ALPA's initial Age 60 Rule Making Video
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: B727
Posts: 194
repost by me...
I see a lot of speculation on this...this is what i am hearing now...the ATA has made it clear that they do not favor anyone who is already in the FE seat to reupgrade to captain..the airlines do not want to pay for that...it has been agreed upon already...as u will see...i know someone who attended these meetings ( i think ARAC meetings)...once u hit 60 u r done..unless of course the rule has changed...their will be no waivers as well...sorry foxhunter
I see a lot of speculation on this...this is what i am hearing now...the ATA has made it clear that they do not favor anyone who is already in the FE seat to reupgrade to captain..the airlines do not want to pay for that...it has been agreed upon already...as u will see...i know someone who attended these meetings ( i think ARAC meetings)...once u hit 60 u r done..unless of course the rule has changed...their will be no waivers as well...sorry foxhunter
Besides that, there will be legal challenges if the rule stays as stated by Blakeley. There will be no legal basis to deny the front seat to someone simply because his birthday was one day too late. The way it was originally proposed, saying the rule wouldn't be basis to FORCE reinstatement by an airline MIGHT have worked. Saying under no circumstances can an over 60 otherwise qualified pilot can't be hired or returned to the front seat even if the company wants to will be on pretty shakey ground, especially since the "medical" pretense will no longer be applicable.
Time will tell, it's by no means over.
#12
this was discussed in the ARAC meetings...let them sue..they will be 75 when they get a ruling..ask the fdx guys who sued fdx corp over seniority...they just got their ruling and they lost ..18 ys later...it is over!
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: B727
Posts: 194
I don't see a suit against the companies...after all, it's the rule as written that's questionable. What are you referring to as over? The ruling? It's just getting started. That's why the NPRM will be issued and the final rulemaking takes over a year. It may not even be necessary to sue to get a favorable outcome. Who knows at this point?
#14
we have had a few sue fdx over the age 60 before..ex...coupe....but this will get interesting..i talked with a guy who attended the arac meetings...i agree it will get ugly..but from what he said the ATA wanted this and it only affects a few airlines anyway...fdx and ups being the biggest...
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is an argument about something that hasn't happened. The NPRM has not been issued, and comments haven't been heard...especially from the legislative branch. This is very early in the rule making process to make firm statements about what will/will not happen.
Besides that, there will be legal challenges if the rule stays as stated by Blakeley. There will be no legal basis to deny the front seat to someone simply because his birthday was one day too late. The way it was originally proposed, saying the rule wouldn't be basis to FORCE reinstatement by an airline MIGHT have worked. Saying under no circumstances can an over 60 otherwise qualified pilot can't be hired or returned to the front seat even if the company wants to will be on pretty shakey ground, especially since the "medical" pretense will no longer be applicable.
Time will tell, it's by no means over.
Besides that, there will be legal challenges if the rule stays as stated by Blakeley. There will be no legal basis to deny the front seat to someone simply because his birthday was one day too late. The way it was originally proposed, saying the rule wouldn't be basis to FORCE reinstatement by an airline MIGHT have worked. Saying under no circumstances can an over 60 otherwise qualified pilot can't be hired or returned to the front seat even if the company wants to will be on pretty shakey ground, especially since the "medical" pretense will no longer be applicable.
Time will tell, it's by no means over.
Actually, the same basis for kicking them out when they hit 60 now or when they hit 65 after a change.
Moving the age to 65 doesn't change the fact that government (rightly) tells us when to hang em up. You still need an upper limit for safety purposes and hopefully it will remain 60.
#16
AA,
On the surface, that's exactly how I interpret what she said. The thing that I find interesting is why she would have even made that statement to begin with. Of all the airlines that I know of, UPS, FedEx, NWA, and and maybe some of the other freight companies are the only ones to have guys who will be in the position of having already reached 60 and are still "working." That's such a small percentage of guys who will be effected by that part of the rule, it makes me wonder why it was even addressed?
On the surface, that's exactly how I interpret what she said. The thing that I find interesting is why she would have even made that statement to begin with. Of all the airlines that I know of, UPS, FedEx, NWA, and and maybe some of the other freight companies are the only ones to have guys who will be in the position of having already reached 60 and are still "working." That's such a small percentage of guys who will be effected by that part of the rule, it makes me wonder why it was even addressed?
She said it because it was the ARC's ONLY consensus and recommendation!
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,068
According to ALPA, the lawsuit potential is the reason that they want the rule to only apply going forward and not to anyone presently over 60 in the backseat. The airlines, the ATA, and while they won't say so out loud ALPA, are all probably behind that because limiting the scope and validity of the inevitable lawsuits is paramount to all three of those parties.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post