You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. If you're a working pilot, please join our free community and you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you don't want to register (or not a working pilot), you can still use the Google search box in the upper left of this screen to search all forum posts!
The U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and theAge Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) prohibits employment discrimination against individuals at least 40 years of age.
will these same people say how they had the opprotunity for gained wages, benefits, savings, and the satisfaction of their job in the airline business while others were retiring at 60. will they also show that if they came back that they would cause a decrease in wages, benefits, savings, quality of life for those of us in it. I'm not trying to be mean or sarcastic but it seems to me that they want their cake and to eat it too.
they did lose their job by turning age 60 but that door has reopened and I'm curious if they are actively trying to get jobs in the 121 world? (not just their old job back) did they go out and fly 135 or part 91 after they turned 60.
when you were trying to get age 60 changed, what did you want?
Many pilots who have been harmed by the Age 60 Rule will try to get their jobs and seniority back and/or attempt to be compensated for damages. How could anyone blame them for doing that? There is now an "uneven playing field" that is unfair to United States airline pilots who were forced into retirement before the new age 65 rule came in to effect.The immunity and "prospective only,"clauses in H.R.4343 clearly violate the United States Constitution. There must not a precedent set that strips airline pilots of their Constitutional rights. The courts will not allow the prospective and immunity language Congressman Oberstar brought to go unchallenged. Protections for the air carriers and unions at the expense of senior pilots set a dangerous precedent that violates several Federal laws if allowed to stand.
Congress should not pass laws that give immunity to those who violates the basic law of the land. The prospective and immunity clauses contradict the equal protection clause found in the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution and violates the Age Discrimination Act of 1967. It is against the law for any employer or labor union to require a person who has worked for 20 to 40 years, that because of their age, they may continue their employment with the company only with the condition that they must work as a “new hire”; relinquish their seniority, longevity, position and current salary with the company and start all over again with the salary of a person just hired by the company.
Wanting cake and eating it too, as you say, is not a fair statement. Try to imagine now what it will be like when you are approaching your 60th birthday. You will likely have come to the realization that the cost of retirement has increased many times more than you have planed for and your social security and Medicare benefits will not be available to you until age 66. Maybe your daughters are soon planning huge weddings, your sons have been accepted by very expensive universities and your parents need your help with their nursing home costs. You are at the peak of your airline career but the day you celebrate your 60th birthday, the FAA says that you no longer have a right to your job and seniority as an airline pilot.
Because of the old Age 60 Rule, pilots under age 55 still continue to demand that the left seat should have been their God given right through the forced retirement of pilots at age 60. The Age 60 Rule had become a system disorder that had little chance of being corrected because the pilot union groups under age 55 represented the majority, maintaining their political power through the forced retirement of pilots over age 60. The majority tends to maintain command of a system that succeeds in eliminating competition from the minority. When pilots over the age of 55 finally come to the realization that age restrictions will adversely impact the remainder of their lives, it is too late as they are now members of the minority and have little power to effect a change.
The opposition from junior ALPA and APA members begs the question; what legitimate labor union would actively support a rule which discriminates against its own members, forces them to leave their jobs and leaves them with reduced benefits? ALPA and APA had been milking the Age 60 rule for all it's worth for much to long a time.
Wanting cake and eating it too, as you say, is not a fair statement.[/font][/size][/color][/font][/size][/color] Try to imagine now what it will be like when you are approaching your 60th birthday. You will likely have come to the realization that the cost of retirement has increased many times more than you have planed for and your social security and Medicare benefits will not be available to you until age 66. Maybe your daughters are soon planning huge weddings, your sons have been accepted by very expensive universities and your parents need your help with their nursing home costs. You are at the peak of your airline career but the day you celebrate your 60th birthday, the FAA says that you no longer have a right to your job and seniority as an airline pilot.
Because of the old Age 60 Rule, pilots under age 55 still continue to demand that the left seat should have been their God given right through the forced retirement of pilots at age 60. The Age 60 Rule had become a system disorder that had little chance of being corrected because the pilot union groups under age 55 represented the majority, maintaining their political power through the forced retirement of pilots over age 60. The majority tends to maintain command of a system that succeeds in eliminating competition from the minority. When pilots over the age of 55 finally come to the realization that age restrictions will adversely impact the remainder of their lives, it is too late as they are now members of the minority and have little power to effect a change.
The opposition from junior ALPA and APA members begs the question; what legitimate labor union would actively support a rule which discriminates against its own members, forces them to leave their jobs and leaves them with reduced benefits? ALPA and APA had been milking the Age 60 rule for all it's worth for much to long a time.
wanting their cake and eating it to is a completely fair statement. you say that pilots under 55 want to keep age 60 and then when they get to 55 they want to get rid of it. they want their movement and then they don't want to move when it is their time to retire.
what you described about turning 60 is realizing you didn't plan well for retirement. a child in college or a wedding is just poor planning. these pilots knew they were going to retire at 60 and didn't plan well. maybe they don't need to be huge or expensive.
try to imagine working at a regional or starting work a major and finding out that movement will/could come to a halt for 5 years and you have your own wedding to plan or trying to start a family buy a house.
what about those that were/are furloughed since 9-11. should they lose their job or stay furloughed so that the over 60 crowd can come back.
how much money will the junior pilots lose by the lack of movement? I've heard that if they work til 65 the first couple years will have been for free considering the money that they lost in the change over period.
would you support coming back but only being able to bid FO slots. that way movement remains and they are able to give money for college and weddings.
I'm still curious when you were trying to get age 60 changed what were you pushing for?
do you think that pilots from airlines that had FE positions when they retired should be allow to come back seen as they left willingly instead of forced to retire. (only forced out of flying positions CA and FO)
wanting their cake and eating it to is a completely fair statement. you say that pilots under 55 want to keep age 60 and then when they get to 55 they want to get rid of it. they want their movement and then they don't want to move when it is their time to retire.
what you described about turning 60 is realizing you didn't plan well for retirement. a child in college or a wedding is just poor planning. these pilots knew they were going to retire at 60 and didn't plan well. maybe they don't need to be huge or expensive.
try to imagine working at a regional or starting work a major and finding out that movement will/could come to a halt for 5 years and you have your own wedding to plan or trying to start a family buy a house.
what about those that were/are furloughed since 9-11. should they lose their job or stay furloughed so that the over 60 crowd can come back.
how much money will the junior pilots lose by the lack of movement? I've heard that if they work til 65 the first couple years will have been for free considering the money that they lost in the change over period.
would you support coming back but only being able to bid FO slots. that way movement remains and they are able to give money for college and weddings.
I'm still curious when you were trying to get age 60 changed what were you pushing for?
The point is that no pilot should be forced to retire solely because of age.
I take offense to anyone implying that I or anyone else has not prepared them for retirement, I have carefully prepared for a comfortable retirement. I could retire now but I choose to keep flying until I can no longer pass the flight physical.
No pilot who was ready, willing and able to continue flying when the Age 6o Rule forced them out of employment position and seniority should then be forced to the bottom when recalled to his airline, including those who volunteered to fly as SOs. Your idea of “coming back but only being able to bid FO slots” is nonsense.
I have been active in trying to change the age 60 rule since I was 18 years old.
Every pilot has a different situation but the bottom line must prevail and that is seniority, seniority, seniority.
The rules changed in the middle of my airline career. When I first started flying for my company, Horizon Air, it was a part 135 carrier and for that reason I chose to stay because I wanted to build my seniority until age 65 when my 401K would allow me to retire. Then in 1995 the FAA changed the rules and forced my company to convert to Part 121 and my retirement pans at age 65 were taken away from me.
I can honestly say that I was able to up-grade to captain not at the expense of pilots senior to me. I flew for Horizon Air based in my hometown. When I hired on there in 1989 over 90% of the pilots senior to me were also younger than me, so I did not progress up the seniority list by retirement attrition. I progressed thru my company's expansion. Most of the pilots who were senior to me when I was hired at Horizon Air are still flying there. I played a part in making Horizon Air the best regional airline in the industry. Why should I be forced out of my job only because of my age?
The Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) at first fought hard to repeal the age 60 rule. Click here to see: The Chronology of the "Age 60 Rule"
In 1968 this was ALPA's official stance on the Age 60 Rule:
"ALPA CONTINUES OPPOSITION TO AGE 60 RETIREMENT RULE . The Air Line Pilots Association strongly advocates that the Federal Air Regulation in its arbitrary age 60 retirement provision is unreasonably discriminating against all of the air line pilots. Shortening a pilot's career with no realistic justification is cheating the public as well as the industry. ALPA has expended and continues to expend its utmost efforts in attempting to overcome this highly dissatisfying and unfair federal regulation."
Sadly, ALPA turned traitor to its senior members after supporting a change in the rule for over twenty years. ALPA then saw the age 60 rule as a convenient vehicle to promote institutionalized age discrimination as an accelerated job advancement scheme for its junior pilots. One would have to beg answers these questions:
When did younger pilots became more valuable than experienced pilots?
Why would ALPA, a labor union, actively support a rule that discriminates against its own members, forces them to leave their workplaces and leaves them with reduced benefits?
ALPA President Henry Duffy's made this statement in the 1990 Baker v FAA
"It has never been my belief that professional expertise diminishes at age 60, on the contrary, our senior members possess a wealth of knowledge, aviation history, and insight that have been developed through their years of experience, which are irreplaceable". He also stated during this testimony "Pilots over 55 comprise 5-6% of the total membership. The other 95% selfishly view the forced retirement of older pilots as their guaranteed path and a God given right to their promotions!"
Safety was the lie that ALPA and APA had been spouting to mask blatant ageism directed against its most senior pilots. In reality, they were promoting institutionalized age discrimination against senior pilots, insuring early promotions for junior pilots.
In July 1979 Captain J. J. O'Donnell, then president of ALPA, testifies before the House Public Works and Transportation Committee: Congressman Anderson:
"I gather from your testimony before the Select Committee on Aging that some of your members do not want to see the Age 60 Rule ended. Do those who oppose ending the age 60 rule do so on the grounds of safety or economics?" Captain O'Donnell; "I would be misleading [to say that] they do it on the basis of safety. ... [i]t is economics to those who object to the change in the regulation."
Understandably, junior pilots are worried that changing the "Age 60 Rule" will cause promotional stagnation. What junior pilots need to understand is that, if they haven't realized it yet, promotions today---yesterday---and forever are related to growth--not attrition. Most pilots remember the mid to early 90's when a hiring frenzy produced six-month upgrades to Captains.
What I gather is that you are for getting rid of the age limit all together because 65 is no different than 60.
I just find it interesting that the argument is made about money and yet no consideration is made that they benefited from the age 60 rule and many will lose money due to 65 and could lose even more if the older than 60 come back.
I don't think you can bring up the money side of it with out taking into consideration both sides of the money.
the god given right scenerio to a captain is all about seniority seniority seniority. some of that is gained by growth like you said but it is also gained by retirements. at a smaller company like horizon growth will be larger factor than retirements compared to a major.
wanting their cake and eating it to is a completely fair statement. you say that pilots under 55 want to keep age 60 and then when they get to 55 they want to get rid of it. they want their movement and then they don't want to move when it is their time to retire.
what you described about turning 60 is realizing you didn't plan well for retirement. a child in college or a wedding is just poor planning. these pilots knew they were going to retire at 60 and didn't plan well. maybe they don't need to be huge or expensive.
try to imagine working at a regional or starting work a major and finding out that movement will/could come to a halt for 5 years and you have your own wedding to plan or trying to start a family buy a house.
what about those that were/are furloughed since 9-11. should they lose their job or stay furloughed so that the over 60 crowd can come back.
how much money will the junior pilots lose by the lack of movement? I've heard that if they work til 65 the first couple years will have been for free considering the money that they lost in the change over period.
would you support coming back but only being able to bid FO slots. that way movement remains and they are able to give money for college and weddings.
I'm still curious when you were trying to get age 60 changed what were you pushing for?
I agree that this argument should never be about money, because both sides of the argument are valid. However, I too take offense to the "shoulda prepared better for retirement" issue. Talk to all of the Delta, USAir, and United pilots that had their retirements terminated (of course with the approval of the active pilots) if they should have prepared better. Let's say pilot A,ten years ago, was looking forward to a nice retirement package at age 60. There were no 401Ks, IRAs and the like when he probably started flying. And there were no airline terminated pension funds either. So tell me how he should have prepared better for his retirement? At least the pilot today has 20/20 foresight and better retirement vehicles (not Harleys) to plan for a retirement, at whatever age. And the pilot today knows he will have until age 65 to make retirement contributions.
