APA pilots, no to age 60.
03-15-2007, 02:55 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 652
[QUOTE=FliFast;133974]
Flifast,
I agree with you, and as you know now I do not agree with the way the APA treated you. I also have some reservations in the way the BOD conducts themsleves now.
However, it is promising to see the union ask "what the membership" wants and then pursue that regardless of what the leaders want.
I wish that they had asked the membership what we thought of the integration of our pilot group. I KNOW many would have asked for something better than you receieved.
I fear that age 60 will vanish in the next 2 years, however I posted this more for "an exrecise in unionism" This is what the membership wants, this is what we will do.
If it were only that simple for everything else.
Best,
AAflyer
Originally Posted by AAflyer
It may be ****ing in the wind, but we will conintue the fight. While I have my issues with APA, they decided to POLL the membership for a current look at what the MEMBERSHIP wants. They now knkow what the majority wants and will represent them.
AA,
I could not agree with you more. The APA represents the interests of it's membership-the line pilots-and in effect is the mouthpiece of it membership...a textbook definition of what a union is.
It is noted that you may not agree with the APA, but you are 120% correct, they know what the majority wants and they have represented them in their actions.
I only bring this up because, like you, I have issues with the APA. In fact, as a former TWA pilot, I don't agree with anything the APA has done to me. But like you said, their actions may not find you personally in agreement; however, their actions represent the majority of the AA pilots.
Good luck in your fight.
AA,
I could not agree with you more. The APA represents the interests of it's membership-the line pilots-and in effect is the mouthpiece of it membership...a textbook definition of what a union is.
It is noted that you may not agree with the APA, but you are 120% correct, they know what the majority wants and they have represented them in their actions.
I only bring this up because, like you, I have issues with the APA. In fact, as a former TWA pilot, I don't agree with anything the APA has done to me. But like you said, their actions may not find you personally in agreement; however, their actions represent the majority of the AA pilots.
Good luck in your fight.
Flifast,
I agree with you, and as you know now I do not agree with the way the APA treated you. I also have some reservations in the way the BOD conducts themsleves now.
However, it is promising to see the union ask "what the membership" wants and then pursue that regardless of what the leaders want.
I wish that they had asked the membership what we thought of the integration of our pilot group. I KNOW many would have asked for something better than you receieved.
I fear that age 60 will vanish in the next 2 years, however I posted this more for "an exrecise in unionism" This is what the membership wants, this is what we will do.
If it were only that simple for everything else.
Best,
AAflyer
03-15-2007, 03:02 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,902
I don't work for American, and therefore, they don't dictate the desires for those pilots who desire to fly beyond 60. In response to the statement that, pilots flying beyond age 60 is tantamount to an experiment in public transportation is a load of crap. Take a gander across the pond. So far there has not been one recorded incident involving any crewmember over the age of 60.
Bottom line… if the airman can pass his first class medical then let him continue to enjoy his or her livelihood. Pairing issues in Europe are such that there are no two airmen over the age of 60 in the cockpit at the same time.
If the mandatory retirement age is raised to age 65, each union has the right, by vote to keep the retirement age for their group to 60.
There is a financial consideration for those airlines that currently maintain defined benefit plans, by creating unfunded liabilities for those pilots who desire to work beyond 60.
Not every pilot wants to work beyond 60. In the long run do you really think it will delay the upgrade of F/Os to the left seat?
Bottom line… if the airman can pass his first class medical then let him continue to enjoy his or her livelihood. Pairing issues in Europe are such that there are no two airmen over the age of 60 in the cockpit at the same time.
If the mandatory retirement age is raised to age 65, each union has the right, by vote to keep the retirement age for their group to 60.
There is a financial consideration for those airlines that currently maintain defined benefit plans, by creating unfunded liabilities for those pilots who desire to work beyond 60.
Not every pilot wants to work beyond 60. In the long run do you really think it will delay the upgrade of F/Os to the left seat?
