Boom Boom

With airline economics/politics what they are now, those days are gone.. Those were the good deals of the past.. I don't see that in the future.. Sorry but like an A plan.. I see it getting changed down the road..

MalteseX

By working to make sure that the language of the final reg, rule, law, or whatever form the 60 to 65 statue takes --- that the language includes a provision that those who attained the age of 60 PRIOR to the implementation date are not covered by the rule and cannot go back to the front seats in Part 121 aircraft.
There has to be a cutoff date. This is a compromise that increases the age limit and attempts to provide a small reduction in the economic hit that the airline companies and the people younger than 60 will have to absorb--not to mention the disruption of training schedules and the hit in the training costs to companies. All for guys who have at most 4 years to give back for the training.

Bottom line: to get around the law, the language MUST be in the new law. If it is not, then people will have at least a basis for a claim against the company.

MalteseX

Many if not most of us, looked forward to retiring at 60 (Maximum) --- For instance I was working to try to be done by 55. This issue puts all that in jeopardy. Worst case would be for those of us who wanted to be done by 55 now may be REQUIRED to stay 10 YEARS to 65 (depending on what shakes out of this with respect to retirements, pensions etc). In the best case, I seriously doubt if ANY option exists to retire at 55 in the future. So it's not necessarily a win for all.

But you are correct in stating that it can be an overall increase in lifetime pay -- you don't have mandatory retirement and can stay an additional 5 years. For those that want it, especially those who have already been a captain with a few numbers junior to them at their respective company, it can be a good windfall.

sparkmo

It appears to me that some of the LEC chairman are representing DW and not the LEC.

fdx727pilot

No, except for the pilots in their 40s and 50s who will have trouble with anything more involved than a Doc Bock quickie.

Of course, that will just advance all those young, downtrodden folks even faster.

SNAFU

You want to know the REAL reason DW is so hardover on the FE's coming back to the front seats?

Here is my guess. Assuming the law is written so as to prevent guys who have retired (guys who missed the cutoff date by one day) from having a claim to seniority rights at their former carrier, those guys are SOL. They will be suing everybody and their sister but the law will be what it is and the companies, the union and the government will be protected from lawsuits.

Now imagine that DW and FedEx ALPA are able to convince the lawmakers that since our FEs haven't retired, they are still on the seniority list and as such have the right to return to a front seat as their seniority allows on subsequent bids. So two guys who turned 60 the day before the rule changed, but just happen to work at different carriers (one FedEx and the other United say) have completely different outcomes under this legislation. One gets to go back to his front seat on the next bid and the other, because he didn't get the chance to fly in the back seat for one day, doesn't have any chance at getting back on his seniority list and returning to his seat.

Now imagine the lawsuits that will spring forth after that happens. And THAT, my friends and neighbors, would suit ALPA and DW just fine because they happen to agree with the age change from the beginning anyway. They see this as being an avenue to get all the guys who had to retire from carriers without a back seat back into the game at their former carriers. It would be a huge can of worms and it is precisely why the administrator and everybody else drafting the potential legislation has put in the provision preventing retroactivity.

Again, our MEC and ALPA National are simply trying to find a way to circumvent both the will of the majority of their membership and the folks who are trying to change the law in a manner that doesn't suit ALPA National.

Be very afraid folks, because they will stop at nothing (hence the need for the recall) to pursue their personal agenda.

SNAFU

Sleepy18: Your attempts at explanations are so weak as to barely deserve a response. They are simply excuses why you and the rest of the LEC/MEC have to go.

ALPA got outflanked and allowed its stance against Age 60 changing by a very small minority of older airline pilots. Just how effective are we to judge ALPA PAC is if it can't even outgun a bunch of retirees? I know the answer, ALPA PAC wasn't even trying to, because Capt Prater and all the other old guys at ALPA National and most MECs it appears, were actually trying to backdoor the legislation all along. Thanks for that, kiss any hope of every receiving any PAC money from this pilot goodbye.

2.Nice job of politics and blaming the impending change on President Bush. Yeah, he is the guy to blame for the US caving to ICAO idiocy. That is really rich.

3. We lost some support on the hill. Too fng bad. You still have to fight for what is right and what the majority wants. You guys just decided it is time to quit so you can continue to line your pockets with the future earnings potential of those of us unfortunate enough to not have had our chance to upgrade yet.

4. The legislation, if passed, will have nothing negotiated about it. All the details will be done after the fact and between the various MECs and the companies at contract time. You say we can only have a voice if we cave on our principles, and then you say that we must stick to our principles on as issue we can't even win (retroactivity) because all of a sudden we are worried about doing the right thing. You can't have it both ways.

What makes you think you will have any say in the legislation if you fight against the principal feature of the change (retroactivity) but not if we fight against the change itself? That makes absolutely no sense and destroys any credibility you might have had with the membership.

5. Probably true, but with the representation (er, lack there of) that you are providing for the membership I would rather take my chances with the FAA reauthorization bill. If you guys get involved with the NPRM you will only continue to cut my legs out from under me. No thanks.

Bitme

You my little friend are a moron. If you knew DW first hand at all you would know how against 65 he has always been, but you've spoken so what you say must be true. Keep stirring the pot and we'll be stepping back into the stone age before you know it.

T Montana

He (DW) sure has a funny way of showing it; as for stirring the pot...no one person(s) are indispensible.

Flying Boxes

Funny thing, was talking to a friend at NWA who said they voted to change their stance as well. They had only one MEC member vote against changing the policy! (labeled a renagade for voting the way the membership wanted)

If this is true it would seem ALPA National has already set the agenda, despite what the membership may want!

Would like a NW guy on here to confirm this.