ugleeual

it will be up to the individual airlines and the union contracts to decide “how”. Since our contract doesn’t have any clause specific to this situation my gut tells me they will have to be stapled and take new hire bids… until lawsuits and possible LOAs are finalized… which will take years.

rickair7777

It will happen most likely, and "relatively" quickly. But that's in bureaucratic terms... won't prevent a short-term mess or do much for the guys staring 65 in the face today.

Eventually there won't be a revolving door back to NB fleets for 65+. Too much cost and hassle for the industry, so the industry will fix ICAO, if ICAO doesn't fix itself. The US legacies are opposed for those reasons, but if age 67 passes, they aren't going to take it lying down.

rickair7777

The HR? Where does it say that?

rickair7777

Both impressions are wrong.

There was some language thrown around the house to the effect of "shall not have reached 68th birthday", but the final approved HR simply takes existing laws and regs and replaces the number "65" with the number "67". So it adds exactly two years. All discussion in the senate has been for 67.

The language allows 65+ to return to 121 employment. It does not allow or authorize them to claim previous seniority. So just like last time, you can come back, but as a new hire. They might not even have to hire folks who cannot fly international. Maybe a small regional would have them. Might somebody file a lawsuit? Maybe. Would it affect any of us? Not a chance. Even if they won, it would take so long that they'd already be 67+ so worst case the airline would have to give them back pay. It would be a three-way goat rope between airlines, unions, and elders.

When age 65 was implemented, there was specific language to allow working crew-members who had already turned 60 to stay... basically so those sitting the panel could bid back into a pilot seat. Not great for juniors, but not unreasonable either. They didn't bother this time, too few FE's left.

Age 65 did have language specifically precluding those who were not a current crew member from returning except as a new hire. The absence of that language in the current HR does not grant re-reinstatement although it might make the lawsuit easier. Again, the lawsuit will take too long to matter to us.

cal73

thanks for breaking it down for the uninformed/poorly informed (myself). Lol

Oly2016

I realize nothing is a given but......Problem is, if I was projected to retire at system seniority number of XXXX at age 65, when I retire at age 65 with this in place I will no longer enjoy that seniority. It will have a negative impact on QOL and/or earnings. So yes it does impact those who still retire at age 65. Nice try!

Race Bannon

When you hired on, did you expect UAL to hire 5000 pilots in 4 years? Did you expect age 67?

It appears you want to book all the unexpected positive gains onto your side of the ledger as status quo with no impact, but anything that negatively impacts you is a travesty and unfair.

Can you righteously play both sides of the "unexpected changes" argument to act as if you have been put upon?

Of course, it's APC where everyone is entitled to their say.

Andy

I dunno. Maybe all of the flight cqncellations and news articles stating that there's a pilot shortage?

pangolin

It’s country by country. ICAO can facilitate a change but won’t be able to change individual countries laws. Canada already allows over 65. Mexico presently does not.

pangolin

What seniority benefit exists in retirement?