03-15-2007, 03:07 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 652
Originally Posted by captjns
I don't work for American, and therefore, they don't dictate the desires for those pilots who desire to fly beyond 60. In response to the statement that, pilots flying beyond age 60 is tantamount to an experiment in public transportation is a load of crap. Take a gander across the pond. So far there has not been one recorded incident involving any crewmember over the age of 60.
Bottom line… if the airman can pass his first class medical then let him continue to enjoy his or her livelihood. Pairing issues in Europe are such that there are no two airmen over the age of 60 in the cockpit at the same time.
If the mandatory retirement age is raised to age 65, each union has the right, by vote to keep the retirement age for their group to 60.
There is a financial consideration for those airlines that currently maintain defined benefit plans, by creating unfunded liabilities for those pilots who desire to work beyond 60.
Not every pilot wants to work beyond 60. In the long run do you really think it will delay the upgrade of F/Os to the left seat?
Bottom line… if the airman can pass his first class medical then let him continue to enjoy his or her livelihood. Pairing issues in Europe are such that there are no two airmen over the age of 60 in the cockpit at the same time.
If the mandatory retirement age is raised to age 65, each union has the right, by vote to keep the retirement age for their group to 60.
There is a financial consideration for those airlines that currently maintain defined benefit plans, by creating unfunded liabilities for those pilots who desire to work beyond 60.
Not every pilot wants to work beyond 60. In the long run do you really think it will delay the upgrade of F/Os to the left seat?
Like I said earlier, if the union was able to leave the pension and retirement benefits fixed to age 60, that may help.
AAflyer
Yes, I think you will see stagantion in the right seat, it will vary from company to company. It will probably be worse at companies who have shed their pensions in the BK.
03-15-2007, 03:12 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,902
Originally Posted by AAflyer
If each union had the right to require a 60 age retirement don't you think that would be over turned by a court? That would appear to be real age discrimination.
Like I said earlier, if the union was able to leave the pension and retirement benefits fixed to age 60, that may help.
AAflyer
Yes, I think you will see stagantion in the right seat, it will vary from company to company. It will probably be worse at companies who have shed their pensions in the BK.
Like I said earlier, if the union was able to leave the pension and retirement benefits fixed to age 60, that may help.
AAflyer
Yes, I think you will see stagantion in the right seat, it will vary from company to company. It will probably be worse at companies who have shed their pensions in the BK.
I agree about the stagnation concept especially with those airlines that have no retirement benefits. If retirement benefits are frozen at age 60 with no further contribution, that would probably give current pilots the incentive to retire.
03-15-2007, 03:22 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Hooray for APA
Good. Lets keep the opposition to this rule change strong. The more the opposition, the longer it will take to implement this pig. And every day, more guys fly that final flight. I was just in ops signing a retirement pic earlier today.
03-15-2007, 03:22 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: I was acquired, Not Hired
Posts: 1,784
AA,
I appreciate your candor. But I will hold your feet to the fire, one last time, then drop it. If the membership was asked how to integrate the TWA pilots, how do you think the list would have been merged, and why has their not been any attempt, a grassroots attempt, by the line pilots to demand a change to the integration. I ask both of these rhetorically, but will interject, that the lack of opposition by the NAAtive American rank-n-file to demand recourse is perceived by the former TWA pilot, rank-n-file as passive support for the horrific intergration. Furthermore, if you want to open a can of worms, look how the NAAtive American Flight Attendants treated their TWA counterparts, all but fired them. In July 08' when their recall rights expire, I would bet my tuna fish sandwich that AA will start to hire F/As.
AA, you seem like a decent guy and accept my apology for hijacking this thread. But many of us wish, the APA would expend a tenth of the energy used towards the age 60 fight, towards righting the seniority lists. In two to four years when all the staplees are back, you can only imagine the hate and discontent that will be part of YOUR work environment. I think if the APA has an sincere interest in YOUR safety, it will start today in righting the wrong before their seeds of hatred fully blossom. The division and mistrust that will flourish between the recalled staplees and their counterparts is both a safety and unionism concern that, IMHO, is just as interesting as the age 60 rule.
We will see if the APA comes forward with letter writing campaigns and the like to oppose the integration, or if they will passively support Supp CC by telling everyone how bad it is but do nothing about it.