How about bringing them back as f/o's, even at the bottom, but pay them full longevity pay, not year one pay? Delta and DALPA basically has prevented any retired pilot to return due to the fact that they would be new hires on year one pay. Of course that's early retirees, maybe apples and oranges. I believe Southwest is inviting its retired pilots back as F/Os, with full longevity pay (I think). Not sure about where on the seniority list they are.
And if you make the money argument, here it is....the active pilot has the opportunity to continue his trade with increasing benefits (seniority and pay) as he progresses. The retired pilot who was forced out at 60 does not, unless as a new hire somewhere. And what 121 carrier would hire someone 60+. The no answer would not be because of age discrimination but rather the answer, "We just don't think with your many hours you could sit in the right seat with.....". And of course what 61+ age pilot doesn't have some health issue probably? If nothing else, loss of hearing from 35 years in cockpits. All good excuses for not hiring the old fart.
The argument about the 18 year old doing whatever job, is prevented due to age? Difference! He is beginning a job and will be welcomed when he reaches the correct age. Same as under 18 drinking, voting etc. But the old guy is FORCED out, not because of performance (still taking those PPCs), health (still can pass the physical, bring it on), but FORCED out soley due to age, nothing more, nothing less. If you bring the safey issue in, that's also false. There has been zero data on safety in 121 carriers with pilots over 60 ('cause there ain't been any). Any other studies for pilots flying past 60 would be due to less safety type flying activies.
Skyone I agree that those that lost their pensions couldn't plan for that seen as it hadn't happened in the past but he didn't mention anything like that. Here's his paragraph about that.
Wanting cake and eating it too, as you say, is not a fair statement. Try to imagine now what it will be like when you are approaching your 60th birthday. You will likely have come to the realization that the cost of retirement has increased many times more than you have planed for and your social security and Medicare benefits will not be available to you until age 66. Maybe your daughters are soon planning huge weddings, your sons have been accepted by very expensive universities and your parents need your help with their nursing home costs. You are at the peak of your airline career but the day you celebrate your 60th birthday, the FAA says that you no longer have a right to your job and seniority as an airline pilot.
To me what he is talking about is poor planning and he even says that the cost of retirement isn't what he planned. Your kids college tuitions and weddings are things I think you need to plan for and not put off hoping that you will be able to work beyond 60.
I have no problem bringing them back with full pay. It would be a slap in the face to put them at first year pay. I think that something could have been worked out to help everyone but that requires give and take and most want all or nothing. From what I know about southwest is that they will be on the bottom of the list and I don't know about their pay. In regards to delta did some of the early retirements want to come back? Second thoughts?
I did find it very interesting that ALPA made it a positive that the over 60 crowd couldn't come back. To me it seemed like they were protecting themselves a little. (the senior pilots)
On a side note I've never understood why you can't drink when you turn 18. If you can get married, vote and fight in a war you should be old enough to have a cocktail.
__________________
REMAIN CALM!!! ALL IS WELL....
Last edited by Eric Stratton : 06-30-2008 at 09:24 PM.
I have no problem bringing them back with full pay. It would be a slap in the face to put them at first year pay. I think that something could have been worked out to help everyone but that requires give and take and most want all or nothing. From what I know about southwest is that they will be on the bottom of the list and I don't know about their pay. In regards to delta did some of the early retirements want to come back? Second thoughts?
.
I think it would be a fair compromise to bring them back, to whatever position. But provide them with full longevity pay. There have been second thoughts among some DAL pilots. Some that retired very early (age 50 or 51) and with the contributions that DAL is making to a DC plan and age 65, wouldn't have been half bad with the current state of the airlines. But again, DALPA did another screwing of the retired pilots and I know several guys that interviewed and were not hired, and that's after working for 25 or more years and unblemished records. At age 55, would I go back with full longevity pay and not go through the interview and all that crap? Just might. 12 year pay for a first officer pays more than a three year Emb190 captain at JetBlue.
With regards to "underage" drinking. I can't remember, but I think on base you are able to drink at the clubs for servicemen. But I don't want 16 year old drivers drinking and then getting on the roads. In fact some states are contemplating making the driving age 18, just to protect the young drivers. Some states will not allow night time driving by under 18 drivers. The judgement is just not there among many.
LinkBacks (?)
Linear Mode
