the long run for it.

Give it up.

Hey try not to give away more scope, or pay and nobody will mind if you die trying to reach age 65 in the left seat.
 

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
Don't worry, that'll probably happen too. Something along the lines of "age discrimination."
I don't disagree.

I'm verbalizing this thought because I'm not sure I've got it right. It would appear, at a time where no union and no contract prevailed, a situation's similiar effect was managed to a more balanced outcome.

Is this correct?
 

JungleJett

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Posts
1,111
Total Time
1
Is this is about age discrimination, why is age for the ATP set at 23? Why not 18...or lower? Why not lower the PPL age to 12?
 

jonjuan

Honey Ryder
Joined
Feb 26, 2004
Posts
4,155
Total Time
3,000+
Is this is about age discrimination, why is age for the ATP set at 23? Why not 18...or lower? Why not lower the PPL age to 12?
Why not lower the driving age to 12? Are you really a Dumba$$....? Age 60/65 pilots/drivers? No difference.
 

F/O

Smells like....
Joined
Mar 7, 2002
Posts
485
Total Time
8000
Give up, Floppy. Age 60 isn't EVER coming back. The regulatory age is 65. Get it? 65.
He didn't say that, you pinhead. He was talking (hypothetically) about certain provisions that would limit the effects of 65 on junior people. Don't worry, it will never happen. He wasn't saying age 60 will be coming back. Read the post before you shoot your mouth off. Get it?
 

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
For some of these furloughed guys, you would need to make retirement age 100 for them to make up what they are losing now. They are listening to Prater speak thinking this is normal and he's got their back. It's BS! He's lying to them and all the rest of us as well. He took strike pay. He's not in favor of any stipend like that for furloughs. AND, he sold out the guys over 60 who might have come back. If there had been an honest attempt at scaling the seniority effects that would have worked as well. They guy sucks. I'm sort of flow charting his career in my mind and he's slanted this entire union in his own direction since day one. All the way to the top. Bear in mind, the reason I'm talking about this: I don't think he's done.
 

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
Remember John's article "The FO that get's it"? It's time he reprises that masterpiece with "The age 60+ captain that get's it". I'm afraid to say it would appear that Lorenzo treated John, and the replacement workers alike, better than he intends to see done for the furloughs?! Remember his hand wrinigng pleas for help for the old guys? Where is equal concern for the rest of ALPA? These are pilots with young families. He's taken food off their tables and shoes off their kids feet with no upside in sight. Anybody else bothered by this?
 

JungleJett

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Posts
1,111
Total Time
1
Why not lower the driving age to 12? Are you really a Dumba$$....? Age 60/65 pilots/drivers? No difference.
So quit the "age discrimination" yapping...it does not hold water.

So again I ask, why is the ATP set at 23? Why not lower.........seems no one can answer such a simple question. Should we let a 90 year old fly a commercial airplane? If not, why? Since we are comparing operating a 777 to driving a car, should we let a 16 year old fly a Boeing?

Maybe we should paid the same as taxi drivers...or pizza delivery guys...since it is just a car. Now who is the dumba$$......
 
Last edited:
Top