Back to your topic...........again, Best of Luck.
I appreciate your candor. But I will hold your feet to the fire, one last time, then drop it. If the membership was asked how to integrate the TWA pilots, how do you think the list would have been merged, and why has their not been any attempt, a grassroots attempt, by the line pilots to demand a change to the integration. I ask both of these rhetorically, but will interject, that the lack of opposition by the NAAtive American rank-n-file to demand recourse is perceived by the former TWA pilot, rank-n-file as passive support for the horrific intergration. Furthermore, if you want to open a can of worms, look how the NAAtive American Flight Attendants treated their TWA counterparts, all but fired them. In July 08' when their recall rights expire, I would bet my tuna fish sandwich that AA will start to hire F/As.
AA, you seem like a decent guy and accept my apology for hijacking this thread. But many of us wish, the APA would expend a tenth of the energy used towards the age 60 fight, towards righting the seniority lists. In two to four years when all the staplees are back, you can only imagine the hate and discontent that will be part of YOUR work environment. I think if the APA has an sincere interest in YOUR safety, it will start today in righting the wrong before their seeds of hatred fully blossom. The division and mistrust that will flourish between the recalled staplees and their counterparts is both a safety and unionism concern that, IMHO, is just as interesting as the age 60 rule.
We will see if the APA comes forward with letter writing campaigns and the like to oppose the integration, or if they will passively support Supp CC by telling everyone how bad it is but do nothing about it.
Back to your topic...........again, Best of Luck.
03-15-2007, 03:43 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 652
Flifast,
Arbitration would have been the way to go. Period. There are too many ifs and buts. If 9/11 hadn't happened. If we had continued to grow, etc. etc. Each group (majority) will always want to preserve what they have. Select groups on each side will always want to take advantage of a situation to suit themselves.
It is hard to say how many would agree with me, howeve I know a few and we seem to think along the same lines. In all honsety I can tell you shortly after the announced intergration I dealt with twins being born, a long divorce, fear of being furloughed and an immediate resume update and job search.
As time has passed an events in my personal life have calmed down I have had the oppotunity to fly with and discuss the past events of our two airlines. I have talked to captains and fos (formerly captains), Ozark ,and orginal Red. I have made friends, and learned much. I have heard everything from "we at TWA got screwed) to some who have said they expected less. Some who said (living in STL) there lives and current position never changed or were affected. I actually had a few say they were in the process of leaving and this worked out better than they expected.
I would not personally be able to formulate an integration list here with out the ability to go back and look at everything. A way to protect both sides. AA has a horrible history of purchasing airlines and dumping them.
I think what happened to the FAs was horrible, and you are probably correct about hiring next year after there recall rights expire. I am still not sure how the handful that are furlughed would truly effect the bottomline of a company which does 21 BILLION in revenue.
I guess in the end after blabbing on and on I would say again arbitration, and would need a little time to think of an appropriate way to address the TWA guys coming back (there treatment) and how to move forward. I will get back to you on that.
Regards, and thanks for being professional,
AAflyer
I thought of PMing you, but think it is important for you to know I will say the same thing to you in private as I would say on a public forum. I have ben bitten by both sides. I have been told by some of my peers that I have the Stolkhom Syndrome for relating to your pilot group, and some former TW guys who hate all things AA regardless of our support of them.
Arbitration would have been the way to go. Period. There are too many ifs and buts. If 9/11 hadn't happened. If we had continued to grow, etc. etc. Each group (majority) will always want to preserve what they have. Select groups on each side will always want to take advantage of a situation to suit themselves.
It is hard to say how many would agree with me, howeve I know a few and we seem to think along the same lines. In all honsety I can tell you shortly after the announced intergration I dealt with twins being born, a long divorce, fear of being furloughed and an immediate resume update and job search.
As time has passed an events in my personal life have calmed down I have had the oppotunity to fly with and discuss the past events of our two airlines. I have talked to captains and fos (formerly captains), Ozark ,and orginal Red. I have made friends, and learned much. I have heard everything from "we at TWA got screwed) to some who have said they expected less. Some who said (living in STL) there lives and current position never changed or were affected. I actually had a few say they were in the process of leaving and this worked out better than they expected.
