"What if all the Over-60 guys were junior? Would that make a difference in how you feel about letting them bid the right seat? What if we let them go back to the end of the seniority list when they turn 60, and then bid what they can hold? The only people that would be affected are the ones that haven't been hired yet. That way it wouldn't slow you down, right? Would that make it easier to swallow?"

Not me. That's not what this is about. This is about fairness to all. What I would like to see is this rule change only apply to those that have not yet earned their ATP. That way there are no active pilots that see the windfall that Busboy talked about. Not me, not you, and not Foxhunter, NMB or their ilk. Now that would be fair.

For the record, I am a WB Capt with decent seniority. I am in position "A" for this age change and stand to benefit greatly from it as long as I am fortunate enough to work for a viable company and stay healthy. I should be jumping for joy in fact. Thing is, I remember what it was like to be on the outside looking in, hoping to have a chance to get hired, knowing there was a limited window in which I could make a career in aviation work, and also what it was like on the bottom of a seniority list when the furloughs came. It's those guys I think are really getting screwed here, not those who have to retire at 60 (to the best retirement in the industry no less, which we used lots of negotiating capitol to obtain) just like everyone before them did. I had a discussion the other night with one of our WB Captains. He was all for the Age change but against the fight for retro. He asked me and I said I was against both. Right away he started yelling at me saying I was selfish and only wanted to move up at those turning 60's expense. As I wasn't interested in yelling back I walked away. You should have seen his face the next morning when he saw me checking out of the hotel with 4 stripes on. I almost could hear him braying like the jacka** he was. Anyway, that is not what this is about to me. I know those who advocate retroactivity would like it to be as simple as "If you are against this, your selfish". To me it's about our union representing us, as a whole, and seeking our input on issues as big as this. I am in complete agreement with Busboy when he said this to JJ..

"That is the biggest crock of crap in your post. I know its the MEC's mantra right now. Its in every e-mail, letter and video we get from them. But, it is not a contractual issue, it is a regulatory issue. Moving you to the back seat was not a contractual issue, it was regulatory. I don't remember anyone on the MEC fighting to change regulations to protect your "seniority rights", then. Were they abdicating the seniority system?"

Nope. They were following the law which is what we should be doing now. That is what our contract tells us to do. Anything beyond that is not covered. The MEC has tried to make it a seniority issue (why I don't know) and split our unity, in ways the company could never had imagined, by doing so. Time will tell if it can be healed to the point where it was prior to this. The only clear message the MEC has sent is to tell those approaching Age 60 to delay retirement and hang out on the panel because they are fighting to get your Capt's seat back. It's not a message that needed to be sent IMO. Certainly not at such a high cost to our unity.