FDXer

Yeah right! Age 65 is fair, unbiased, and with merit...give me a break. No matter what the age is, someone will always say it's unfair.

paladin

Yep, to a large extent it is about money. It's about the junior guys attempting to force the more experienced aviators to retirement so they can progress a little faster. One thing about life, change is inevitable, so get used to the new retirement age because that train has left the station. Besides where in the "flight manual of life" does it say life is always fair. The industry has been forced to live for over 40 years with the archaic "age 60 rule" and now it is a new day. Make no mistake when I have had my 60th birthday I will turn to my FO and say "don't despair one day you will have all this".

Age 70 anyone

rickair7777

The are a variety of provisions in the bill to prevent age 60 - 64.9 retirees from coming back to their previous position (they could still interview and start all over at the bottom). These provisions are not intended to protect yonger pilots from downgrade, they protect airlines from training costs and high-longevity pilots....$$$$$.

You cannot successfully sue an individual or company who is acting in accordance with federal law. You could sue and have the case dismissed, and then launch an appeal, but the appeal has no possibility of success until all lower court appeals are exhuasted and you reach the supreme court. The supremes could find the law unconstitional, but it still wouldn't do you any good...

1) By the time the case made it through the sytem to that point, all those over-60 plaintifs would be over 65...and no longer eligible for rehire.

2) They could not sue for lost wages, because the companies were acting in accordance with valid federal law at that time...if the law is later overturned the companies cannot be held responsible for obeying it while it was valid, they had no legal choice.

I doubt any attorney would touch it.

CactusCrew

I agree with everything you said except the last part ...

Later, Brown CC

Deez340

True, but if competently challenged, this remedy won't stand up. Actually, let me take that back. Age 60, and age 65 for that matter, are blatant equal protection clause violators and age 60 withstood several challenges in the past. Although I think they were based on running afoul of the ADA act and not the constitution.

rickair7777

They would if you paid them by the hour...out of your pocket. They wouldn't go for the usual deal of contingency / 30% of the take...the only possible defendent would be the US governemnt. Odds are very, very poor on getting monetary damages from the fed based on a law passed by congress.

Invisible Man

No, YOU will not decide the proper time and place "to move on and enjoy life". It's now 65. Then you get kicked out like it or not. No choice. How can you say 65 is now fair, your are still being forced out? I don't get it.
IM

Futureman

You benefited from age 60, and now you will benefit from 65. You don't care that it screws every pilot who is not a captain at a major, and every future pilot. Don't pretend to support this for any reason other than your own selfish interests.

EagleDriver

Not to a "large extent", it's "totally" about money. It just comes down to who wins and who loses. You may actually believe you win this time but if you actually stay to 65 or as you wish 70 or beyond my guess is you'll end up losing in the big game of life. Your choice and the only reason I even care is because it's money out of my pocket. Remember, it's all about money.

It's an undisputed medical fact that the longer you work, the younger you'll die. Work 'til you die if you want, but that doesn't sound like you're really enjoying life from my perspective. If you must work until 65 either because you've (or your company) screwed up your finances or because work provides you with a reason to live the that's what you must do. Like you said, life is not fair. Sorry you've had so many setbacks in your life.

You won't need to turn to me and patronize me with a line like "one day you'll have all of this." Besides being a sappy comment and degrading at the same time, I won't have your seat when I'm 60 and won't need it. I seem to have planned for the unexpected or inevitable better than you have and I won't be working in my 60's. I was planning to retire by 55. Now I'll probably need to work 'til 57 or so. You see, I do enjoy life and will not work until I'm ready for the grave. See you on the slopes. Oops sorry, you'll be working! Have fun at work. (I'm laughing AT you, not WITH you)

paladin

It's obvious that you don't get it. I will decide the proper time to leave. It will be the proper time for me and now the rule is I have until age 65 to decide. I never said 65 is fair and I have never said 60 is unfair. It is what is and now I have 5 more years than I had planned. You are correct about one thing: I am still being forced out except now the only difference is it is 65 instead of 60.