what are you, new? ALPA was against 65 until they saw the winds shift and then they were for it…so they’d have a seat at the table. It’s why 65 wasn’t retro active. This time around they’re pulling out all stops including outright lieing and demeaning a 1/3 of their membership.

 

less than 1. This is this year. Pay attention or be uninformed at your peril.

 

im pretty sure you know what I meant, but thanks for the grammar lesson Ken.

 

I like to think you intentionally included a few grammatical errors in this post. Kind of like you were mocking him, but I am not entirely sure that’s what is happening.

 

IT’s AgE DisCrimINaTiOn, BaRb!

 

Why would I say there is no pilot shortage if I knew what you meant? It’s a common lepper refrain.

 

What precedent is there for unions to take back members at their previous seniority at any level at any time for any reason unless wrongful termination?

ALPA shifted because 60-65 was before the 401k juice and the obvious fact 60 left a gaping whole to retirement income. Cognitive studies, discrimination, pilot shortages, were never the rationale. Why are they now?

 

Pretty sure once you get *******ked, you're no longer a virgin. In other words, "only once" happened in our lifetime and during many of our career spans while as an industry, we were also in a very bad place, at least from the profession point of view. It didn't stop them from changing the rules back then even with ALPA's support despite the membership wishes and initial opposition.

Why would this time be any different?

No. I expect ALPA opposition to remain in place until it becomes inevitable and then I expect them to change their tune to remain politically relevant.



Rick explained it rather nicely. If you say we're only gonna allow people currently under 23 to retire over 65 while anyone currently over 23 doesn't get to, it goes squarely against ADEA....

 

Has nothing to do with unions, not their call regardless.

It has to do with employers. There was never in history a circumstance like the change from 60 to 65 involving a government-mandated age limit, in any industry.

ALPA certainly thought there was a real risk of 60+ suing to be re-instated with seniority... they negotiated language in the law to specifically preclude that. I kind of hope they do the same this time, although the potential disruption was far greater back then with potentially five years worth of returns.

And the fact that everybody had just had their pensions canx.

IMO the government should have a concrete, empirical basis if they're going to limit our ability to earn a living.

Don't care about pilot shortage either way... it's not really the government's business to solve the pilot shortage for the benefit of the airlines, or to enhance it for the benefit of unions. Although in the event of a severe, sustained shortage that impacted the overall economy it might be reasonable for government to intervene... student loans, pilot academies, whatever. But not fiddling with an age limit supposedly established for safety.

 

Hog = Cranked
Pants = Shid
Barb = Left
New Balance = On
Age = Discriminated
Clibbins = Haddalayerdown