Originally Posted by JamesBond

How do you figure that this would ONLY affect those approaching 65 at this time? Because that is EXACTLY what you are saying. That is nowhere near correct. It affects EVERY SINGLE PILOT.

It is unbelievable to me that I am reading posts that are actually advocating against negotiating to maximize pilot income to the very last day on the property. One goes so far to say that 737NA is "enough". "Enough" is not for anyone here to say, but to get the "most" possible should be the goal of the association. The sense I am getting is that since "I am planning on leaving at 60 or 65 or 37, that fighting for anyone else is not at all on my agenda." I guess we really don't have a union anymore. Maybe we never did. I find some of these statements very telling.

And why is alpa against age 67? Because the membership is? That's fine I guess, but what happens when that is not within their control? At that point does anyone having a 65th birthday become persona non grata as far as the association is concerned? THAT absolutely does sound like a DFR. While there might not be a case at the moment, if it is law, there certainly would be.

Originally Posted by LeineLodge

What I’m hearing is you suggesting that 16k pilots will/should commit LTD fraud if you don’t get what you want.

Fine, the company/ALPA/universe wronged you. You’re entitled to an opinion.

How about DPMA? Is bleeding the fund, designated for those that actually need it, morally defensible for you?

I suggest cultivating some hobbies. Sooner or later we’re all done flying planes. Best of luck.

Originally Posted by JamesBond

Ahhhhh the "D" word. Let's put 67 aside for a moment. When DAL stops hiring and retrenches and there are displacements... and it WILL happen someday.... would you like for guys being involuntarily displaced to be pay protected for as long as possible? (indefinitely should be the goal) If not, why not?

Originally Posted by CBreezy

You're not persona non grata. Your vote still counts. But until ICAO changes their rules, you'll be ineligible to fly. The company will absolutely say you will not be pay protected and has precedent to say it. It'll be up to the union to negotiate an LOA to codify what happens to pilots who are no longer permitted to operate their aircraft due to international rules.

I personally don't think you should be pay protected at a rate you got displaced from due to a change in retirement age. No one was pay protected during covid when the world shutdown. If the ICAO rules change, I would support you getting reinstatement rights.

Originally Posted by JamesBond

Wow, so you wouldn't want alpa to fight for displaced pilots to be pay protected. Thanks for clarifying that. Reinstatement rights are meaningless. We have monthly AEs and with the growth in WB flying I am pretty confident that anyone currently flying it could get it right back. That is a waste of negotiating time and effort.

Originally Posted by CBreezy

How many pilots were pay protected during the MOAD?

Originally Posted by CBreezy

No. I do not. Those pilots are literally already getting 2 bonus years of A pay. Why should I care if they pay is NBA vs WBA? Just like I didn't want to give up anything to pay protect pilots during the MOAD. There were more important fish to fry. I'm sure you didn't either. Question, how did you vote on 20-02 thru 20-04?

Originally Posted by JamesBond

Again, not the point, but all the UNAs were protected at that time.

Look, I am glad that you want to quit when you are 55 or whatever. Others don't. But what I hear from you is that because you personally won't be moved that the association should just roll over and not fight for something better for anyone up to the new limit. "73NA should be enough"

Originally Posted by CBreezy

That's entirely different. We negotiated furlough protection but only as long as we kept getting government cheese. None of them were pay protected, at all. They got a fraction of the lowest B category pay. Some were stuck on training pay for a long time after already forfeiting their seniority number elsewhere.

Originally Posted by JamesBond

Again, not the point, but all the UNAs were protected at that time.

Look, I am glad that you want to quit when you are 55 or whatever. Others don't. But what I hear from you is that because you personally won't be moved that the association should just roll over and not fight for something better for anyone up to the new limit. "73NA should be enough"