Originally Posted by
89Pistons
If the HR language doesn't specifically state that airlines don't have to take recently retired pilots back, I'm pretty sure their ability to return would be governed by our contract. I'll read the retirement section of the UPA again, but I didn't see any language in our contract that would prevent those pilots from coming back. Section 6-D doesn't specifically address an increase in the retirement age.
If I'm ALPA, I'd continue to fight the age raise, but would not fight the retro. Let the company figure it out. Or they can come back to the table to negotiate for language that would help them with the debacle. Or they can just pay those recently retired pilots guarantee to stay at home until their 67th birthday if they're far out of currency.
here is how I see this playing out. since our UPA doesn’t have provisions for what happens after retirement and associated seniority retention then they’ll be treated as a new hire. So in a nutshell when law is passed and signed into law then those still on property (not over 65 on the date of signing by POTUS) will be allowed to stay in same seat/domicile/seniority as if nothing happened. However, Those already officially retired (at 65) and below age of 67 will be offered by their companies to return as a new hire but stapled to bottom of the active pilots. Caveat that union and company could sign an agreement to add verbiage for those 65-67 but would probably require member ratification.
i Think ICAO will lag FAA by a year… that seems to be the norm.