I would not personally be able to formulate an integration list here with out the ability to go back and look at everything. A way to protect both sides. AA has a horrible history of purchasing airlines and dumping them.
I think what happened to the FAs was horrible, and you are probably correct about hiring next year after there recall rights expire. I am still not sure how the handful that are furlughed would truly effect the bottomline of a company which does 21 BILLION in revenue.
I guess in the end after blabbing on and on I would say again arbitration, and would need a little time to think of an appropriate way to address the TWA guys coming back (there treatment) and how to move forward. I will get back to you on that.
Regards, and thanks for being professional,
AAflyer
I thought of PMing you, but think it is important for you to know I will say the same thing to you in private as I would say on a public forum. I have ben bitten by both sides. I have been told by some of my peers that I have the Stolkhom Syndrome for relating to your pilot group, and some former TW guys who hate all things AA regardless of our support of them.
Last edited by AAflyer; 03-15-2007 at 03:55 PM.
03-15-2007, 03:53 PM
#18
Ben Salley
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Left
Posts: 924
Originally Posted by AAflyer
It may be ****ing in the wind, but we will conintue the fight. While I have my issues with APA, they decided to POLL the membership for a current look at what the MEMBERSHIP wants. They now knkow what the majority wants and will represent them.
A little more than ALPA and the "blue ribbon panel".
AAflyer
A little more than ALPA and the "blue ribbon panel".
AAflyer
03-15-2007, 04:12 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Posts: 423
Here's my worthless prediction: Age 65 will pass. Medical retirements will increase at AA, NWA, FDX, and UPS as the pensions are intact ... it might be as simple as placing a tack in your shoe and poking yourself while you take an EKG to get abnormal readings (just a theory). 
I don't believe a ton of guys are going to hang around past sixty. A lot of people did have their pensions wiped out or dumped and didn't have a personal 401k or other retirement vessel. A lot of guys did prepare for retirement apart from their company and don't want to be anywhere near Jet A past 60. I myself hope to be amuck in America in a Prevost, but it'll probably be a used Winnebago.
Tom
http://www.prevostluxurycoach.com/gallery.html
DSC00115.jpg
I don't believe a ton of guys are going to hang around past sixty. A lot of people did have their pensions wiped out or dumped and didn't have a personal 401k or other retirement vessel. A lot of guys did prepare for retirement apart from their company and don't want to be anywhere near Jet A past 60. I myself hope to be amuck in America in a Prevost, but it'll probably be a used Winnebago.
Tom
http://www.prevostluxurycoach.com/gallery.html
DSC00115.jpg
Last edited by NGINEWHOISWHAT; 03-15-2007 at 04:19 PM.
03-15-2007, 04:14 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: B727
Posts: 194
Originally Posted by AAflyer
Hmm...need to have one pilot below the age of 60 to fly with one older...Hmmm why.... I don't know, but that has nothing to due with safety.
AAflyer
Oh ya, I almost forgot the other line.... Well the airlines will give up all that experience and these copilots (sitting the co-pilots seat for 10-20 years) just don;t have the experience to do my job (senior captain)...yawn..
AAflyer
AAflyer
Oh ya, I almost forgot the other line.... Well the airlines will give up all that experience and these copilots (sitting the co-pilots seat for 10-20 years) just don;t have the experience to do my job (senior captain)...yawn..
AAflyerThe one thing that really chaps me about this whole debate is the BS BOTH SIDES are using to try to place the emphasis on safety. Admit it: the whole argument is about MONEY. The young guys want it. The old guys want it. The only valid argument is, is it fair to force an individual to retire based solely on his age. All the rest is smoke and mirrors. Is an old guy with 20,000 hours safer than a less old guy with 12,000 hours? Probably not. There's no scientific support for that, anyway. Is a less old guy with 12,000 hours safer than an old guy with 20,000 hours? Probably not. There's no scientific support for that, either.
Last edited by org1; 03-15-2007 at 04:23 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
