American to furlough again...

[lostplanetairman]

The Supreme Court of the United States disagreed with you. You know, that court that is solely responsible for being the final arbiter of constitutionality? But I'm sure you know better.

Can you please point us to the Supreme Court ruling that declared age 60 legal?

 

[SteveC]

Your interpretation is incorrect.

If it must take me explaining this down to the 1st grade level I really don't mind, but I think that you can figure out what I was writing and implying without needing me to provide further clarification. It was a one sentence phrase, that doesn't need multiple paragraphs to explain. If you need more clarity, then perhaps a PM is the best route to take?

Why PM? Why not here?

 

[JoelT]

SteveC,

I understand perfectly what Surreal is referring too and he has a valid point. Either for or against, only airline pilots are affected and only their opinions really matter on the subject.

I'll give a couple of examples:

Air traffic controllers retire at 56. That is their issue and theirs alone. My opinion does not matter and has zero relevance. Arguing about it with a controller is pointless as I will never fulling understand his point of view.

MikeD's example of the USAF requiring a Master's degree for promotions - not my business as I am not a USAF officer.

To me, it is very similar to a stranger knocking on my front door to criticize my furniture.

 

[derg]

Ikea? Ikea?! You've gots to be kidding.


And shag carpet? Who are you, Shaft?

 

[JoelT]

Can you please point us to the Supreme Court ruling that declared age 60 legal?

After a Google search I came up with a few. Apparently, the rule had been challenged in the Supreme Court a few times with the most recent in 2005 (I didn't search long enough to find the specific case. Just references from a few articles.)

I did find this link of a case from the '70's. All of the others were pretty similar and used the same rationale. http://supreme.justia.com/us/434/192/

 

[JoelT]

Ikea? Ikea?! You've gots to be kidding.

No way, Broyhill Attic Heirlooms collection! Got rid of the Ikea stuff back when I upgraded at XJT.

And shag carpet? Who are you, Shaft?

It's called Micro Shag thankyouverymuch. I really need to rip it up and get more hardwoods.

 

[lostplanetairman]

The link refers to retirement plans. Again, I'm looking for the specific Supreme Court "ruling" that said age 60 was ok.

 

[SteveC]

SteveC,

I understand perfectly what Surreal is referring too and he has a valid point. Either for or against, only airline pilots are affected and only their opinions really matter on the subject.

...

I don't have a (huge) issue with that viewpoint.

What confuses me is that I put that very question to surreal:

...It appears to me that you are implying that those without a vested interest cannot have a valid opinion on the topic, or at the least should refrain from voicing them, even if they have valid insights or understandings of the situation based on their past experiences....

...which sounds an awful like what you said above. Yet when I asked surreal1221 to verify that my understanding of his insinuations was on the mark, his response was:

Your interpretation is incorrect.

If it must take me explaining this down to the 1st grade level I really don't mind, but I think that you can figure out what I was writing and implying without needing me to provide further clarification. It was a one sentence phrase, that doesn't need multiple paragraphs to explain. If you need more clarity, then perhaps a PM is the best route to take?

Thus my confusion and, well, frustration. I was hoping for a straight forward answer such as the one that you gave, rather than the run around I'm getting from him. I'd still like that actually, because from surreal's response to me I don't think that he agrees with what you are saying.

 

[JoelT]

The link refers to retirement plans. Again, I'm looking for the specific Supreme Court "ruling" that said age 60 was ok.

Do a search for this phrase "bona fide occupational qualification" and you will find way too many Supreme Court cases to list here. I just don't have the time to sort through them all. Basically, you will find, that this is the rule that allowed Age 60 (and Age 65).

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Is your primary issue with the age 65 rule that there is a higher likelihood of cognitive deficiencies in pilots over 60?

That's one of the issues, but the bigger issue (for me) is industrial in nature. We are only helping management in their game of destroying our profession by stretching out our earning years to make the same amount of money that we should make by 60. Pilots are now going to be forced to work five extra years to make the same money that they used to make by 60.

The funny thing is that most of the people that are against the age 65 rule will most likely benefit as they were able to collect five extra years of pay. Once they hit 60 they will understand the 5 years actually increased their total pay through their life.

Most of us have no desire to work an extra five years to make the same amount of money that we would have made previously by age 60.

 

[jtrain609]

I think the only people that want to work to 65 or beyond are teenagers and 20 somethings that don't really know what they're getting themselves into.

I'd much prefer to plan things out so I can retire when I'm 55.

 

[surreal1221]

Thus my confusion and, well, frustration. I was hoping for a straight forward answer such as the one that you gave, rather than the run around I'm getting from him. I'd still like that actually, because from surreal's response to me I don't think that he agrees with what you are saying.

Your interpretation brought age into my statement, which was what I indicated was incorrect - as age is irrelevant.

I agree with Capt. Caucasian's interpretation. No debate over rhetoric necessary. He just was nice enough to provide examples. I didn't think I need to provide additional imagery.

 

[MikeD]

SteveC,

I understand perfectly what Surreal is referring too and he has a valid point. Either for or against, only airline pilots are affected and only their opinions really matter on the subject.

I'll give a couple of examples:

Air traffic controllers retire at 56. That is their issue and theirs alone. My opinion does not matter and has zero relevance. Arguing about it with a controller is pointless as I will never fulling understand his point of view.

