UPS and FDX, age 65 may get more complicated
 

I saw this on another forum. It appears the Senior Pilots Coalition is going to challenge HR 4343 in court. Read the following from age60rule.com:

http://www.age60rule.com/docs/12-21-...C%20UPDATE.pdf

I'm slow today....

What's their beef with it?

age 65
 

Guys (and you too freightpooch)...

I think if this group is successful in overturning the bill and providing retroactivity for over 60 as of nov 2006, it will have no effect whatsoever on ups and fdx. No one at either ups or federal has been forced to retire at 60...they migrated to the back seat. If they did retire, it was voluntary on their part. If someone took early retirement at 55, would we expect to have them be able to return to the left seat as well??

JMO

Pilot7576

True to form--they're trying to overturn it because they want age 65 to be retroactive to Nov. 2006, when the ICAO changed the age to 65.

Can't these guys just retire and give it up? When will the quit? Age 90?

How stupid!! How much more MONEY do you guys need?? You got to stay longer in the front seat. You get to come back if you are in the back seat. So what more do you want?????

A 4 day weekend pass to the Payboy Manson??

No, wait.......thats what I want.

Well, since they are all saying the anti 65 crowd "just needs to 'deal with it'", why don't they just take what just got and "deal with it"? Sheesh! Some people just don't know when to give it up. :confused:

My ten year old son could have written a letter with more clarity and purpose than the SPC letter...

"How stupid!! How much more MONEY do you guys need?? You got to stay longer in the front seat. You get to come back if you are in the back seat. So what more do you want????? "

C'mon now let's be fair. These poor fellows wasted the best flying years of their lives suing everyone so they can fly longer and all those lawsuits probably broke them. Now they need to fly longer than 65 so they can pay of their lawyers. What a bunch of maroons. Maybe now Congress will see just what a bunch of spoiled children these losers are.

Actually, after reading the letter, I thought their concern was the wording prohibiting "...their constitutional right to the judicial system." against "... air carriers and their allies."

I think the concern is about the clause trying to prevent lawsuits against the various participants and supporters of this piece of legislation. I believe that would include those with a seat at the table.

I'm certainly not an expert - but I bet that if some of the lawyers in congress/senate actually had read the resolution, they would not have voted for it. "What do you mean they can't sue someone!!! By gosh, that's their God-given right!!! This is America"