Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Aviation Law
SWA&UA Pilots Sue-want 65 Retro & want age 70 >

SWA&UA Pilots Sue-want 65 Retro & want age 70

Search

Notices
Aviation Law Legal issues, FARs, and questions

SWA&UA Pilots Sue-want 65 Retro & want age 70

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-06-2009, 02:39 PM
  #61  
Gets Weekends Off
 
kronan's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,419
Default

I kind of like the idea of being forced into retirement after 20 years,
just don't think mgt wants me to be drawing on the pension fund for that long.
kronan is offline  
Old 07-06-2009, 10:34 PM
  #62  
Gets Weekends Off
 
newKnow's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Default

Originally Posted by kronan
I kind of like the idea of being forced into retirement after 20 years,
just don't think mgt wants me to be drawing on the pension fund for that long.
You think they would rather pay for you calling in sick for your one 12 day trip a month every 3 months in between your 60+ days of vacation per year at maximum 12 year pay? :D
newKnow is offline  
Old 07-14-2009, 09:58 AM
  #63  
Line Holder
 
JasonGerald's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: ACMI 747-400 FO/USAR C-12
Posts: 32
Default

I was chatting with my case worker at the unemployment office. We made small talk. He's a former military pilot. He mentioned a friend who flies for a major airline. The gist was his friend was glad to still be flying thanks to the change in retirement age. I replied, " Yep, and that's why I'm here today asking for unemployment benefits." I found it a little ironic.

I don't begurdge those who have chosen to continue flying past 60. I wonder if any statistics will be gathred about how many pilots there are who fit this category. Its moot, but if the rule had not changed how many furloughed pilots would be back in the cockpit now?
JasonGerald is offline  
Old 07-14-2009, 10:47 AM
  #64  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TPROP4ever's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: none ya...
Posts: 1,154
Default

Originally Posted by JasonGerald
I was chatting with my case worker at the unemployment office. We made small talk. He's a former military pilot. He mentioned a friend who flies for a major airline. The gist was his friend was glad to still be flying thanks to the change in retirement age. I replied, " Yep, and that's why I'm here today asking for unemployment benefits." I found it a little ironic.

I don't begurdge those who have chosen to continue flying past 60. I wonder if any statistics will be gathred about how many pilots there are who fit this category. Its moot, but if the rule had not changed how many furloughed pilots would be back in the cockpit now?
Pretty sure the answer would be ALL OF US!!!!!
TPROP4ever is offline  
Old 07-15-2009, 10:52 PM
  #65  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ClipperJet's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 284
Default

Some trail lawyers are gonna get RICH off of these guys...

Who are they going to collect from? Their former employer who was prohibited by law from letting them fly past 60? Nope. The government?

This is like a 19 year old (ADULT) filing suit because they can't be a bartender until they are 21. Age discrimination? Yes. Legal? Also yes.

Don't forget the "without due process of law" part of the 14th Ammendment. They folks who were forced to retire had "due process" via the congress and the president (both of whom clearly have the power to regulate every aspect of aviation)
ClipperJet is offline  
Old 07-16-2009, 05:59 AM
  #66  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TPROP4ever's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: none ya...
Posts: 1,154
Default

Originally Posted by ClipperJet
Some trail lawyers are gonna get RICH off of these guys...

Who are they going to collect from? Their former employer who was prohibited by law from letting them fly past 60? Nope. The government?

This is like a 19 year old (ADULT) filing suit because they can't be a bartender until they are 21. Age discrimination? Yes. Legal? Also yes.

Don't forget the "without due process of law" part of the 14th Ammendment. They folks who were forced to retire had "due process" via the congress and the president (both of whom clearly have the power to regulate every aspect of aviation)
The taxpayers will pay for this somehow it always happens. Plane and simple (and yes I intentially spelled it that way..lol)
TPROP4ever is offline  
Old 07-16-2009, 10:23 AM
  #67  
Gets Weekends Off
 
crazyjaydawg's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: Middle Seat
Posts: 1,233
Default

[quote=ClipperJet;645606]
This is like a 19 year old (ADULT) filing suit because they can't be a bartender until they are 21. Age discrimination? Yes. Legal? Also yes.
quote]

I'm not sure about where you live, but I know a lot of places where you can bartend at 18.

But I agree, good luck on trying to sue the gov't for a law that was enacted a long time ago... Before these guys signed on, they knew when they were going to retire, sheesh enjoy the golden years.
crazyjaydawg is offline  
Old 07-18-2009, 09:59 AM
  #68  
Gets Weekends Off
 
kronan's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,419
Default

Originally Posted by newKnow
You think they would rather pay for you calling in sick for your one 12 day trip a month every 3 months in between your 60+ days of vacation per year at maximum 12 year pay? :D
What airline gives 60+ days of paid vacation?

And, yes, I think they'd rather have some productivity versus no productivity.

Look at how the early (and excessive) retirement pension plans for are destroying CAs budget.
Biggest number I think reading was full retirement pay after 30 yrs of public service and a pension plan in the mid-90s.
Drawing pension pay for longer than you actually worked at the company is a great deal for the worker, sucks huge for the employer
kronan is offline  
Old 07-18-2009, 01:12 PM
  #69  
HOSED BY PBS AGAIN
 
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,713
Default

I don't intend to rely on my airline for ANY retirement. If some is there, great, but if I don't have anything put away for my self, then I have NO ONE to blame but myself. If these pilots flying past age 60 are so destitute, then they have NO ONE to blame but themselves. If they couldn't save enough money in 25-35 years, then another five surely isn't going to help them, especially in these bad economic times. If CAL does away with its lump sum payment, and those that stick around LOSE it ALL, they will get ZERO sympathy from me and just about everyone else. They KNOW what the score is, yet continue to gamble like they're going to win (they won't). How they could gamble with $750,000 or more is beyond me. But then again, if a smoker gets lung cancer after having smoked for 25 years, they don't get the smypathy band wagon from me either. It's time to start enjoying life after 60, not time to start putting away for retirement. Flame away..........
ewrbasedpilot is offline  
Old 07-18-2009, 07:48 PM
  #70  
Gets Weekends Off
 
newKnow's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Default

Originally Posted by kronan
What airline gives 60+ days of paid vacation?

And, yes, I think they'd rather have some productivity versus no productivity.

Look at how the early (and excessive) retirement pension plans for are destroying CAs budget.
Biggest number I think reading was full retirement pay after 30 yrs of public service and a pension plan in the mid-90s.
Drawing pension pay for longer than you actually worked at the company is a great deal for the worker, sucks huge for the employer
I work for Northwest Airlines. Wait. I work for Delta Air Lines. But when I was at NWA I did see pilots with 60 +vacation days. I'm sure it wasn't accrued in one year, but most likely the pilots were on LTS or had training during their vacation the year before. I don't know off the top of my head what our max accruals are/were.

But, that's not the point. Older pilots have a lot more vacation, sick time, and the savy to game the system, which costs the company as well. I had the director of flight ops on the jumpseat one time and he told us that at that point, over 60% of the over 60 FE's in ANC were on long term sick. So, they had to carry a higher staffing formula up there to get the trips covered.

So, I'm not going to guess what management wants anymore. If you think that's what they want I'm sure an argument can be made that they do. That's how management works. It's always something and we just go along with it.
newKnow is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Guard Dude
Delta
201720
04-06-2022 07:59 AM
DWN3GRN
Major
18
06-12-2009 05:47 AM
ERJ135
GoJet
121
06-05-2009 10:58 AM
Sniper
Major
6
04-18-2009 07:57 PM
7576FO
Major
94
04-05-2009 10:44 PM

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



Your Privacy Choices