MikeD's example of the USAF requiring a Master's degree for promotions - not my business as I am not a USAF officer.

To me, it is very similar to a stranger knocking on my front door to criticize my furniture.

To me, it isn't so much the specific job or what you or I do, that's not at issue here. It's the seeming misplaced rhetoric in a few cases for the whole age 65 thing and how it came to be. Fingers are seemingly being pointed at the so-called geezers, when it seems fingers should be pointed in a number of directions. It just seems some are conveniently leaving that part out, though its been alluded to. Now, how good or bad Age 65 is for those in the industry will likely depend on who you talk to and the personal affect on them it would have. Same as many political debates. That and the observation about people complaining about something they've never even been eligible for in their career (A scale wages) as being a wasted effort to complain about.

 

[SteveC]

Your interpretation brought age into my statement, which was what I indicated was incorrect - as age is irrelevant.

Wait a minute. I brought up age early on (post #95), and you corrected me on that in post #97:

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.

In the following post (#98) I said:

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.

You equivocated, so in an effort to confirm what I thought you were saying I posted (#101) this:

...It appears to me that you are implying that those without a vested interest cannot have a valid opinion on the topic, or at the least should refrain from voicing them, even if they have valid insights or understandings of the situation based on their past experiences....

...and your (eventual) response was:

Your interpretation is incorrect. < bold added by SteveC >

If it must take me explaining this down to the 1st grade level I really don't mind, but I think that you can figure out what I was writing and implying without needing me to provide further clarification. It was a one sentence phrase, that doesn't need multiple paragraphs to explain. If you need more clarity, then perhaps a PM is the best route to take?

Now you say this:

I agree with Capt. Caucasian's interpretation. No debate over rhetoric necessary. He just was nice enough to provide examples. I didn't think I need to provide additional imagery.

Then my interpretation of what you were saying was correct after all that?

Here, I'll quote it again:

It appears to me that you are implying that those without a vested interest cannot have a valid opinion on the topic, or at the least should refrain from voicing them, even if they have valid insights or understandings of the situation based on their past experiences.

Is there something substantially different about what I said versus what Capt. Caucasian said?

 

[JoelT]

That and the observation about people complaining about something they've never even been eligible for in their career (A scale wages) as being a wasted effort to complain about.

A small group of pilots complaining about something that they were never eligible for is what got us Age 65 in the first place! Here is the order in which changes occur: complaining -> action -> change.

So, what you are hearing is the possible beginnings of change back to the old Age 60 (or 55, 34, 72, 46, 125). Complaining about B Scale wages is what brought about their demise. Had no one complained then I would be on a lesser pay scale than Doug although I fly for the same airline.

Where complaining gets annoying is when no one does anything about it.

 

[lostplanetairman]

Do a search for this phrase "bona fide occupational qualification" and you will find way too many Supreme Court cases to list here. I just don't have the time to sort through them all. Basically, you will find, that this is the rule that allowed Age 60 (and Age 65).

A BFOQ is something like saying a female is needed to be a women's restroom attendant or a Rabbi has to be Jewish. They are very narrow exceptions to Title VII.

Again, I'm simply asking someone to find where the Supreme Court has "ruled" that the age 60 rule was legal since that was what was pointed out earlier in this thread.

 

[MikeD]

Where complaining gets annoying is when no one does anything about it.

And that, my friend, is key. There's alot of complaining in many areas of aviation where that's all it is, complaining. If people don't like Age 65, then don't only shoot the geezers some feel are complicit, go shoot your own national representation who appear to have supported it as well.

 

[Maurus]

Most of us have no desire to work an extra five years to make the same amount of money that we would have made previously by age 60.

I think the only people that want to work to 65 or beyond are teenagers and 20 somethings that don't really know what they're getting themselves into.

I'd much prefer to plan things out so I can retire when I'm 55.

I'm just saying that I am seeing the same complaints in this thread as new hires have. Wheres my upgrade? Wheres my money? Why am I still stuck at a regional? I just find all this ironic.

 

[JoelT]

A BFOQ is something like saying a female is needed to be a women's restroom attendant or a Rabbi has to be Jewish. They are very narrow exceptions to Title VII.

Again, I'm simply asking someone to find where the Supreme Court has "ruled" that the age 60 rule was legal since that was what was pointed out earlier in this thread.

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.

 

[Polar742]

Age 65 was inevitable for ICAO.

ALPA or not, the rule would change for political purposes.

I think most heartburn comes from the implementation of it.

All of a sudden, BOOM, you're hit with a huge paradigm shift that affects, directly, your number of days off and your income. If you're looking for a job, that too.

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.

The overnight application of the rule didn't give individual groups time to address it. Perhaps, had a phase-in of the rule or a grace-period occurred, then the unions and companies could have gotten together as this didn't affect either of them positively.

For the business, you have presumably your highest cost employees extended another 5 years. For union membership, you have a complete overnight stop of any reasonably expected QoL improvements.

Even during the hardest times in the airlines, the age 60 clock never stopped. But it did in 2007.

It seems to me, this is where most of the angst is coming from. You never F[ornicate] with a pilot's days off or money, and both were pounded on due to about the only overnight rule change.