Los1

As an aside....Fred Smith on at CNBC, talking about the economy, 1510 eastern....

FlyByNyte

Holy ****** Batman! Long post. I must admit I got tired of reading it...but can someone extract why the FAA implemented the age 60 rule in the first place? Around 1959 is when everyone else got eligibility for full retirement at age 65 isn't it?

FDXLAG

I was a proponent of the rule change. Once ICAO made the leap I figured we should have done something. Rolling over and playing dead was certainly an option. A better option IMHO would have been to manage the age change over 10 years. No big winners, no big losers, and no reason to have multiple excess bids to make room for Jack.

That is a how a union that is looking out for all of its members would have approached. Knowing ALPA, something like that never entered anyone's mind.

TonyC

C. R. Smith

DC-8s

National Airlines signed the first jet contract in 1958 to add DC-8s to its fleet. Many airlines tried to force their pilots to retire at 60 so they could use younger pilots for the new-fangled jets. They felt that the younger guys could be trained more quickly than the old guys. Pilots at Western Airlines grieved the forced retirements, and the pilots won. Nevertheless, American Airlines CEO C. R. Smith continued to enforce mandatory retirement at 60. On December 20, 1958, the pilots (represented then by ALPA) began a strike which lasted 20 days. As part of the agreement to end the strike, Smith agreed to reinstate 3 over-60 pilots who he had forced to retire, but then he delayed their reinstatement.

The next month, Smith contacted his old war buddy, "Pete" Queseda, who just happened to be the head of the newly formed Federal Aviation Agency. Citing data from American Airlines pilots, he argued that younger pilots required less time to complete the training to transition to jet aircraft. Within a couple of weeks, the FAA had drafted a medical justification for an age limit, and within months, a proposed rulemaking was published. The final rule was published December 5, 1959 -- less than 10 months from Smith's first appeal to Queseda -- and became effective March 15, 1960.


Origins of the Age 60 Rule - by Gavin Francis


(It sounds a lot like how Fred Smith managed to bring all of FedEx Express under the umbrella of the RLA.)






.

TonyC

You do realize that ALPA has no control over Vacancy and Excess postings, right?

Wanna hate on somebody for that?


You already named the name.






.

FDXLAG

This from the guy planting the collusion between the union and the company yesterday, right. Work on your reading comprehension I did not blame the union or the company for the multiple excess bids. The legislation and regulation change is what caused/allowed them.

gderek

Of course, this is not the entire story. ALPA didn't give AA pilots strike benefits during that strike and that's when AA finally had enough of ALPA.

The Beginning

Tuck

Tony-

Not saying you ate wrong but could you post some references to Prater running on changing the age? I don't recall that at all.

So what did we really affect by joining the age 65? What FDX MEC said all along was that it would have an effect on protecting DB plans - that was just silly as they were already protected by law. It was cover to change things that were highly beneficial to one group of pilots - those over 60. There's history here and yes we have absoluteley done things that affect only one group in a contract - how about the VEBA $ for those over age 55 regardless of seniority? Regardless of excuses it was a clear give to the old guys and the company had no problem with it so yes, I can imagine one group of pilots getting something.

Concur with FamilyATM regarding the vote - you ask our opinion and you vote the way your constituents tell you to ... Or you create hate and discontent, a feeling of necessary retaliation and then you get replaced.

Pay rates for the 777 would absolutely depend on how many pilots bid it. I'm quite sure if no one bid it, regardless of excess rules, we would have a more desirable pay rate.

I know you weren't on the MEC then but you are very much an apologist for them.

Nightflyer

The whole VEBA deal is BS.

A lot of guys over 55 got $25,000.

This was supposed to help them with healthcare between age 60 and 65.

Only, with the age change, they didn't have to retire!

So now we had a bunch of guys, that not only got to keep their wide body Captain seats for an extra 5 years, (at my expense) they got a $25,000 bonus that I will never see. (Also at my expense.)

This money comes out of my paycheck, and was also from money that was supposed to be paid to the union for wet leasing (which should have been distributed equally to ALL members, not just the chosen few).

Still think the junior guys shouldn't have quit the union (without agency shop) to force the leadership to treat us as equals?

The last "mini-contract" had nice pay increases for union leadership. They looked after themselves first, we got sloppy seconds.

I asked a union official why we shouldn't take the $25,000 back from anyone who stayed until 65. "That's not in the contract" he said. Well, they should have fixed that in the mini-contract.

Tell me, Tony, why should I pay to fund the $25,000 for the guys who got 5 bonus years of Captain pay because of age 65?

Talk about rubbing salt in the wounds!!!!!

Also, can anyone tell me if I will get my $25,000?

Or I am just SOL because I am junior?

KnightFlyer

Don't forget the pension multiplier you didn't get either. It was for the guys who wouldn't accumulate much in their B plan since they had less than 10 years to retire (50+). I missed out on this; not old enough. I missed out on the 25K HRA; not over 53. I think we all get Premium reimbursement from the PRP from VEBA contributions. Now that I'm approaching the golden years, I wouldn't mind some over-50 crumbs this time around.