PCL_128

Every attorney I've talked to feels the exact opposite. There's a snowball's chance in hell that the geezers will win this one. Thank God.

satchip

That was my point. This case may not be the one that overturns the age limit due to the specific remedy requested. I predict that it will fall though. Can you name one reason why there should be an age limit besides jobs? The court should weigh the harm done to the individuals against the legitimate state interest in maintaining safety. If the latter is not supported by scientific studies or evidence then it should be abolished.

Just look at the comments on this forum. It's all about "the geezers should get out of our way! The benefited from age 60 and now they are greedy." That kind of argument is not going to convince a court.

Superpilot92

fatigue, eye sight, acuity, and health all deteriorate as you get older and we'll start seeing more people start dropping off on the job as time goes on. This isnt like other jobs where you sit at a desk and can croak without putting others at risk. This is all about greed by those at the top, where these same people fighting for the age increase throughout their careers or is it just because they are now the older guys? :cool:

Skyone

A lot of these guys DID fight to end age 60 retirement. Age 60 worked fine when pensions were still intact. All of you guys saying, "hey they knew the rules...."etc., what were you saying when many of you were hired under a B scale? The argument then was the same, "whatta ya *****in' about, you knew what the rules were when you were hired". A lot of negotiating capital was spent to rid the companies of that. How many of you that have been furloughed recently have had your insurance COBRA paid for by these "greedy bastards" throughout their careers? How many of you guys stood fast and fought the termination of these guys pensions? Maybe if you had, this fight would be mute.

Believe it, most of these guys when they hit 60 would love to retire, but their pensions were stripped and they didn't have enough time left to beef up their own portfolios. You forget, 401ks didn't really get any horsepower until in the late 80s. It was always, mother Delta, United, Piedmont, Braniff, Eastern, Pan Am, USAirway, TWA will take care of you from the day you get hired to the day you retire and beyond. How many of these old geezers, when they weren't so old, had to start at the bottom again of some carrier when their legacy went T.U.?

A guy who made it through FedEx, SWA or any other carrier that still have pilot pensions intact, that wants to continue past age 60...maybe another story. That is, unless he got booted from his BK carrier and started over at one of the pension intact carriers and had maybe 10-15 years to start over. Never were pensions terminated when most of these guys got hired back in the 70s.

Now you young pups will have no excuse not to have huge 401Ks or huge B funds when you hit 60 knowing what could lie ahead for you. And I wonder how many of you WILL actually retire at age 60 even if the age is 90? Ah get a life and play golf, take your dog for a walk etc is a little difficult when because of limited or no pension you spend every day handing out carts at WalMart or showing somebody where the plumbing department is at Home Depot. That's not the "get a life" I want to live when I hit 60.

newKnow

Satchip,

Public safety. The Court has already been convinced. The last I checked, this is the current and controling case for age discimination cases.

Mass. Board of Retirement v. Murgia 427 U.S. 327 (1976)

Facts of the Case:
Robert Murgia, although he was in excellent physical and mental health, was forced to retire at age fifty according to state law. Murgia had been a uniformed officer in the state police force. Murgia successfully challenged the mandatory retirement law in district court.

Question:
Did the Massachusetts law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion:
In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the law did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that the right of employment was not per se fundamental, and that uniformed state police officers over 50 did not constitute a suspect class under the Clause. Applying a rational relationship test, the Court reasoned that the statute was sufficiently justified as a means of protecting the public "by assuring physical preparedness of [the] uniformed police." The Court noted that while the law may not have been the best means to accomplish this purpose, it did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment merely because of its imperfections.

Last 4 Paragraphs of the Decision:

In this case, the Massachusetts statute clearly meets the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause, for the State's classification rationally furthers the purpose identified by the State: Through mandatory retirement at age 50, the legislature seeks to protect the public by assuring physical preparedness of its uniformed police.

Since physical ability generally declines with age, mandatory retirement at 50 serves to remove from police service those whose fitness for uniformed work presumptively has diminished with age. This clearly is rationally related to the State's objective. There is no indication that 26 (3) (a) has the effect of excluding from service so few officers who are in fact unqualified as to render age 50 a criterion wholly unrelated to the objective of the statute.

That the State chooses not to determine fitness more precisely through individualized testing after age 50 is not to say that the objective of assuring physical fitness is not rationally furthered by a maximum-age limitation. It is only to say that with regard to the interest of all concerned, the State perhaps has not chosen the best means to accomplish this purpose. But where rationality is the test, a State "does not violate the Equal Protection Clause merely because the classifications made by its laws are imperfect."

We do not make light of the substantial economic and psychological effects premature and compulsory retirement can have on an individual; nor do we denigrate the ability of elderly citizens to continue to contribute to society. The problems of retirement have been well documented and are beyond serious dispute. But "[w]e do not decide today that the [Massachusetts statute] is wise, that it best fulfills the relevant social and economic objectives that [Massachusetts] might ideally espouse, or that a more just and humane system could not be devised." We decide only that the system enacted by the Massachusetts Legislature does not deny appellee equal protection of the laws

TurnAndBurn

If I watched my $1.3 million pension go up in smoke, I'd probably want to hold on to an income and fly a little longer, too.

newKnow

Pretty interesting case, huh? (chirp, chirp, chirp) :)

Klako

The FAA's age 60 rule had been contested since it’s inception in 1960, but was perpetuated by the majority of voting younger members at ALPA and APA. Finally, it took the United States Congress to intervene and change the rule to age 65. This obvious wrong was corrected without one Congressman or Senator voting against the change.

The pilot unions say they oppose any rule that allows pilots to fly for the airlines past age 60 because of safety concerns. Safety is the smoke screen that the unions use to promote rapid career progression for their younger members.

If safety is not the issue and if the pilot unions want to promote equity among their membership, then why not force all pilots into retirement after only 20 years with their company? Example; a pilot hired at age 25 would get the boot at age 45 while a pilot hired at age 45 could fly until age 65.

DYNASTY HVY

We have a winner !
Great post !!


Fred

newKnow

The point is that the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled on the constitutionality of mandatory retirement ages. They said they are constitutional. Case closed. If you think this court will overturn the precendent, come up with the 5 justices who will. Good luck with that. The only two that might bite off on it a Ginsburg and Breyer. Which is funny, just because it is....


Also, your last point makes no sense, since you pointed out that the pilots union does think that safety is an issue. So, there is no reason to use an example where they want to promote equity.

The union should have fought to save your pension. Period.