December 13, 2012... Mandatory Exits begin
12-20-2011 | 07:20 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
From: 777 Cap
Hi "flap"
If your UAL you should give back your bond payout if you want to fly to 65. Or, keep it and leave at 60.
I'm only a couple of hundred from the bottom, 12 years seniority. No I would not have been furloughed the SECOND time without age 65. By the way, my Bond take= $0.
If your UAL you should give back your bond payout if you want to fly to 65. Or, keep it and leave at 60.
I'm only a couple of hundred from the bottom, 12 years seniority. No I would not have been furloughed the SECOND time without age 65. By the way, my Bond take= $0.
I am not unsympathetic. I get it. The point is, 65 didn't cause the furloughees, it only identified them. No consolation of course if you were on the bottom, and hiring stopped due to 65, and you stayed on the bottom.
If they announced 70 today, do you think every airline would announce furloughs or do you think they would alter hiring plans based on the new projected attrition?
12-20-2011 | 08:46 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
From: Skeptical
Situation A: "Economics" dictates the shedding of 1000 pilots. 250 are about to leave off the top of the list due to age 60 rule, thus 750 pilot are cut from the bottom.
Situation B: "Economics" again dictates the shedding of 1000 pilots. No pilots are due to leave since they change the retirement age to 65, thus 1000 pilots are cut from the bottom.
So let me ask you this: did the age 65 rule change cause, or only "identify," the furlough of those extra 250 pilots?
Situation B: "Economics" again dictates the shedding of 1000 pilots. No pilots are due to leave since they change the retirement age to 65, thus 1000 pilots are cut from the bottom.
So let me ask you this: did the age 65 rule change cause, or only "identify," the furlough of those extra 250 pilots?
12-20-2011 | 08:54 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
From: Le Bus
Bond has nothing to do with it. If you were to rerun the distribution program using 65 instead of 60, there would be very little difference overall. It would simply use a 5 year extension for all the pilots.
I am not unsympathetic. I get it. The point is, 65 didn't cause the furloughees, it only identified them. No consolation of course if you were on the bottom, and hiring stopped due to 65, and you stayed on the bottom.
If they announced 70 today, do you think every airline would announce furloughs or do you think they would alter hiring plans based on the new projected attrition?
I am not unsympathetic. I get it. The point is, 65 didn't cause the furloughees, it only identified them. No consolation of course if you were on the bottom, and hiring stopped due to 65, and you stayed on the bottom.
If they announced 70 today, do you think every airline would announce furloughs or do you think they would alter hiring plans based on the new projected attrition?
*******
And if the announced age 70 the furloughed pilots would remain furloughed. Simple as that.
Last edited by UAL T38 Phlyer; 12-20-2011 at 08:33 PM. Reason: TOS--again
12-20-2011 | 10:29 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
From: 2172/1437
I believe I could have avoided my second "identification" as a furlougee had the retirements gone forward at age 60. No, age 65 didn't cause the furloughs at UAL, but it sure as hell made them go way deeper than they would have if guys had been leaving from the top end over the last four years.
12-20-2011 | 11:16 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
From: 777 Cap
Situation A: "Economics" dictates the shedding of 1000 pilots. 250 are about to leave off the top of the list due to age 60 rule, thus 750 pilot are cut from the bottom.
Situation B: "Economics" again dictates the shedding of 1000 pilots. No pilots are due to leave since they change the retirement age to 65, thus 1000 pilots are cut from the bottom.
So let me ask you this: did the age 65 rule change cause, or only "identify," the furlough of those extra 250 pilots?
Situation B: "Economics" again dictates the shedding of 1000 pilots. No pilots are due to leave since they change the retirement age to 65, thus 1000 pilots are cut from the bottom.
So let me ask you this: did the age 65 rule change cause, or only "identify," the furlough of those extra 250 pilots?
No change to age 65, the company still furloughs bottom 1000.
Change to 65, the company furloughs bottom 1000.
The only difference is who the bottom 1000 pilots are. If the age stays 60, the company hires 1000, and they get furloughed. If it changes to 65, everyone gets stuck for 5 years at their current position on the list, and the bottom guys get furloughed again.
Age 65 controlled the names on a seniority list; it didn't cause the furlough.
12-20-2011 | 02:13 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
From: Le Bus
Flap....listen up old gummer:
********
I was a 767 F/O almost holding a line, thanks to you sucking up another 5 years I had to hit the street.
Whatever makes you sleep better at night. I was told from my CP at the time that age 65 was the reason I was hitting the street.
********
I was a 767 F/O almost holding a line, thanks to you sucking up another 5 years I had to hit the street.
Whatever makes you sleep better at night. I was told from my CP at the time that age 65 was the reason I was hitting the street.
Last edited by UAL T38 Phlyer; 12-20-2011 at 07:59 PM. Reason: Quote contained TOS Violation
12-20-2011 | 02:14 PM
#19
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
From: Over 60 and Still Living the Dream
Flap....listen up old gummer:
****
I was a 767 F/O almost holding a line, thanks to you sucking up another 5 years I had to hit the street.
Whatever makes you sleep better at night. I was told from my CP at the time that age 65 was the reason I was hitting the street.
****
I was a 767 F/O almost holding a line, thanks to you sucking up another 5 years I had to hit the street.
Whatever makes you sleep better at night. I was told from my CP at the time that age 65 was the reason I was hitting the street.
Last edited by UAL T38 Phlyer; 12-20-2011 at 08:01 PM. Reason: Quote Contained TOS Violation
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
