American to furlough again...

Dynasty22 said:
Then I guess you can retire at age 50 and have nothing to retire on. Have you truly thought this through?
Click to expand...

He had, he was making an argument for the other side, that was so crazy, it proves his point. It's kinda like a rebuttal, there is a real word for the technique I'm just not familiar with the name. Basically he's being sarcastic.

PS. I think it's called postscript.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
You might be thinking of Velo, who doesn't post here anymore. He supported the change.

I do agree that the change was inevitable, though, but I think we easily could have prevented it for several more years, which is all it would have taken to prevent the furloughs that haven taken place since the change. I thought ALPA made a big mistake to not fight back.
Click to expand...
Rajah.
 
joliet said:
Furlough the guys over age 60. They knew the rules before they were hired, during the 30-40 years they spent at American. It was their career expectation to retire at 60, why should they get 5 more years at a junior pilot's expense?
Click to expand...

Rules? What rules? There are no "rules" in regards to one's career, and they only "expectation" a person should have is that he will be paid for the work he has already done. There is no guarantee of tomorrow, so why do so many on here waste so much time with "what should be?" That's for children.

It's interesting to me how many people on here don't seem to know that age 60 wasn't aways "the rule." The retirement age used to be 65 until either the late 50's or early 60's (can't remember). I way I see it, the "geezers" are just getting made whole for what was taken away from them. Somehow I don't think the youngsters were whining about "the rules" back then.

Regardless of all that, age 65 is good for one basic reason. No one should have to retire from their chosen vocation because of an arbitrary date on a calendar. I don't believe in age 65 either. As long as someone physically qualifies, they should be allowed to work.

The danger of age 65 is this: What if the federal government decides that some other professions ought to retire by a certain age?
 
skydog2 said:
It's interesting to me how many people on here don't seem to know that age 60 wasn't aways "the rule." The retirement age used to be 65 until either the late 50's or early 60's (can't remember). I way I see it, the "geezers" are just getting made whole for what was taken away from them.
Click to expand...

Nothing was "taken away from them," because the rule for everyone in aviation today has always been 60. No one in aviation today was in the industry before the Age 60 rule.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Nothing was "taken away from them," because the rule for everyone in aviation today has always been 60. No one in aviation today was in the industry before the Age 60 rule.
Click to expand...

Well, as usual, you missed the point. The point is nothing is set in stone. Nothing is guaranteed, and "the rules" change. Just as they were changed 40 years ago, when "the geezers" had their best 5 earning years taken away from them. The "new" age 65 rule sets right what was screwed up back then. Live with it.
 
The age 60 law had unconstitutional components in it.

Again, if a pilot is physically and medically competent, I don't see what the issue is. What I do see is a classic case of me, me, me; the same attitude that drives the quality of the profession down overall.
 
Well, I was indeed unaware of that. I have read several opinions as to the constitutionality of the age 60 rule.

My point still stands though. If a pilot is able beyond 60, they should have your support not your criticism.
 
meritflyer said:
If a pilot is able beyond 60, they should have your support not your criticism.
Click to expand...

The problem is that "able" is too subjective. Can they pass a medical? Of course, but you used to be a pilot, so you know full well that unless you've got an eye-patch over an eye and you're in a wheelchair, you can pretty much be guaranteed of getting a first class medical. That's no measure of someone's competence.

The age limit was a reasonable age to set that would minimize the number of pilots operating with cognitive deficiencies as a result of age, while not requiring unreasonable cognitive and medical examination standards.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
The problem is that "able" is too subjective. Can they pass a medical? Of course, but you used to be a pilot, so you know full well that unless you've got an eye-patch over an eye and you're in a wheelchair, you can pretty much be guaranteed of getting a first class medical. That's no measure of someone's competence.

The age limit was a reasonable age to set that would minimize the number of pilots operating with cognitive deficiencies as a result of age, while not requiring unreasonable cognitive and medical examination standards.
Click to expand...

<-- No vested interest - just a curious onlooker (but does work in a profession with a mandatory retirement age):

Is your primary issue with the age 65 rule that there is a higher likelihood of cognitive deficiencies in pilots over 60?
 
skydog2 said:
Well, as usual, you missed the point. The point is nothing is set in stone. Nothing is guaranteed, and "the rules" change. Just as they were changed 40 years ago, when "the geezers" had their best 5 earning years taken away from them. The "new" age 65 rule sets right what was screwed up back then. Live with it.
Click to expand...

Nah, it's just the people who's "best 5 earning years" were taken away switched. If you get right down to it, I lost mine because I'll be at a regional longer. Hell, my earnings are even affected NOW rather than 30 years from now. If it weren't for age 65, I'd likely be a line holder at my current regional making more $$$, meager that it is. It's a pretty circular argument, so we can keep going all day.
 
SteveC said:
Seems to me that that statement swings both ways. Young guys have a pretty vested interest also, no?
Click to expand...

Your reference isn't what I was indicating in regards to a vested interest.

Those who have left the airline profession, who do not fly for a living anymore, or have no ambition to return to the profession, have no vested interest in the result of the Age 65 ruling.

To me, it's not about old vs. young, or the other way around.
 
surreal1221 said:
Your reference isn't what I was indicating in regards to a vested interest.

Those who have left the airline profession, who do not fly for a living anymore, or have no ambition to return to the profession, have no vested interest in the result of the Age 65 ruling.

To me, it's not about old vs. young, or the other way around.
Click to expand...

Ah, OK.

Then what is your point about those without a vested interest? I'm not sure I'm following and wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
ALPA's stance changed when Captain Prater came into office in 2007. Captain Woerth, the previous ALPA President, was a staunch supporter of Age 60. Captain Prater, on the other hand, wanted the limit increased. The polling data showed a majority of the membership in favor of keeping the Age 60 limit.
Click to expand...

Instead of slapping the geezers then, as they're referred to; isn't this then (Prater's support of a limit increase...65 or not) the crux of the overall problem? The geezers simply got the "luck of the draw" of what their own union leadership seemingly supported (I say seemingly, because I don't know the extent, and it does seem the rank and file didn't want it). The comparison would be regional airline X gets some big payraise from management for their pilots (hypothetically) and every other pilot in every regional airline calls those pilots of Airline X scumbags for taking the payraise, since the pilots at the other airlines don't get that opportunity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top