NWA320pilot

What have you been smoking....?

Klako

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -- Fourteenth Amendment To the Unite States Constitution.

Apparently you the FAA, ALPA and APA consider the United States Constitution to be not applicable to United States airline pilots

The law suits over the age 60 rule are coming. The FAA is culpable along with the labor unions who dealt bad faith to their own senior union members by perpetuating the age 60 rule for over 40 years. ALPA and APA institutionalized age discrimination as an accelerated job advancement scheme insuring early promotions for junior pilots. Labor unions such as ALPA and APA had no right in dictating to the rest of the United States airline industry when all airline pilots must retire.

Equal protection means equal protection, get it

NWA320pilot

Like I said..... What have you been smoking? Get it....

Winged Wheeler

If you read the constitution as a contract between the people and the federal government (as opposed to a "living document"), then the specific words have meaning and you can predict what will happen based on the text. Your citation of the 14th amendment indicates that you agree with this view.

If you have this view, however, you'll see that the government violates the constitution all the time. Every day. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th amendments in particular.

If the gov't decides to back your view, then you have a case. If they don't like it, then it doesn't matter what the text of the 14th amendment says.

Welcome aboard, we need all the help we can get.

WW

globalexpress

Klako-

Just curious.....were you saying this "fightin' words" 10 years ago? 20 years ago? Or did you just recently "find religion" now that you're 60ish? I suspect that an Age 60 retirement was just fine for many of you and your peers pursuing this litigation UNTIL it was your time to retire.

Good luck with your litigation. If you guys win by some sort of miracle, I suspect you won't be welcomed with open arms by your peers in the cockpit.....

Klako

I have always opposed the damn age 60 rule. When I was still in high school I helped stuff envelopes for my next door neighbor, a Western Airline Captain who was fighting the age 60 rule at the time. He said that the rule could not stand, that it was blatantly unconstitutional...

The Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) at first fought hard to repeal the age 60 rule. In 1968 this was ALPA’s official stance on the Age 60 Rule:

“ALPA CONTINUES OPPOSITION TO AGE 60 RETIREMENT RULE . The Air Line Pilots Association strongly advocates that the Federal Air Regulation in its arbitrary age 60 retirement provision is unreasonably discriminating against all of the air line pilots. Shortening a pilots career with no realistic justification is cheating the public as well as the industry. ALPA has expended and continues to expend its utmost efforts in attempting to overcome this highly dissatisfying and unfair federal regulation.”
Sadly, ALPA turned traitor to it’s senior members after supporting a change in the rule for over twenty years. ALPA had institutionalized age discrimination as an accelerated job advancement scheme for its junior pilots.

ALPA President Henry Duffy’s made this statement in the 1990 Baker v FAA “It has never been my belief that professional expertise diminishes at age 60, on the contrary, our senior members possess a wealth of knowledge, aviation history, and insight that have been developed through their years of experience, which are irreplaceable”. He also stated during this testimony “Pilots over 55 comprise 5-6% of the total membership. The other 95% selfishly view the forced retirement of older pilots as their guaranteed path and a God given right to their promotions!”

Safety is the lie that ALPA and APA had been spouting to mask blatant ageism directed against its most senior pilots.

In July 1979 Captain J. J. O’Donnell, then president of ALPA, testifies before the House Public Works and Transportation Committee: Congressman Anderson: “I gather from your testimony before the Select Committee on Aging that some of your members do not want to see the Age 60 Rule ended. Do those who oppose ending the age 60 rule do so on the grounds of safety or economics?” Captain O’Donnell; “ I would be misleading [to say that] they do it on the basis of safety. ... [i]t is economics to those who object to the change in the regulation.”

satchip

Klako, while I agree that the Constitutional arguments against an arbitrary age limit for Part 121 are strong and should sway the court, the specific remedy you seek is more problematic. The Constitutional provision against Ex Post Facto laws may apply. The plaintifs in your case were retired under the law in effect at the time. The law was subsequently changed specifically excluding grandfathered in persons. The court may rule that if they grant relief to your group then every pilot retired under the old provision would be able to seek relief for the 5 years of lost wages. That would be the end of every legacy carrier.

I see an end to a mandatory age limit as it can't be justified. The legitimate state interest in passenger safety can be served in other ways besides and mandatory retirement that is not based on science. However, I don't see a victory for previously retired pilots seeking reinstatement. The Constitutional issues are not as clear and granting relief would cause an undue burden on the employers. The wild card is the 9th Circuit. They have a reputation for ignoring precedent, the law, and the Constitution when they FEEL someone has been wronged. There is no way to predict how they will rule.

Slice

Some of you guys really need a life outside of aviation. Golf, sail the world, spoil the grand kids, move to the P.I. or Thailand... there's much more to life than flying, especially anything other than GA at that age. Unreal.

chongololo

Hey don't send them to us in part 135, we have enough already.
I fly with some old geezers who scare the hell out of me, but hey if they can pass the medical then they can be there.
One of them freely admits that without his "buddy" AME he probably wouldn't get a medical.
I would like to see a first class medical as a requirement for part 135, at least for single pilot ops.
It's stupid that part 121 requires two pilots and both with first class medicals but you can medical out from that job and then go and fly 135 single pilot IFR with a second class medical.
The guy I refer to is 75, is out of breath walking across the ramp and flies single pilot IFR at night.

Twin Wasp

Ah, what version of 121 are you reading?