AGE 60 passes Senate today..

[rfresh]

What happens after the President vetos this bill? From what I have read the House doesn't have the votes to over turn the veto. What's next? How long will it take before this comes up again? Anyone?

Jim

The bill can come up again next year if it's veto'd by the prez - if he veto's it, it will be because he doesn't agree with the spending amounts within this bill, not necessarily about the age 60 rule.

 

[PurpleInMEM]

Ahh yes, the old guys running the Peoples Democratic Republic of Amerika making decisions to benefit other old guys. What a country!

This is going to blow. I cannot fathom why anyone wants to do THIS JOB one second longer than they currently have to.

I can just see our management now planning their assault on our B plan contributions and A plan multipliers.

Yeah, this sure is win win...old guys win/company wins. And yet somehow being forced out at 65 isn't age discrimination.

 

[jetexas]

No Kidding.
As far as managements go, we can now work longer, so we won't need quite as lucrative retirements. FO's don't need a pay raise. Afterall, you can just work longer! It will all come out in the wash when we upgrade at 64 and Congress passes age 70. Right? So, just spend what you got now and divorce that wife of yours.

Meanwhile, the gov't completely ignores the source of part of the problem that caused this whole age 65 movement. Airlines that dumped their pensions onto the taxpayers with no recourse...and then got bonuses for it!

 

[Flopgut]

Now at CAL it is time to vote the A fund away so we can focus on ourselves like they (the old fux) did.

They gave up on 1st year pay and insurance, now they are screaming poverty, lets vote that damn A fund out. I am sure we can something good in return.

I like where your head is at. Remember, contact your rep and the NC.

Regarding the concessionary contract at CAL: It looked at lot more likely that the company would distress terminate the A fund, than CAL would have another new hire. The deal we settled on not only kept the A fund, but kept the payouts at 100%. That was big! But, looking out for our soon-to-be-retired got thrown back in our face!

Tell your rep you want this handled contracturally. Wages post age 60 need to be on a separate scale; A new B scale, if you will. For instance: Earnings at age 61 should be something like $29/hr with no health insurance. Sound familiar?

The vast majority of us don't want this, let's use that.

 

[Flopgut]

There's no federal law that says date of hire anything, that's contractual. Age 60 is (was) a federal law and it was discriminatory. If you don't like the changes make it a contractual issue and if it's not followed then whine.

Gotta go, the age 70 rule change committee is calling.

Well, I don't know how you figure YOU have career expectations and no one else does. That's a big problem with guys like you.

This is really more like a merger than anything. You've got a bunch of guys with airplanes, salaries, and real career expectations and then you've got a bunch of old guys with NONE of that! Based on what we know about mergers, how do you think the old guys would fair?

That example makes a whole lot more sense than your barnyard story.

 

[tomgoodman]

Innocent victims

Regarding the concessionary contract at CAL: It looked at lot more likely that the company would distress terminate the A fund, than CAL would have another new hire. The deal we settled on not only kept the A fund, but kept the payouts at 100%. That was big! But, looking out for our soon-to-be-retired got thrown back in our face!

Meanwhile, the gov't completely ignores the source of part of the problem that caused this whole age 65 movement. Airlines that dumped their pensions onto the taxpayers with no recourse...and then got bonuses for it!

Sad, but true. Those pilot groups that kept their A funds intact are paying the price for those that dumped their pensions. And sooner or later, management will attack the remaining A funds, arguing that "we must get our costs in line with the competition."

 

[Flopgut]

Sad, but true. Those pilot groups that kept their A funds intact are paying the price for those that dumped their pensions. And sooner or later, management will attack the remaining A funds, arguing that "we must get our costs in line with the competition."

Right. CAL's A fund is frozen. But the 100% payout is pretty good. That's why we need to show these oldsters the exit! We could have terminated that A fund during the last contract and been paying our new hires something better. We could have been paying EVERYONE better for that matter! That would have been better than to have the oldsters stick around and watch that same lump sum end up a near zero due to federal funds rate. RIGHT?!

ALPA indicates they want to keep age 60 a viable retirement age. If that's the case, the best way to do that is keep age <60 wages the same as they have been. Let the, for example: aformentioned 400K wage hit, be absorbed by those pilots over age 60. That's the best way to keep it a clean deal. Anybody who disagrees with that has a selfish agenda.

 

[slinky]

This thread got so much more intertaining if you block bluefishbeagle.

It is actually rather more intelligent only reading the replys to his verbal diarrhea.

 

[skywdriver]

Since HR 3074 is an appropriations bill for two departments, some version of it will have to pass. I think the issues the President has with this bill have nothing to do with age 65, I don't know whether it will be touched in a compromise version or if it will be deleted in an effort to streamline it to the essentials. If Age 65 doesn't make it througn the signed version, it can come up again next year just as it has for years past. I'm betting it gets passed.

The administration says that the bill is too expensive, that is why they are saying Bush will veto it. Who knows if he actually will, but if he does it is dead for sure. No way that the House will overturn the veto, and even less of a chance of coming to an agreement on dollar amounts. This thing is probably dead until they are able to re-introduce the bill as a stand alone bill. I think it will be hard to get it on the floor given the fact that there are many more important issues at hand in Congress.

 

[Falconjet]

Here's some info I posted in the other thread about age 60.:






"CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Order Code RS21750
February 27, 2004
The Presidential Veto and
Congressional Procedure
Mitchel A. Sollenberger
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division



Action by both the House and the Senate is required to override.5 A two-thirds
majority vote by Members present (provided there is a quorum) is required to override a
presidential veto. When one house fails to override, the other house will not attempt to
override, even if the votes are present to succeed. Action by the Senate or the House of
Representatives on a veto may be taken at any time during a Congress in which the veto
is received.

Table 1 shows that, since the beginning of the federal government in 1789, 35 of 43
Presidents have exercised their veto authority on a total of 2,550 occasions. Of that
number, 1,484, or 58%, have been returned vetoes — that is, the rejected legislation was
returned to the congressional house of origin, while it was in session, with a presidential
message of explanation — and 1,066, or 42%, were pocket vetoed, or rejected while
Congress was adjourned. Some 7.1%, or 106, of the 1,484 regular vetoes have been
overridden by Congress."


How about those odds? Only 7.1% of bills vetoed by the President since 1789 (thats seventeen eighty-nine) have been overridden by Congress.

FJ