Notices

Age 67 fallout

Old 09-13-2023, 06:43 AM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ugleeual's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: 767/757 CA
Posts: 2,663
Default

Originally Posted by cal73
I was under the impression that this would allow those that have already retired to come back to their original seniority. Is this correct? Also that 67 would add 2 years and until their 68th birthday. So essentially 3 years minus 1 day. Is this also correct?
it will be up to the individual airlines and the union contracts to decide “how”. Since our contract doesn’t have any clause specific to this situation my gut tells me they will have to be stapled and take new hire bids… until lawsuits and possible LOAs are finalized… which will take years.
ugleeual is offline  
Old 09-13-2023, 07:00 AM
  #22  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,777
Default

Originally Posted by Grumble
I love the “ICAO will do what we do” argument. Standby for disappointment.
It will happen most likely, and "relatively" quickly. But that's in bureaucratic terms... won't prevent a short-term mess or do much for the guys staring 65 in the face today.

Eventually there won't be a revolving door back to NB fleets for 65+. Too much cost and hassle for the industry, so the industry will fix ICAO, if ICAO doesn't fix itself. The US legacies are opposed for those reasons, but if age 67 passes, they aren't going to take it lying down.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 09-13-2023, 07:33 AM
  #23  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,777
Default

Originally Posted by Bahamasflyer
Read the language in the bill more closely. It specifically says that 1st class medical standards will not change.
The HR? Where does it say that?
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 09-13-2023, 07:53 AM
  #24  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,777
Default

Originally Posted by cal73
I was under the impression that this would allow those that have already retired to come back to their original seniority. Is this correct? Also that 67 would add 2 years and until their 68th birthday. So essentially 3 years minus 1 day. Is this also correct?
Both impressions are wrong.

There was some language thrown around the house to the effect of "shall not have reached 68th birthday", but the final approved HR simply takes existing laws and regs and replaces the number "65" with the number "67". So it adds exactly two years. All discussion in the senate has been for 67.

The language allows 65+ to return to 121 employment. It does not allow or authorize them to claim previous seniority. So just like last time, you can come back, but as a new hire. They might not even have to hire folks who cannot fly international. Maybe a small regional would have them. Might somebody file a lawsuit? Maybe. Would it affect any of us? Not a chance. Even if they won, it would take so long that they'd already be 67+ so worst case the airline would have to give them back pay. It would be a three-way goat rope between airlines, unions, and elders.

When age 65 was implemented, there was specific language to allow working crew-members who had already turned 60 to stay... basically so those sitting the panel could bid back into a pilot seat. Not great for juniors, but not unreasonable either. They didn't bother this time, too few FE's left.

Age 65 did have language specifically precluding those who were not a current crew member from returning except as a new hire. The absence of that language in the current HR does not grant re-reinstatement although it might make the lawsuit easier. Again, the lawsuit will take too long to matter to us.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 09-13-2023, 08:11 AM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
cal73's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 737 Captain
Posts: 867
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777
Both impressions are wrong.

There was some language thrown around the house to the effect of "shall not have reached 68th birthday", but the final approved HR simply takes existing laws and regs and replaces the number "65" with the number "67". So it adds exactly two years. All discussion in the senate has been for 67.

The language allows 65+ to return to 121 employment. It does not allow or authorize them to claim previous seniority. So just like last time, you can come back, but as a new hire. They might not even have to hire folks who cannot fly international. Maybe a small regional would have them. Might somebody file a lawsuit? Maybe. Would it affect any of us? Not a chance. Even if they won, it would take so long that they'd already be 67+ so worst case the airline would have to give them back pay. It would be a three-way goat rope between airlines, unions, and elders.

When age 65 was implemented, there was specific language to allow working crew-members who had already turned 60 to stay... basically so those sitting the panel could bid back into a pilot seat. Not great for juniors, but not unreasonable either. They didn't bother this time, too few FE's left.

Age 65 did have language specifically precluding those who were not a current crew member from returning except as a new hire. The absence of that language in the current HR does not grant re-reinstatement although it might make the lawsuit easier. Again, the lawsuit will take too long to matter to us.
thanks for breaking it down for the uninformed/poorly informed (myself). Lol
cal73 is offline  
Old 09-13-2023, 08:18 AM
  #26  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 37
Default

Originally Posted by yesto67
it’s not a mandatory retirement age. retire whenever you like.

I realize nothing is a given but......Problem is, if I was projected to retire at system seniority number of XXXX at age 65, when I retire at age 65 with this in place I will no longer enjoy that seniority. It will have a negative impact on QOL and/or earnings. So yes it does impact those who still retire at age 65. Nice try!
Oly2016 is offline  
Old 09-13-2023, 08:38 AM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2018
Posts: 188
Default

Originally Posted by Oly2016
I realize nothing is a given but......Problem is, if I was projected to retire at system seniority number of XXXX at age 65, when I retire at age 65 with this in place I will no longer enjoy that seniority. It will have a negative impact on QOL and/or earnings. So yes it does impact those who still retire at age 65. Nice try!
When you hired on, did you expect UAL to hire 5000 pilots in 4 years? Did you expect age 67?

It appears you want to book all the unexpected positive gains onto your side of the ledger as status quo with no impact, but anything that negatively impacts you is a travesty and unfair.

Can you righteously play both sides of the "unexpected changes" argument to act as if you have been put upon?

Of course, it's APC where everyone is entitled to their say.
Race Bannon is offline  
Old 09-13-2023, 09:07 AM
  #28  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
Default

Originally Posted by Ice Bear
Where did this legislation come from anyway? What was the catalyst? The RAA?
I dunno. Maybe all of the flight cqncellations and news articles stating that there's a pilot shortage?
Andy is offline  
Old 09-13-2023, 09:32 AM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
pangolin's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: CRJ9 CA
Posts: 4,083
Default

Originally Posted by Grumble
Bunch of pilots that can’t afford to retire somehow or can’t seem to let go.

I love the “ICAO will do what we do” argument. Standby for disappointment.
It’s country by country. ICAO can facilitate a change but won’t be able to change individual countries laws. Canada already allows over 65. Mexico presently does not.
pangolin is offline  
Old 09-13-2023, 09:33 AM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
pangolin's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: CRJ9 CA
Posts: 4,083
Default

Originally Posted by Oly2016
I realize nothing is a given but......Problem is, if I was projected to retire at system seniority number of XXXX at age 65, when I retire at age 65 with this in place I will no longer enjoy that seniority. It will have a negative impact on QOL and/or earnings. So yes it does impact those who still retire at age 65. Nice try!
What seniority benefit exists in retirement?
pangolin is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Unicornpilot
Major
52
01-04-2020 07:23 AM
BIGBROWNDC8
Cargo
7
10-22-2007 03:33 PM
Andy
Major
25
11-20-2006 07:13 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices