Age 60
01-13-2007 | 07:11 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
From: CA 767
The younger pilots at Airlines with FE's are really going to take a hit from this. Because the FE's are still employed by the Airlines. If I'm reading this correct. UPS has over 250 PFE's, that's alot of CA seats. Hell we have some in there mid 70's! They won't leave. Since their still on property, can't they Bid for CA as long as their under 65?
01-13-2007 | 07:28 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
From: A300 F/O
Not every over 60 FE will (or may want) to go back to a front seat depending on their age AND if their company allows it.
Example: A 63 yr old FE wants to go back up front. Well, he's got less than 2 years before he's forced BACK to the FE seat and say if the company will train him 12-18 months down the road.....he's not useful to the company for such a short period.
And then the company has to retrain him again IF he/she want's to camp out beyond 65 as a FE...........what a mess.
Probably a lot of passover pay possibilities.........
The lawyers and management are going to love sorting this cr@p out IF it gets approved. But it's not happening tomorrow so put your geriatric party hats back in storage for a while, probably a few years!
Example: A 63 yr old FE wants to go back up front. Well, he's got less than 2 years before he's forced BACK to the FE seat and say if the company will train him 12-18 months down the road.....he's not useful to the company for such a short period.
And then the company has to retrain him again IF he/she want's to camp out beyond 65 as a FE...........what a mess.
Probably a lot of passover pay possibilities.........The lawyers and management are going to love sorting this cr@p out IF it gets approved. But it's not happening tomorrow so put your geriatric party hats back in storage for a while, probably a few years!
Last edited by sandman2122; 01-13-2007 at 08:12 AM.
01-13-2007 | 02:16 PM
#14
With The Resistance
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,191
Likes: 0
From: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
The younger pilots at Airlines with FE's are really going to take a hit from this. Because the FE's are still employed by the Airlines. If I'm reading this correct. UPS has over 250 PFE's, that's alot of CA seats. Hell we have some in there mid 70's! They won't leave. Since their still on property, can't they Bid for CA as long as their under 65?
Many of the former Captains at UPS have moved to the back with hopes of being a Captain again. It seems unlikely that they would get to escape the no retroactive part of the FAA rule, if that is actually how the rule is written, whether they are on the property or not. On the other hand, the FE positions have been a very good deal for those already over 60 pilots.
01-13-2007 | 02:23 PM
#15
APC co-founder
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,853
Likes: 0
From: B777
There are two parts to this gig. FAA change of ruling. AND then most importantly, is called "Statutory Legislation" from Congress which protects the unions and corporate structures. Airlines do not want the 63 yr old Captain showing back up saying "Here I am, I'm ready for training!"
01-13-2007 | 04:54 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,717
Likes: 0
From: Retired
I believe there was specific language in the original bill that did not allow a pilot who has already left the property, to have rights to their old job back. I assume that you are referring to that with your above quote. As far as someone who is still on the property, well then, that's a different matter. If the law is 65, then, anyone should be able to hold any seat their seniority will allow. If the company has different ideas, then that person should be compensated accordingly, under the law. So at 63 if a guy can hold left seat, but the company doesn't want to invest the time and money to train him, that's fine. However, he should be paid as if he were holding that seat, i.e. passover pay. IMHO!
01-13-2007 | 04:59 PM
#18
APC co-founder
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,853
Likes: 0
From: B777
I agree, as I understand it the statutory legislation that would be part of S 65 would prevent previously retired pilots from returning to work. In your example, it sounds like a modification to the CBA.
01-13-2007 | 05:19 PM
#19
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 2
From: FO, looking left
1) Stagnate growth for a long time
2) Cause pilots to be displaced (widebody to narrowbody, or captain to FO)
If there are 250 over 60 FE's at UPS, it seems to me that would cause displacements. Does anyone have an opinion as to whether option #1 or option #2 are more likely.
01-13-2007 | 05:42 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 675
Likes: 0
Good point. That really sucks for anyone working at FedEx, UPS, and other major cargo airlines with over 60 flight engineers. Do you think this will either:
1) Stagnate growth for a long time
2) Cause pilots to be displaced (widebody to narrowbody, or captain to FO)
If there are 250 over 60 FE's at UPS, it seems to me that would cause displacements. Does anyone have an opinion as to whether option #1 or option #2 are more likely.
1) Stagnate growth for a long time
2) Cause pilots to be displaced (widebody to narrowbody, or captain to FO)
If there are 250 over 60 FE's at UPS, it seems to me that would cause displacements. Does anyone have an opinion as to whether option #1 or option #2 are more likely.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
