The "over 60 guys" didn't implement the Age 65 rule. Tell it to the Congress.

 

I guess I don't understand the logic of what you're looking for. In your personal example in the first post, you included the pay banding of the bus and 73 as part of your 48.8% pay cut. That makes since to me because that's a cold hard fact that affected you. But what I don't get is that each of us had different sections of C2003 and the following side letters that affected our bottom line as well. Pay lost from being bumped = 'complaint sheet', but pay lost from fleet banding = 'cold hard number'..?? It doesn't seem like a fair comparison if you pick and choose what pay lost counts and what doesn't. The title of the thread is "Who lost what?", but I'll let it go..

And, I'll definitely take you up on your beer offer, but it may be a while because it looks like to me that you guys aren't in hurry to make the job worth coming back to..IMHO.

 

I guess you don't. No logic required; I'm looking for numbers only. Just what % was given back by each employee group. That's all. Not opinions, just numbers.

Please drop the barbs. I didn't furlough you, I didn't take anything from you, I'm still not taking anything away from you, and the only reason I'm not furloughed myself is because I got hired a long-ass time ago. No apologies for my seniority.

Can anyone else help me out?

TW

 

Which was pushed by...who?

Congress didn't just think up age 65 out of thin air.

 

The hell they didn't! If anyone over 60 is still on property they definitely helped "implement" the new law. The new law was a mandatory retirement law, not a mandatory work to age 65 law. I can tell it to whomever I feel like. This is why I will have a mid-career 4 + year furlough. Oh, and by the way, what was lost in furlough is a cold hard number. 4 years off on low end is $250,000 on high end is probably in excess of $500,000.

 

No they did not think of it out of the air. There were several congressmen who were pilots and were asked by constituents to change the rule. Far more important then that however was a earlier decision by the ICAO and a subsequent decision by the FAA to allow pilots over 60 to fly world wide and in the US as long as it was not a US registered airline.
In the court pipeline were 3 major lawsuits that age 60 was age discrimination. It was virtually certain that with age 65 now approved in US airspace by the FAA that one or all of the lawsuits would be slam dunk wins. The result would not only have been age 65 but a return of many pilots between 60 and 65 to the workforce.
By getting legislation crafted that raised the age to 65 the lawsuits were cut off at the knees and pilots over 60 blocked from returning to work. There was no question subsequent lawsuits would be filed to dispute that part however before they could work through the system most pilots would be over 65 involved. That happened and there are still lawsuits pending however they wont change much if anything.
So if you really want to understand age 65 then you have to go back to the ICAO ruling. Once the went to 65 there was no stopping it in the US. It simply became a matter of how to implement it with the least damage.

 

I regretfully agree with your assessment. However, your last sentence sums up my disdain for how it was implemented. Specifically, it was implemented to do "the least damage" to those bumping up against age 60. They received a "do over" on the backs of the bottom 25% of EVERY seniority list.

 

I regretfully agree with your statement. Unfortunately it was done as the lesser of the choices. Imagine where we would all be if those over 60 when the law was changed were allowed to come back to work at their original positions? Like it or not (and I don't) this was the better deal.

Of course chatting with a guy the other day he said he has to stay past 60 in a few months not because of the contract and retro but because he has a kid finishing college and another one entering college next year. And they weren't going to do that BEFORE age 65 passed four years ago? Or did age 65 all of a sudden mean they could now definitely go to college because daddy can work to pay for what he didn't plan for?

 

Well if you're looking for "numbers only" then simply ask those in the other work groups what they lost. Each working day you interact with dispatchers, mechanics, CSRs and their supervisors, rampers, cleaners, you name it So it's only logical that your conviction to aligning expectations be based on first-hand information.

Your argument should instead be built on aligning their expectations with the nature and responsibility of your position and what that mean to you in terms of it's value. Smisek's believes his base worth of almost 1 million is reasonable. He will tell you that. What's your rebuttal when he tells you, in you face, that you are not worth any more than your current earnings? That he didn't take a 40% paycut???

Oh, and BTW we will all agree that YOU didn't furlough anyone but your actions could very well have contributed to fellow pilots being forced to take a 100% (yes, it's a number) paycut or worse, delayed recalls. Not accusing you of anything because you remain anonymous but the 85-100+ hr block holders, vacation buy backers, junior /senior manners, etc. are well known amongst you. Translates to actual pilot action that keep furloughees on the street.

 

I hope you haven't forgotten to add the time value of money. Not only on what you saved w/ your paycheck but the amount the company would have put in retirement. Add that over 15-20 years and.. well, maybe you best not do that.