American to furlough again...

Firebird2XC said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's pretty common, unfortunately, and not just with the guys that have 3 ex-wives and child support payments. I remember flying with a senior 717 captain, making $152/hr, who told me with a straight face that he couldn't afford to live unless he got at least 100 hours per month. He showed me his pay stub before his last check in December, and he had grossed $180,000 already. He was single with no kids, and had been in the left seat for a decade.

This sort of financial irresponsibility is incredible, and it's exactly what leads to the guys that claim they need an extra 5 years prior to retiring just so they can "get by."
 
Capt. Caucasian said:
Did you read this above:



Both of these cases reaffirmed Age 60. They are considered landmark cases.
Click to expand...

Yes they are landmark cases but have you read those cases? I have and I stand by what I said--neither case said it was legal to have pilots retire at age 60. One set standards and created a two pronged test for determining a BFOQ ((1) whether the age limit is reasonably necessary to the overriding interest in public safety; and (2) whether the employer is justified in applying the age limit to all employees rather than deciding each case on an individual basis) and the other said the airline could not allow FE's to continue past age 60 and deny pilots to do so (the Court held that the airline must give the same opportunity to retiring pilots as it had given to younger disabled pilots).

Given that age 65 has been around for 2 years and you have not seen planes dropping out of the sky and airlines finding that 60+ year old pilots are failing tests, it would be hard to argue BFOQ under the Supreme Court standard. Again, the BFOQ argument is a very narrow one.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
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.
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.
Click to expand...

I never looked at it that way, :(
 
We all want to live in hilltop houses, driving 15 cars.......

I wanna be a rockstar.


Which reminds me, didnt someone remake that song in an airline pilot fashion? Or is miller time getting the best of me again?
 
dvtpilot said:
Which reminds me, didnt someone remake that song in an airline pilot fashion? Or is miller time getting the best of me again?
Click to expand...


"Wear khakis with mah tennis SHOES, drink BREWS, sit around the lounge and watch Fox NEWS. Shoot mah hands like when I was dodgin' SAMS, hot DAMN, used to be like Mav'rick but now I'm a fat bald MAN, talk about muh wife's miniVAN, eatin' ravioli from da CAN in tha flyin' porta-SAN"

I don't know. I should go to bed, none of that even makes any damned sense! ;)
 
lostplanetairman said:
Yes they are landmark cases but have you read those cases? I have and I stand by what I said--neither case said it was legal to have pilots retire at age 60. One set standards and created a two pronged test for determining a BFOQ ((1) whether the age limit is reasonably necessary to the overriding interest in public safety; and (2) whether the employer is justified in applying the age limit to all employees rather than deciding each case on an individual basis) and the other said the airline could not allow FE's to continue past age 60 and deny pilots to do so (the Court held that the airline must give the same opportunity to retiring pilots as it had given to younger disabled pilots).

Given that age 65 has been around for 2 years and you have not seen planes dropping out of the sky and airlines finding that 60+ year old pilots are failing tests, it would be hard to argue BFOQ under the Supreme Court standard. Again, the BFOQ argument is a very narrow one.
Click to expand...

I read them differently. And, the Supreme Court never said that the Age 60 rule was illegal either. There is no single case but many out there that use airline pilot retirement at age 60 as a benchmark for use of BFOQ. I'm still looking for the case that I keep coming across in 2005. There are numerous references if you want to search yourself.
 
Capt. Caucasian said:
I read them differently. And, the Supreme Court never said that the Age 60 rule was illegal either. There is no single case but many out there that use airline pilot retirement at age 60 as a benchmark for use of BFOQ. I'm still looking for the case that I keep coming across in 2005. There are numerous references if you want to search yourself.
Click to expand...

You have to understand that you can't read into a Supreme Court decision. They rule narrowly. If they don't say anything about something then they didn't rule on it --don't infer. They never looked at the legality or not of age 60 for pilots and can't be interpreted as such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top