APA pilots, no to age 60.
03-15-2007, 04:19 PM
#21
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 F/O
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by FliFast
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.
03-15-2007, 04:22 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Posts: 423
Originally Posted by Cleared4Tkeoff
That sounds like a threat. Are you actually saying that once the former twa pilots return to the property they're going to wage some sort of campaign against the safety of the AA pilots?
Tom
03-15-2007, 04:32 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 652
Originally Posted by org1
I realize you might not have seen this question answered the other 15 or so times, but here it is again: the reason for the FO under 60 is politics; it's what it took to appease the nay sayers. This requirement too will pass a few years down the road.
The 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.
The 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.
The BS on both sides I certainly agree with! Which simply leads back to why change the rules we all knew existed when we started. If the pro 60 crowd is truly doing it to right the wrongs of the past, and only have honorable intentions then why not start the clock on all 121 or new ATP pilots from the day it is changed. NO windfalls to the old guys hanging out on the WBs.
After all the only way they got their WB captain's seat was because of retirements and age 60.
These are obviously personal views, so as you said. "The BS on both sides" is getting deep.
My orginal goal to this thread was more about unionism and having a specific group being polled and then having the union honor it's membership's wishes. I probably should have made that more clear.
Regards,
AAflyer
03-15-2007, 05:10 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Left Seat, Toyota Tacoma
Posts: 593
Interesting survey. I'm just curious--in light of the number of furloughed guys at AA (and the remaining guys who effectively got knocked several thousand rungs down the seniority ladder)--I'm not surprised that they'd like to keep the retirement age at 60. Bumping it up to 65 could keep them 5 or more years less senior.
Just a different way to look at things.
Riddler
Just a different way to look at things.
Riddler
03-15-2007, 07:51 PM
#25
AAmerican Way for AA Pay
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: B-737 Pilot
Posts: 1,617
Originally Posted by AAflyer
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.
03-16-2007, 02:56 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,889
I also think third party neutral binding (or whatever) arbitration would have been the fair way.... but you all already know that (see a certain thread on page 2... :-)
Flifast, regarding a revised integration, as I told you below, there just isn't enough support from most of the APA members to succeed.... and then they would have to get past the BOD. Although Flyer and myself share common views (I swear, that's all we share...) we are in the minority.
YES to age 60!
73
Flifast, regarding a revised integration, as I told you below, there just isn't enough support from most of the APA members to succeed.... and then they would have to get past the BOD. Although Flyer and myself share common views (I swear, that's all we share...) we are in the minority.
YES to age 60!
73
03-16-2007, 11:30 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 737NG CA
Posts: 766
Originally Posted by captjns
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.
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.
Individual MECs cannot override FAA rule or U.S. Law.
03-16-2007, 11:39 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 652
Originally Posted by Velocipede
The only way individual MECs will be able to "vote" to keep mandatory retirement at 60 is to maintain contractual language that allows pilots to take their retirement at 60 with no early retirement penalties.
Individual MECs cannot override FAA rule or U.S. Law.
Individual MECs cannot override FAA rule or U.S. Law.
AA
03-16-2007, 01:02 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: Z F/O
Posts: 213
Originally Posted by org1
I realize you might not have seen this question answered the other 15 or so times, but here it is again: the reason for the FO under 60 is politics; it's what it took to appease the nay sayers. This requirement too will pass a few years down the road.
The 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.
The 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.
03-16-2007, 02:17 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: B727
Posts: 194
Originally Posted by UPSAv8tr
I promise I won't use the "safety" argument as long as you promise you won't use the "age discrimination" argument. Your right its about $ on both sides.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
