Senators introduce Age 67 Legislation
04-02-2023, 09:35 AM
#371
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,550
There is no "no furlough" precedent.
1. Covid, CARES act. Airlines were paid to not furlough.
2. Hypothetical 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 recession that everybody keeps talking about. I don't think the big guys will furlough for a mild slowdown/recession due to all of the retirements. They don't want to put their training pipeline into reverse, and be unable to respond to demand recovery. But that's just this one time due to massive retirements.
At some point 5+ years into the future, furloughs will probably be back on the table if circumstances warrant. But for the time being, enjoy some unprecedented career stability.
04-02-2023, 09:52 AM
#373
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 3,200
There is no "no furlough" precedent.
1. Covid, CARES act. Airlines were paid to not furlough.
2. Hypothetical 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 recession that everybody keeps talking about. I don't think the big guys will furlough for a mild slowdown/recession due to all of the retirements. They don't want to put their training pipeline into reverse, and be unable to respond to demand recovery. But that's just this one time due to massive retirements.
At some point 5+ years into the future, furloughs will probably be back on the table if circumstances warrant. But for the time being, enjoy some unprecedented career stability.
1. Covid, CARES act. Airlines were paid to not furlough.
2. Hypothetical 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 recession that everybody keeps talking about. I don't think the big guys will furlough for a mild slowdown/recession due to all of the retirements. They don't want to put their training pipeline into reverse, and be unable to respond to demand recovery. But that's just this one time due to massive retirements.
At some point 5+ years into the future, furloughs will probably be back on the table if circumstances warrant. But for the time being, enjoy some unprecedented career stability.
04-02-2023, 10:14 AM
#374
On Reserve
Joined APC: Oct 2020
Posts: 10
It's really comical how the 63-65 year old crowd desperately pushing this narrative, who represent a small minority of every pilot group, keep telling everyone else how this is no big deal and we should just suck it up and deal with it.
They would reap a windfall from this, and I guess money makes people do strange things. Kind of like when they tried to torpedo C2019 because they didn't get full retirement restoration.
They didn't get away with that, and they won't get away with this. Watching them go from get rich quick scheme to get rich quick scheme is actually kind of pathetic.
Let's remember these are people who already make $500,000 a year but it's just not enough for them. They deserve 2 more years and screw everyone else. They benefited from Age 60 most of their careers but now that they are on top they deserve more.
Yawn.
They would reap a windfall from this, and I guess money makes people do strange things. Kind of like when they tried to torpedo C2019 because they didn't get full retirement restoration.
They didn't get away with that, and they won't get away with this. Watching them go from get rich quick scheme to get rich quick scheme is actually kind of pathetic.
Let's remember these are people who already make $500,000 a year but it's just not enough for them. They deserve 2 more years and screw everyone else. They benefited from Age 60 most of their careers but now that they are on top they deserve more.
Yawn.
Just to lend some perspective, 9/11 combined with a recession, company bankruptcy, and the retirement age changing to 65, resulting in 5 years of furlough and upgrade times of 15 years and more were the reality for my seniority group. That might be called a black swan event, or maybe just life and bad timing. Whether or not 65 to 67 makes sense as a pilot shortage response, it's preposterous to claim it would be more than a minor bump in the road for someone hired anytime lately.
*****ing and moaning is every pilot's natural prerogative, but your lack of perspective and obvious disdain for anyone who is older and/or has a different opinion show a distinct lack of maturity.
04-02-2023, 10:23 AM
#375
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,252
Wow, as someone else pointed out, you are just spoiling for a fight. I'm guessing you're not like this in real life.
Just to lend some perspective, 9/11 combined with a recession, company bankruptcy, and the retirement age changing to 65, resulting in 5 years of furlough and upgrade times of 15 years and more were the reality for my seniority group. That might be called a black swan event, or maybe just life and bad timing. Whether or not 65 to 67 makes sense as a pilot shortage response, it's preposterous to claim it would be more than a minor bump in the road for someone hired anytime lately.
*****ing and moaning is every pilot's natural prerogative, but your lack of perspective and obvious disdain for anyone who is older and/or has a different opinion show a distinct lack of maturity.
Just to lend some perspective, 9/11 combined with a recession, company bankruptcy, and the retirement age changing to 65, resulting in 5 years of furlough and upgrade times of 15 years and more were the reality for my seniority group. That might be called a black swan event, or maybe just life and bad timing. Whether or not 65 to 67 makes sense as a pilot shortage response, it's preposterous to claim it would be more than a minor bump in the road for someone hired anytime lately.
*****ing and moaning is every pilot's natural prerogative, but your lack of perspective and obvious disdain for anyone who is older and/or has a different opinion show a distinct lack of maturity.
