I think this issue of retroactivity has more thorns yet to be uncovered. Many pilots have recently retired when they reached their 60th birthday and it was mandated that they could no longer fly in a front seat. Most retired as captains and left at the top of their game. The age 65 issue seemed distant on the horizon and not really an option. Others stuck around and went to the back seat for various reasons.........maybe high 5, retirement multiplier or maybe too many ex-wives and high overhead. Plus not all pilots have the option to stay due to manning limitations.....their are only so many engineer seats and the number is declining every day. Just because a pilot stuck around for whatever reason and this NPRM goes into effect how does that make him more rightfully eligible to bid the front seat than say a pilot who retired less than a year ago and is only 61? I can see more lawsuits coming out of this and a lot of money spent on litigation. It wreaks of discrimination if you have a retroactive clause. Now I know some will say you give up your seniority number when you retire but this age 65 thing has had the burner lit and gone into the mach to get passed. 12 months ago it was presumed that there was not going to be any retroactivity and the process looked like it was going to be lengthy. Now congress steps in and all of a sudden there is this rush to push this through. I'd like to be a fly on the wall in some of these back door meetings to see what the real imputus is to getting this passed so quickly and who are the major players pushing this through.

I'm going through a somewhat similar process with the military reserves. There is a bill right now to lower retirement age to 55 from 60 for the Air National Guard and other reserve components. I'm 11 years away from collecting any pension and if the bill were to pass tomorrow and retirement age went to 55 I would still have to wait until 60 to get mine even though I have 29 good years. No grandfather clause in that bill's language. Normally when a law changes it is effective on a certain date and from that date forward....not backward the law is changed. One day you get ticketed for speeding over 55 and the next week the speed limit is moved up to 65.....you don't get your ticket thrown out. At the time of the citation for speeding you were in violation of the law.

Marion Blakely stated there would be no retroactivity due to all of the potential problems it would create. ALPA has been against raising the retirement age for many years and now is saying we need to jump on this fast moving train. If that in fact is 100% true, then fine let's get on board but who's grandiose idea is it to also negotiate for a retroactive clause when Marion Blakely said there wouldn't be one? That brings me back to the question of what really is the true stance of the ALPA leadership on age 60?