Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
Well... looks like "DAL 88 Driver" will once again be "DAL 88 Driver!"
-------------------------
Speaking of retirements and cough cough, Age 60.
Remember there was the Senior Pilots Coalition suing to throw out that Age 65 rule until it became retroactive allowing pilots who had been forced to retire to come back until they hit 65. Imagine if that had happened? It'd been MD's from 2007 on.
The thing is, if age 65 was to make up for hardships (which it wasn't), then it needs to be increased now to match social security's 67 retirement age. Anyone in favor of age 67? Until SS increases again, then age 70? You'd be in a real sweet spot if you were a baby boomer born in 1947.
"Oh but if you can pass the medical..." right. like we seek out doctors who give hard medicals? "if you sign me off I'll give you $130" vs "okay doc, let's go! see if you can find anything wrong!"
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...news/AGE061009.
Pilots caught in a time warp when Congress acted in November 2007 to extend the mandatory retirement age to 65 have asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to give them a day in court.
These pilots--225 of whom are part of the class action suit--had recently turned 60 when the law that raised the retirement age of pilots from 60 to 65 went into effect, and believe they should have been allowed to resume flying. A three-judge panel is expected to answer their appeal in six to eight weeks after hearing oral arguments June 9 in the case (Oksner v. Blakey).
The pilots, led by former Southwest Airlines pilot Michael Oksner, say Congress violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause when it wrote the law, and they should be allowed to fly until they turn 65.
The case is expected to turn on whether the judges think the pilots have a legal complaint or an administrative one. Congress put an age 60 cutoff limit on who among professional pilots could remain in service when President George W. Bush signed an extension of the mandatory retirement age to 65. He signed the law in December 2007.
US Attorney Edward Himmelfarb said it is at Congress' discretion to enact such a provision.
Many of the plaintiffs have found work outside commercial passenger services, such as former United 747-400 pilot James Sweller of Denver, now 62, who has been training UPS pilots for Boeing's Alteon training unit. Sweller had been a 747 pilot flying from San Francisco on routes to Shanghai, Sydney and Melbourne when he was forced to retire. "I love to fly," he says, adding as long as he can pass his physicals he sees no reason to stop into his 70s.
San Francisco attorney Anthony Bothwell, who specializes in age discrimination issues, said the original decision to force mandatory retirement at age 60 was instituted by the FAA as an "economic favor" for airline executives without any medical evidence to support it.
Congress accepted that point in overturning the age 60 limit. When the pilots sought to overturn the provision of the law that blanked out pilots aged 60-65 from being reinstated, they were denied a trial. They appealed that decision in hopes the Appeals Court would order the lower court to hear their case.
It's not clear that the issue of the original cutoff date will play a role in the appellate court's reasoning since Congress has already overturned it. Instead, questioning by the justices indicates they are interested in whether the plaintiffs can seek relief under the Administrative Procedures Act.
They also questioned why the case was brought in California instead of Washington where the FAA is located.
Photo credit: Chicago Dept. of Aviation
Pilots caught in a time warp when Congress acted in November 2007 to extend the mandatory retirement age to 65 have asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to give them a day in court.
These pilots--225 of whom are part of the class action suit--had recently turned 60 when the law that raised the retirement age of pilots from 60 to 65 went into effect, and believe they should have been allowed to resume flying. A three-judge panel is expected to answer their appeal in six to eight weeks after hearing oral arguments June 9 in the case (Oksner v. Blakey).
The pilots, led by former Southwest Airlines pilot Michael Oksner, say Congress violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause when it wrote the law, and they should be allowed to fly until they turn 65.
The case is expected to turn on whether the judges think the pilots have a legal complaint or an administrative one. Congress put an age 60 cutoff limit on who among professional pilots could remain in service when President George W. Bush signed an extension of the mandatory retirement age to 65. He signed the law in December 2007.
US Attorney Edward Himmelfarb said it is at Congress' discretion to enact such a provision.
Many of the plaintiffs have found work outside commercial passenger services, such as former United 747-400 pilot James Sweller of Denver, now 62, who has been training UPS pilots for Boeing's Alteon training unit. Sweller had been a 747 pilot flying from San Francisco on routes to Shanghai, Sydney and Melbourne when he was forced to retire. "I love to fly," he says, adding as long as he can pass his physicals he sees no reason to stop into his 70s.
San Francisco attorney Anthony Bothwell, who specializes in age discrimination issues, said the original decision to force mandatory retirement at age 60 was instituted by the FAA as an "economic favor" for airline executives without any medical evidence to support it.
Congress accepted that point in overturning the age 60 limit. When the pilots sought to overturn the provision of the law that blanked out pilots aged 60-65 from being reinstated, they were denied a trial. They appealed that decision in hopes the Appeals Court would order the lower court to hear their case.
It's not clear that the issue of the original cutoff date will play a role in the appellate court's reasoning since Congress has already overturned it. Instead, questioning by the justices indicates they are interested in whether the plaintiffs can seek relief under the Administrative Procedures Act.
They also questioned why the case was brought in California instead of Washington where the FAA is located.
Photo credit: Chicago Dept. of Aviation
Last edited by forgot to bid; 03-16-2012 at 07:54 PM.
Wow, I'm going to choose to believe that you don't mean anything you just posted. You don't know them, you aren't them, yet you wish them ill because they continue to fly and won't get out of your way. Talk about a sense of entitlement.
If you come from "an airline background" you should
already know that most of these guys lost everything. They have no pension, they lost all of the things that were promised to them, and they are forced to work as long as they can.
It's not a reflection on them, it's a reflection on the sad state of our industry. And your post is a reflection on you.
If you come from "an airline background" you should
already know that most of these guys lost everything. They have no pension, they lost all of the things that were promised to them, and they are forced to work as long as they can.
It's not a reflection on them, it's a reflection on the sad state of our industry. And your post is a reflection on you.
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 793
Love getting NYC FA crews on my flights...better chances of what you had, and thus happier passengers who enjoy their Delta experience more than they otherwise would.
Average Retirement Age
With the Age 60 rule the average retirement age was around 57.5. There are a number of guys who go out on disability (various medical problems that won't allow them to pass a Class 1). We can expect the same thing to be true of the Age 65 rule - the average age of retirees will be around 62 - there will be quite a few guys that try to fly to 65 that won't make.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post