Originally Posted by
Jetjok
I see, so for you, solving the problem takes a back seat to being able to b!tch about it. Fair enough. As I see it, the first "issue", that of the Age 65 rule change, took place prior to the second "issue", that of the "F" word, and although one does effect the other, they are/were separate issues. Seems to me that any solution to one will help the other. The union is not "asking" to let some retire so that others can "fly until they die", they are trying to not only help the junior guys stay on the property, but also to entice the older/super-senior guys to leave, thereby enhancing everyone else's seniority and therefore quality of life.
JJ
JJ: You just can't let go of the age change. Fine. I am simply stating my opinion that for us (ALPA) to expect that the company might consider an early retirement incentive for members of the organization partly responsible for the current overmanning situation is not realistic.
Can we ask? Sure. Why not. But to expect it, well might as well pray to the Easter Bunny too.
Looking for ways to mitigate some of the damage done by the age change, after lobbying for it, is simply closing the barn door after the horses have run free.