American to furlough again...

Alright, because I'm bored I did some more reading. Western Air Lines v. Criswell, 472 U.S. 400, 105 S. Ct. 2743, 86L. Ed. 2d 321 (1985) and Trans World Airlines v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 105 S. Ct. 613, 83 L. Ed. 2d 523 [1985] both dealt with the issue. In both of those cases the Supreme court said that Age 60 was illegal for flight engineers but, upheld that it was legal for pilots.

I keep finding references to a decision in 2005 that reaffirmed Age 60 but, I have been unable to find the specific case number.





​
 
Polar742 said:
There could have been an implementation that phased in the rule over a number of years that would have slowly raised the retirement age, like they do with so many rules in the FARs. I'll bet the flight/duty update rules will come with a grace period.
Click to expand...

I would have liked to have seen it implemented like they did for the FAA controllers. Basically, those hired before the change have to retire at 60 and those hired after the change retire at 65.
 
Capt. Caucasian said:
I would have liked to have seen it implemented like they did for the FAA controllers. Basically, those hired before the change have to retire at 60 and those hired after the change retire at 65.
Click to expand...

I'd be okay with that, even though it means (gasp) I'd have to retire at 60. Puts us in line with ICAO eventually and people's long term plans don't get sapped. The other argument was that so many guys lost their shirts on retirement right when they needed it. I'm not unsympathetic to them. However, the implementation mainly seemed like a stop gap for the airline management teams to keep from having skyrocketing training costs at a time their revenues were plummeting. Implement it how we like it, and that doesn't change. Make it "Yesterday you retire at 60, tomorrow you retire at 65," and ALL that changes. Makes you feel bad for the poor SOB that turned 61 the day before the rule went into effect with his retirement in shambles.....
 
An extra five years probably wouldn't have fixed that anyway. Unless, of course, he was a senior captain and didn't eat, pay a mortgage or spend a dime of it for those extra 5 years.

But if he couldn't do that in the previous 5 years, chances are he can't do that in the next.
 
Doug Taylor said:
An extra five years probably wouldn't have fixed that anyway. Unless, of course, he was a senior captain and didn't eat, pay a mortgage or spend a dime of it for those extra 5 years.

But if he couldn't do that in the previous 5 years, chances are he can't do that in the next.
Click to expand...


The American pilot group is an interesting bunch.

Apparently the APA has notes on the annual suicide rates for AA pilots that are having a rough time of it.

They've got 777 Captains that somehow manage to live check to check.

I'm forced to wonder how many other pilot groups have that sort of demographics.
 
kellwolf said:
Makes you feel bad for the poor SOB that turned 61 the day before the rule went into effect with his retirement in shambles.....
Click to expand...

My dad retired from Delta at 57 back in 2004 (pre-bankruptcy). When he was 59 his pension was taken away. He was not allowed to return to Delta. He turned 60 two months before the rule changed to 60. How the hell can he recoup what was estimated to be 3.5 million in retirement?
 
Capt. Caucasian said:
My dad retired from Delta at 57 back in 2004 (pre-bankruptcy). When he was 59 his pension was taken away. He was not allowed to return to Delta. He turned 60 two months before the rule changed to 60. How the hell can he recoup what was estimated to be 3.5 million in retirement?
Click to expand...

Also a valid point. Essentially, those that were about to retire when the rule changed are the "winners." Pretty much everyone else (including those that had JUST retired) are the "losers."
 
kellwolf said:
Also a valid point. Essentially, those that were about to retire when the rule changed are the "winners." Pretty much everyone else (including those that had JUST retired) are the "losers."
Click to expand...

The only "winners" out there were the pilots that were A.) already sitting in the seat that they were going to retire from and B.) did not have any of their retirement taken away. If both of those points were not met then the pilot could hardly be called a winner. It's why I really have no ill-will towards the over-60 guys at my airline.
 
Capt. Caucasian said:
My dad retired from Delta at 57 back in 2004 (pre-bankruptcy). When he was 59 his pension was taken away. He was not allowed to return to Delta. He turned 60 two months before the rule changed to 60. How the hell can he recoup what was estimated to be 3.5 million in retirement?
Click to expand...

... God damn. I don't know how you deal with that sort of robbery, I hope your old man is doing alright.
 
This is a ticklish subject indeed. While it's true you want advancement for the up and coming guys such as myself, you can't ignore the many pilots who were supposed to be riding into the sunset, so to speak, and their horse was taken away. It would seem that they've put in all this work in life and would have nothing to show for it.

So the question becomes, Frank (puts on sunglasses), where do we find the balance? (walks away...)
 
jynxyjoe said:
... God damn. I don't know how you deal with that sort of robbery, I hope your old man is doing alright.
Click to expand...

Dad did much better than most. He took the lump sum portion of his retirement and put it away and did not touch it. In the meantime he got all of his financial planning licenses and took a stab at that. Made a little but not really enough to get by with.

My step-mom going back to teaching is what really saved them. Unfortunately for her it meant coming out of retirement. If they can ever sell their house (on the market for three years) then everything will really be hunky-dory.
 
Capt. Caucasian said:
Dad did much better than most. He took the lump sum portion of his retirement and put it away and did not touch it. In the meantime he got all of his financial planning licenses and took a stab at that. Made a little but not really enough to get by with.

My step-mom going back to teaching is what really saved them. Unfortunately for her it meant coming out of retirement. If they can ever sell their house (on the market for three years) then everything will really be hunky-dory.
Click to expand...

It's a damn shame. Just a giant shame.
 
Capt. Caucasian said:
I'm not going to hold your hand anymore. I'm sure you have access to Google just like me. Type in these words, "age 60 bfoq" and start reading. Hundreds of legal interpretations there supporting Age 60 from many courts including the Supreme Court. Sorry though, as for the specific case number, I could not find it and I don't know how to search through the Supreme Court database.
Click to expand...

That's because it doesn't exist--which is my whole point. You're not holding my hand; rather you are proving my point. There was no Supreme Court decision that said it was legal to force pilots to retire at age 60.
 
kellwolf said:
Also a valid point. Essentially, those that were about to retire when the rule changed are the "winners." Pretty much everyone else (including those that had JUST retired) are the "losers."
Click to expand...

What about those who worked for companies that went under and constantly found themselves in the right seat starting all over again at the bottom pay scale? There are an awful lot of them too. Don't forget them. This industry is about timing and luck.
 
lostplanetairman said:
That's because it doesn't exist--which is my whole point. You're not holding my hand; rather you are proving my point. There was no Supreme Court decision that said it was legal to force pilots to retire at age 60.
Click to expand...

Did you read this above:

Alright, because I'm bored I did some more reading. Western Air Lines v. Criswell, 472 U.S. 400, 105 S. Ct. 2743, 86L. Ed. 2d 321 (1985) and Trans World Airlines v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 105 S. Ct. 613, 83 L. Ed. 2d 523 [1985] both dealt with the issue. In both of those cases the Supreme court said that Age 60 was illegal for flight engineers but, upheld that it was legal for pilots.

I keep finding references to a decision in 2005 that reaffirmed Age 60 but, I have been unable to find the specific case number.
Click to expand...

Both of these cases reaffirmed Age 60. They are considered landmark cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top