AirBear

Have the moderators on the NJASAP message board had to engage auxiliary nuclear yet?
Not a lot of the pilots in the affected age group are on the message board, at least not when I was last on a few years ago. But I bet there's been some "lively" discussions over it.

FracCracka

Some of us uh “lurk” I think the kids are calling it.

Nice thing about flying with the younger crowd is they’re teaching this old dog some new tricks. Like how this interconnected web of information seems to work.

Did you know there’s cat pictures on this thing?

HeavyD

Now that the company has ****ed off 100 or so pilots I wonder what they will do with them on the road. I'm not questioning anyone's professionalism. There are reasons why corporate America let's people go at 1645 on Fridays.

GeeWizDriver

Plenty of cognitive dissonance.

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the perception of contradictory information, and the mental toll of it. Relevant items of information include a person's actions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, values, and things in the environment. Cognitive dissonance is typically experienced as psychological stress when persons participate in an action that goes against one or more of those things.[1] According to this theory, when two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people do all in their power to change them until they become consistent.[1][2] The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein the individual tries to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.

The reality doesn't match their belief of what the reality SHOULD be in their mind. So they rail against the reality. Which, in this case, ain't gonna change.

JMO127

Here's my take. Not that it matters but here goes. Take a look at this. https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/age-di...ent-act-1967It shall not be unlawful for an employer, employment agency, or labor organization-
(1) to take any action otherwise prohibited under subsections (a), (b), (c), or (e) of this section where age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the par*ticu*lar business, or where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age, or where such practices involve an employee in a workplace in a foreign country, and compliance with such subsections would cause such employer, or a corporation controlled by such employer, to violate the laws of the country in which such workplace is located;
I'm no lawyer, but I can read. The ADEA was signed in 1967 and as the above statement shows, they in fact CAN and fully intend to do so. Interpret what you wish, CBA or not. There is simply no case. The company can cite ICAO operations and the inability for said pilot to do his job. Canada and now the Bahamas are enforcing this. Mexico is an ICAO country but looks the other way for now. Many EU countries you cannot even over fly their airspace above the age of 65. Who is to say that they don't reduce the age to 65 when they no longer need those pilots. IF they choose to do so, the law is clearly (In my opinion) on their side. Further digging into the case law, you can see 6 previous cases, all of which dealt with aviation specific questions. Some appeared before SCOTUS, others before lower federal courts. ALL were either dismissed, or ruled for the defendant, not one for the plaintiff. (i.e. Southwest, Western Airlines v. Criswell, Kincheloe v. American Airlines, TWA v. Thurston, Ellis v. United Airlines, and so on.) If their union (NJASAP) chose to file a grievance (assuming there is one, or even a class action) I believe they will do so out of caution to prevent being opened up to any liability for inadequate representation of its member(s). Like it or not, this will be shot down by an arbitration attorney and that will be that. If I am wrong, I will publicly admit I missed something. Unfortunately, I don't believe this will be the case.

GeeWizDriver

The union has filed a class action grievance on behalf of the potentially affected pilots. I tend to agree with your assessment and I fear the wasted cost of lawyers and union reps taking this grievance to its inevitably failed conclusion.

AirBear

It'll be an interesting case. NetJets got congress to make the law. But then NetJets has to trigger it with the 1 year notice. They're not required to trigger it. But they did and come January 2024 those over 70 pilots are gone.
I agree NJASAP will most likely lose but it may not be a slam dunk. And they have to fight it to avoid a DFR lawsuit.