As far as I know, there is nothing in the law that prevents a pilot from returning to work that was between 60 and 65 at the time of passage. The only thing it provided for was that their seniority couldn't be retained. Basically under age 65 could be hired and start from the bottom.

 

I thought I was protected against ex post facto laws. As a way younger than 65 pilot, this would do me harm.

 

I think they should change it back to age 60 rule just to get away from all the legal crap that is happening from the 65 rule. It's funny these guys knew about the mandatory retirement age when they began their careers just like the rest of us, and for years worked under it, now all of a sudden when they got shafted by increasing it to 65 and they missed it, they want to try a lawsuit against it.

Although I must say I can't blame the UAL guy cause they really got the retirement shaft. They helped build the company to what it is, and took it in the shorts for the commitment to the company.

 

If they win the suit, do you think they will be happy about going to the right seat? They will want their old seniority number with back pay.

 

New, I think the age limit will be eliminated all together. If the plaintiff's argument prevails that there is no scientific reason for mandatory retirement at 60 or 65 then the 14th Amendment argument would prevail that it would be unlawful to deny someone Life, Liberty, or Property without due process based solely on age. The FAA and the Air Lines have established criteria for employment as an Air Transport Pilot. If a 65 or 67 or 72 year old can maintain those qualifications the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment would, seems to me the layman, prevent his mandatory retirement absent some hard medical/scientific reason.

As a previous poster said, the 9th Circus is the place to go to invent new rights and laws. However, if there are not published data supporting mandatory retirement, even the 2nd Circuit might find in favor of scrapping the age limit.

BREAK BREAK

Sailing, I'm not faulting ALPA for either this nor the original age 65 change. That train was not stopping and I doubt ALPA wanted to lay down on the tracks. Whether there were other motivations involved, I can't say. I'm just sayin' that ALPA couldn't have stopped it if they wanted to and they won't be able to stop this if the court rules as such. After all the Constitution is much greater than ALPA.

To tell you the truth, even though it directly harms me, I kinda agree with the plaintiffs and the scrapping of the age limit. Either we take our Constitution seriously or we don't. Look at the current government and their actions to see where selective interpretation leads us. If the age limit is arbitrary and not backed up by scientific evidence then it is wrong. After a certain age, elderly drivers must take a driving test and and eye test in order to renew their licenses. We don't take their driving privileges away based solely on their age.

I can see no age limit but increased scrutiny as one gets older. More often and more intrusive medical exams as well as more frequent checkrides may be in the future for "more senior pilots". Also don't forget the law of unintended consequences". The senior generation may win the right to work well past 60 but the increased medical scrutiny may eliminate more than they planned.

 

Man I see daily how senior citizens drive, can one imagine how they would fly....

 

There will be no attempt? You promise? How do you know?

Seems like you again "have chosen to misrepresent" while accusing others of doing so.

 

Nothing prevents them from "returning to work" flying. They can find themselves a nice little 135 Charter gig, or Part 91 Corporate.

All this does is prevent them from "taking" their jobs back. Doesn't a pilot resign? You had to at every place I've worked. The age limit might have been the reason for the resignation, but still.

 

And the rules were they'd get their "B" fund check and their "A" fund check every month.

 

Why don't all the furloughed guys sue whoever decided to change the rule in the first place. It could easily be argued that they (the 60+ guys) caused them (myself included) to lose their jobs. If it's good for the goose...