Repeal of Age 60 rule

[FlyDeltasJets]

Citrus,

I was referring to LUV.

I appreciate that you are fighting for what you deserve. While I disagree that B6 is an example of an airline that pays a "proper wage," I agree that many airlines have not been negotiating long enough to secure some of the things many of us feel they deserve.

My point was directed at the multitude on this board who criticize me for pointing out that lesser contracts are negatively affecting this industry. I believe that some of the reasons (financial) given for overturning the age 60 rule are perfect examples of this.

I wish EVERY pilot group luck in any upcoming contract negotiations. It may keep us from having to fly until we are 90.

 

[100LL... Again!]

John Doe-

I believe my post explains why the 'moral equivalency' argument is not valid.

The senior guys HAD theirs. NOW they want mine.

 

[JohnDoe]

Ummmm....100LL...again,

First, I hadn't even read your post when i posted mine.

Second, I don't think you understood my post......I'm making the same argument you did after me: the "age 60 rule is morally wrong and is age discrimination" stance is a little b.s. in my opinion.

Also, here is a part of my post again:

". (it is ironic, however, that they have all, at one point, benefitted from the age 60 rule)."

Again, kinda what you just said.....


I'm in your boat...all these people who are now arguing against the rule, have at some point in their careers, benefitted from the very same rule (providing, of course, they are currently at a 121 carrier).

 

[Eagleflip]

You know, you guys are right. There must be an age discrimination involved in this business. After all, why not give that ATP to a 15 year old? Why not allow a 12 year old to fly jumpers, or God forbid, oust Avbug out of his fire fighting job?

Ludicrous? Of course. We make fine line determinations every day.

One can own a handgun, but not a live bazooka. One can speak freely without fear of retribution, but don't threaten the President. To me, these rules make sense.

The Age 60 rule doesn't make sense. Either a pilot is qualified to fly or he/she is not. 60 and one day makes you inelligible to fly 121, yet you can fly the same type jet on charter all you want. This doesn't pass the common sense test.

As for "personal gain," yes, I'll buy into that argument. But you have to take it further. It is not entirely an issue of money, but of the right to work in a given profession.

Finally, I'll retire from this thread (I think) with this thought: I was against the Age 60 rule from the outset of my career, even though I knew it would work against me at the beginning.

Fighting this rule isn't about depriving those "below me" in hiring and seniority of a job--it is about enforcing an unjustifiable act of health and ability discrimination.

My best to all on the board--sincerely. I hope we all find ourselves working in the cockpit of our choice within the next year.

 

[100LL... Again!]

-----------------------------------------------------
OK, I admit that given this scenario my total time in the cockpit is three years greater than my new hire buddy. Again, an injustice is being corrected and the new hire's life in the industry is delayed three years--but he is no worse off other than the time value of his deferred earnings during that initial three year hire period. He gains from the theoritical increase in pay at the end of his career, however.
------------------------------------------------------

This, to me, is a nice politically correct way of saying 'screw the junior guys.'

This can represent a lot of earning potential for new guy, shortening and delaying the careers of others.


Your refence to racial discrimination is invalid.

ALL airline pilots are subject to the age 60 rule. You can not compare a rule that all pilots will eventually be subject to racial discrimination. Period.

Not all people are of a certain race. All WILL age. Therefore the argument is invalid. I will accept the retirement age when it comes. You know why? Because I want the guys behind me to have the same shot. Honor is dead, hm?

 

[100LL... Again!]

John Doe-

It was not a flame, sorry if it sounded like one.

I did not say your argument was wrong.

I was taking issue only with the 'moral equivalency' issue, which I believe is invalid in this case.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Again, a slow change in the age limit may mitigate the effects of a rule change, and would spread the benefits AND penalties of the change more evenly than a sudden change.

I will be in full support of retired pilots getting their old jobs back, even though it will hurt me a little more, because FAIR is FAIR.

 

[JohnDoe]

100LL...
Understand 'ya now...no problem.

 

[Eagleflip]

Must....stop....arguing....

move...away....from....the....keyboard.....

OK--what's your opinion? Does anybody on this thread think the rule has a chance in hades of being changed in the first place?

 

[AV8OR]

"I don't quite understand your proposal, though. Are you saying that Joe Pilot, once reaching 60, should go to the bottom of the overall seniority list?

If so, what is the point? If we are trying to change this rule based on age discrimination, what does changing your seniority at age 60 provide? A chance for the guys below you to move up just to remain "fair?""

In a word yes that is exactly what it would do. Look, if if this is about the "morality" of repealing an "unfair" rule. It just doesn't hold water. At my airline we have guys retiring to the SO seat, but guess who's fighting for the age sixty repeal? The guys in the seat now. So let's say it gets bumped to 63, 65, 70, whatever. Well I'm betting that when a pilots career doesn't work just as planned and he gets to whatever the next limit is he's gonna cry unfair, I ought to get to stay, even though the reason he's in that seat is cause guys infront of him had to retire.

Every time a guy retires back to the SO seat and there's no upgrade class from SO to FO, all of the guys on that equipment's SO list go backward in seniority, is it fair, heck I don't know, but that's the way it is. I think it would be interesting to see if all the pro-60+ crowd would be happy if all the former retirees were allowed to return to their seat and seniority till they can't pass a medical and therefore bumped a 60+ constituant out of their newly found seniority position because of a repeal of the rule.

This things gonna rear it's ugly head every few years I guess. Oh well, hey if you can get em to repeal it , more power to you.