04-02-2023, 10:32 AM
#376
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2021
Posts: 598
Wow, as someone else pointed out, you are just spoiling for a fight. I'm guessing you're not like this in real life.
Just to lend some perspective, 9/11 combined with a recession, company bankruptcy, and the retirement age changing to 65, resulting in 5 years of furlough and upgrade times of 15 years and more were the reality for my seniority group. That might be called a black swan event, or maybe just life and bad timing. Whether or not 65 to 67 makes sense as a pilot shortage response, it's preposterous to claim it would be more than a minor bump in the road for someone hired anytime lately.
*****ing and moaning is every pilot's natural prerogative, but your lack of perspective and obvious disdain for anyone who is older and/or has a different opinion show a distinct lack of maturity.
Just to lend some perspective, 9/11 combined with a recession, company bankruptcy, and the retirement age changing to 65, resulting in 5 years of furlough and upgrade times of 15 years and more were the reality for my seniority group. That might be called a black swan event, or maybe just life and bad timing. Whether or not 65 to 67 makes sense as a pilot shortage response, it's preposterous to claim it would be more than a minor bump in the road for someone hired anytime lately.
*****ing and moaning is every pilot's natural prerogative, but your lack of perspective and obvious disdain for anyone who is older and/or has a different opinion show a distinct lack of maturity.
Do whatever you like, but don't kid yourself into thinking greenslipping helps anyone but yourself and the company. It didn't bring back a single pilot in almost 5 years last time around. On the other hand, having to cancel flights because they can't find pilots who are legal and willing to answer the phone would definitely help. Make your choices, but don't try to rationalize that you're helping the furloughees.
I've read it. It details how the MINIMUM number of regular and reserve pilots required may ultimately be affected slightly by premium flying, after a 12-month look back. This assumes the company is running at contractual minimum. When the furlough is over, I predict not one pilot will have been recalled early due to guys flying GS. As I said, do what you like. DALPA can't tell you what you should do, and I certainly am not telling you what to do. I just dislike guys twisting a snippet about PBS contractual staffing formulas into "The union told me flying GS would help the furloughees." I'm out.
Obviously this is a troll account you're posting from. And perhaps you think you've solved some riddle of my identity and you're hinting that you may doxx me. Well have at it. But no, I'm not like this in real life. That's the fun of the interwebs. And face it, we're all here because it's entertaining, and we're bored. But yeah, I'm not in favor of extending the retirement age in real life either.
04-02-2023, 10:41 AM
#377
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2021
Posts: 598
Wow, as someone else pointed out, you are just spoiling for a fight. I'm guessing you're not like this in real life.
Just to lend some perspective, 9/11 combined with a recession, company bankruptcy, and the retirement age changing to 65, resulting in 5 years of furlough and upgrade times of 15 years and more were the reality for my seniority group. That might be called a black swan event, or maybe just life and bad timing. Whether or not 65 to 67 makes sense as a pilot shortage response, it's preposterous to claim it would be more than a minor bump in the road for someone hired anytime lately.
*****ing and moaning is every pilot's natural prerogative, but your lack of perspective and obvious disdain for anyone who is older and/or has a different opinion show a distinct lack of maturity.
Just to lend some perspective, 9/11 combined with a recession, company bankruptcy, and the retirement age changing to 65, resulting in 5 years of furlough and upgrade times of 15 years and more were the reality for my seniority group. That might be called a black swan event, or maybe just life and bad timing. Whether or not 65 to 67 makes sense as a pilot shortage response, it's preposterous to claim it would be more than a minor bump in the road for someone hired anytime lately.
*****ing and moaning is every pilot's natural prerogative, but your lack of perspective and obvious disdain for anyone who is older and/or has a different opinion show a distinct lack of maturity.
Do whatever you like, but don't kid yourself into thinking greenslipping helps anyone but yourself and the company. It didn't bring back a single pilot in almost 5 years last time around. On the other hand, having to cancel flights because they can't find pilots who are legal and willing to answer the phone would definitely help. Make your choices, but don't try to rationalize that you're helping the furloughees.
I've read it. It details how the MINIMUM number of regular and reserve pilots required may ultimately be affected slightly by premium flying, after a 12-month look back. This assumes the company is running at contractual minimum. When the furlough is over, I predict not one pilot will have been recalled early due to guys flying GS. As I said, do what you like. DALPA can't tell you what you should do, and I certainly am not telling you what to do. I just dislike guys twisting a snippet about PBS contractual staffing formulas into "The union told me flying GS would help the furloughees." I'm out.
