APA pilots, no to age 60.
03-15-2007 | 04:19 PM
#21
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
From: 737 F/O
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: Nov 2006
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Tom
03-15-2007 | 04:32 PM
#23
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
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: Jul 2006
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
From: Left Seat, Toyota Tacoma
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: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,617
Likes: 0
From: B-737 Pilot
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: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,949
Likes: 9
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: Mar 2005
Posts: 766
Likes: 0
From: 737NG CA
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
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
AA
03-16-2007 | 01:02 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
From: Z F/O
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: Aug 2006
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
From: B727
Sounds good to me. I've always felt it's a question of who's ox is being gored. I don't have a problem at all with the younger guys wanting the rule to continue as long as they don't snivel about safety. Same for us older guys. Anyone using safety as a factor for or against has no credibility as far as I'm concerned.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
