Originally Posted by
Busboy
Don't you think that retroactivity for the current over 60 S/O's, and guys on a LOA, will open up a pandora's box in the courts?
I think it will just make the case even stronger for the other over 60 guys that are going to sue to get their jobs back. Not all of them were able to go to a back seat and were forced to retire. Why shouldn't they be allowed back in the cockpit, too? Many of them did not want to retire...They had to. I'm sure there are many at UAL, or DAL or whereever that asked for a LOA, but were denied.
It seems to me that "the right thing to do" is either, all of them or none of them. I vote for the latter.
First off I don't think there is anyone on an Leave of Abseance (LOA) who is over 60 and I also believe if you are over 60 working as a SO and have medical issues , you must retire instead of a medical LOA as you say.
Second, with respect to the FAR's our contract allows for Pilots to work over 60 albeit as SO's currently. Our contract does not allow for Retired PIlots to return to active status. The Union isn't trying to open a pandora's box.
The Union (your MEC specifically) is only saying we intend to protect current
ACTIVE line members of the class and craft.
UAL and DAL do not have any 3 man cockpits or in other words any over 60 Second Officers.