Since you couldn't attack my message, you chose to attack me with your troll account. And since you're making sweeping generalizations about my character, No, I'm not like this in real life. I'm actually pretty chill. But hey, this is the internet, and we're all here for entertainment, amiright? I suspect if I was posting in favor of this issue near and dear to your heart, you wouldn't be defaming my character like you are, with this thinly veiled threat to doxx me, but here we are.
Nevertheless, in real life, yes, I'm opposed to raising the retirement age.
04-02-2023, 11:49 AM
#378
Can’t find crew pickup
Joined APC: Jun 2021
Posts: 2,048
04-02-2023, 12:36 PM
#379
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 3,200
I have been getting e-mails asking if I'm interested in being a sim instructor at Delta. Not my cup of tea. I'm not even interested in flying longer even if it would be/have been be available.
SO,.....Let's try something constructive
Since some will call their reps/legislators for a "Yes" push and some for a "No" push....we know the politicians will go with whatever buys them the most votes, unintended consequences be damned. As some have said, this won't save Delta any money(opinion) and will probably cost money without solving anything. Therefore be it resolved "we" want to be proactive to address the age 67 rule IF implemented.
Since contracts/LOA's protect people ON the seniority list, let's see what we can come up with.
New hires (since ratification) have no furlough protection. That number keeps growing every week.
A precedent has been set for carveouts previously with the age 65. Let's think about carve out's here for a win/win/win.
How about at age 65(even though the official FAA age gets increased to 67), a pilot can flow back to the bottom of the seniority list if he hasn't had a break in service, or he has to retire. (Think short course/expedited training). Any pilot that has left the seniority list at date of age 76 implementation has no "flow" back rights. Any new pilot hired by Delta will have furlough protection at date if signing of LOA and anybody subsequently hired will have a pay protection of 35% pay plus DC plus profit sharing if they are furloughed.
There, winner winner chicken dinner...unless people really believe the "safety" issue. That might be a slippery slope because if more stringent measures are adapted in the name of safety for the 65-67 a valid argument could be made that they should apply to all(OH NO!, we can't have that, I might lose MY medical!)
Fire away. I just think it prudent to have a fall back plan to protect the delta pilots from pilots being able to come back after leaving 65-67 and to extract a "protection" in lieu of(in case of) furloughs.
I'd be more inclined to contact my rep with something like this that can possibly be controlled as opposed to something that can't(especially if it's a rider to must pass legislation)
SO,.....Let's try something constructive
Since some will call their reps/legislators for a "Yes" push and some for a "No" push....we know the politicians will go with whatever buys them the most votes, unintended consequences be damned. As some have said, this won't save Delta any money(opinion) and will probably cost money without solving anything. Therefore be it resolved "we" want to be proactive to address the age 67 rule IF implemented.
Since contracts/LOA's protect people ON the seniority list, let's see what we can come up with.
New hires (since ratification) have no furlough protection. That number keeps growing every week.
A precedent has been set for carveouts previously with the age 65. Let's think about carve out's here for a win/win/win.
How about at age 65(even though the official FAA age gets increased to 67), a pilot can flow back to the bottom of the seniority list if he hasn't had a break in service, or he has to retire. (Think short course/expedited training). Any pilot that has left the seniority list at date of age 76 implementation has no "flow" back rights. Any new pilot hired by Delta will have furlough protection at date if signing of LOA and anybody subsequently hired will have a pay protection of 35% pay plus DC plus profit sharing if they are furloughed.
There, winner winner chicken dinner...unless people really believe the "safety" issue. That might be a slippery slope because if more stringent measures are adapted in the name of safety for the 65-67 a valid argument could be made that they should apply to all(OH NO!, we can't have that, I might lose MY medical!)
Fire away. I just think it prudent to have a fall back plan to protect the delta pilots from pilots being able to come back after leaving 65-67 and to extract a "protection" in lieu of(in case of) furloughs.
I'd be more inclined to contact my rep with something like this that can possibly be controlled as opposed to something that can't(especially if it's a rider to must pass legislation)
04-02-2023, 12:51 PM
#380
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2019
Posts: 205
How about at age 65(even though the official FAA age gets increased to 67), a pilot can flow back to the bottom of the seniority list if he hasn't had a break in service, or he has to retire. (Think short course/expedited training). Any pilot that has left the seniority list at date of age 76 implementation has no "flow" back rights. Any new pilot hired by Delta will have furlough protection at date if signing of LOA and anybody subsequently hired will have a pay protection of 35% pay plus DC plus profit sharing if they are furloughed.
Why would the middle 90% of the seniority list go for that?
there's already a precedent of ALPA negotiating to prevent furloughs...which was probably a bad precedent, but it's there. why in the world would anyone think attaching it to Age 67 is necessary?
I'm just not seeing any winning there at all.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
