Young Only! Old Need Not Read!

[ACAFool]

I thought Joseph McCarthy was dead?

And that is a good thing. But what do you mean? Who is on the witch hunt here, and for what?

 

[chase]

Facts?

Delta ALPA is hiring it's early retired pilots back with a lottery system and keeping them in their previous equipment and status bidding on the bottom of the seniority list. Who cares if they are on the bottom still flying B767 Captain international positions?!

The precedents have already been established and your company too will do this-- INCLUDING SWA that will hire it's retired pilots back and keep them in their CAPTAIN seats and positions. That is what the SWAPA union president is fighting to do today!

Do you support your company following DAL lead?

What facts do you have that support your above statement? SWA has hired retired Capts & CA for the training center but haven't re-hired any CAs for "flying positions". The new provision that is before Congress has stipulations that spell out that airlines do not have to re-hire retired pilots and aren't subject to legal actions by retired pilots, i.e. suing the airline for their job back. I'd recommend sticking to the facts...if you have them I'll be happy to post an apology. Cheers.

 

[ivauir]

The new provision that is before Congress has stipulations that spell out that airlines do not have to re-hire retired pilots and aren't subject to legal actions by retired pilots, i.e. suing the airline for their job back..

Why shouldn't they get their jobs back? If it is ok for the senior guys on property to sit at the top of the food chain for an extra 5 years why not let those who paved the way for them benefit? This is where I think those in favor of the change really lose the moral high ground. It is ok for the young folk to suffer senority stagnation, but heaven forbid that happen to the senior folks. Seems like guys only talk about "fairness" when they stand to benefit.

Here is a proposal: How about we let the 60+ crowd fly as FOs? They can keep their medical coverage, continue to save for retirement and then the younger folks won't suffer as much. I bet their wouldn't be nearly as many that choose to stay on.

 

[chase]

Ivauir,

I didn't say they shouldn't get their jobs back, either as FO or as a CA, I was merely stating the bill has a provision in it that stipulates what I stated....whether that is moral, legal, right/wrong wasn't my point. The law as it is currently worded doesn't give retired pilots options...it does permit companies/unions to either (1) not hire any retired pilots or (2) allow any means agreed to by a company to bring back these pilots.

Wasn't trying to state my views on the issue except as it related to the implication that "luckytohaveajob" was making about SWA hiring retired pilots back into the cockpit.

Why shouldn't they get their jobs back? If it is ok for the senior guys on property to sit at the top of the food chain for an extra 5 years why not let those who paved the way for them benefit? This is where I think those in favor of the change really lose the moral high ground. It is ok for the young folk to suffer senority stagnation, but heaven forbid that happen to the senior folks. Seems like guys only talk about "fairness" when they stand to benefit.

Here is a proposal: How about we let the 60+ crowd fly as FOs? They can keep their medical coverage, continue to save for retirement and then the younger folks won't suffer as much. I bet their wouldn't be nearly as many that choose to stay on.

 

[ivauir]

Ivauir,

I didn't say they shouldn't get their jobs back, either as FO or as a CA,.

I'm sorry chase; I didn't mean to dierect any comments toward you (or any one specific at all). It is just my observation that while there is mixed support for the change there is almost zero support for the idea that retirees could get their jobs back. That causes me to question the motives of the backers of the change.

As I've stated before - I know the history of the rule and do not support its continuation. But we need to be honest about the effects of changing it. The current proposal (SR 65) creates a "winner take all" result - with those at the top of the senority list getting the windfall. Anyone a day over 60 on the day the rules changes will be SOL, Junior folks at SWA will get a mixed blessing, but furloghees, job seekers and junior folks at airlines that are not growing are going to suffer.

Everyone seems to have an agenda with this one. Maybe if we just admit that we could come up with a better compromise.

 

[Benhuntn]

OOOOH Luckytohaveajob....You fly the B777 can I touch you...? I guess you guess must fly around in a vacuum in that type aircraft. That explains why your brain is mush and you can't spell.

 

[Axel]

T-shirt seen on a baby one time:

"Now that I'm safe, I'm pro-choice."

There will certainly come a time when some, if not all will wake up with a new perspective.

And lucky, your poor spelling spelling and incorrect use of the language (a "president" is elected, a "precedent" is set; "your" vs. "you're") displays an ignorance which completely undermines any arguments you attempt to present. You come across as an uneducated punk.