17-03v
11-09-2016 | 12:19 PM
#21
Not at work
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
From: 737 ca
There is a reason the top 3rd are still fos. It is reasonable to presume using past performance the about half will bid fo again. For schedule or pay. A high value fo line can be worth more than a low value capt.
11-09-2016 | 01:06 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,808
Likes: 0
No doubt QOL is more important than title for many in that fleet. Still, the top 20% of 747 FOs in SFO would be below the g-line as 787 Capt's. It'll be an interesting draw-down for sure but I'd guess that new airframes should soften the manpower surplus. It would be amazing to see the company get that right!
11-09-2016 | 08:00 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
From: B756 FO
Makes sense. If I stay on the 787 snap shots I might just stick with it, as I really doubt a mid 11K seniority would get a one off vacancy on the 400 before the rapid retirements starts next year.
11-10-2016 | 03:16 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
From: Cal reserve..the gift that keeps on giving
11-10-2016 | 05:31 AM
#27
Not at work
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
From: 737 ca
67 would have to get passed into icao law. Then the faa would have to propose a rule change with comment period.
I bet you don't see 67 for at least 3 yrs. If at all.
That being said if the faa changed it first. They could do domestic.
I bet you don't see 67 for at least 3 yrs. If at all.
That being said if the faa changed it first. They could do domestic.
11-10-2016 | 06:27 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
Likes: 1
Is ALPA aware of this?
If ALPA allows any more changes in the retirement law I would not be in support of ALPA whatsoever.
This career has yet to reimburse those of us who have suffered under onerous economic conditions. We have supply and demand on our side, and furthermore, any changes to increase the retirement law would not be in keeping with sane decision-making as it applies to aviation safety. Enough is enough.
I would like to see ALPA out campaigning right now to keep the law at 65 and drive results instead of having the results being driven by outside governments or special interest groups.
I remember all-to-well the "senior pilots coalition." Talk about greed.
11-10-2016 | 06:29 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
Likes: 1
That's true. BUT..............ALPA could be proactive and look these foreigners into the eye and stare them down and say NO, oh NO you don't. Instead of ALPA's ineffective efforts in shadow-boxing open skies and NAI maybe we could influence events at ICAO.
11-10-2016 | 06:39 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,808
Likes: 0
Is ALPA aware of this?
If ALPA allows any more changes in the retirement law I would not be in support of ALPA whatsoever.
This career has yet to reimburse those of us who have suffered under onerous economic conditions. We have supply and demand on our side, and furthermore, any changes to increase the retirement law would not be in keeping with sane decision-making as it applies to aviation safety. Enough is enough.
I would like to see ALPA out campaigning right now to keep the law at 65 and drive results instead of having the results being driven by outside governments or special interest groups.
I remember all-to-well the "senior pilots coalition." Talk about greed.
If ALPA allows any more changes in the retirement law I would not be in support of ALPA whatsoever.
This career has yet to reimburse those of us who have suffered under onerous economic conditions. We have supply and demand on our side, and furthermore, any changes to increase the retirement law would not be in keeping with sane decision-making as it applies to aviation safety. Enough is enough.
I would like to see ALPA out campaigning right now to keep the law at 65 and drive results instead of having the results being driven by outside governments or special interest groups.
I remember all-to-well the "senior pilots coalition." Talk about greed.
So your premise is that the career owes you something but owes pilots who lost their pensions as they retired at 60 nothing? And it's only you who has "...suffered under onerous economic conditions...".
Tool.
