Age 65 Ruling

[Al707]

Beacause the people fighting for this don't want to share the cake is my guess.

[Gurundu the Rat]

Well I think it would be a compromise they will have to accept. Lets face it, with all the new hires coming on they will be a very small minority very soon. If they aren't happy with a fair compromise, then screw it. They can go at 60.

[F-16]

Garundu has suggested something that could possibly work - BOTL for those wanting to fly past 60.

It would be up to ACPA and its members.

On the LIGHTER side (and brighter side?), if this happened, I'm sure they'd get to avoid the PG...

[Rockie]

You have blinders on my friend, and this unwillingness to see the future and deal with it intelligently is going to cost you and a lot of other people your ability to retire at 60 the way you planned. I'm not your enemy, you are.

Rockie,

Your whole premise that failure to act now will result in less control later is absolutely flawed. This is the same flawed argument the coalition is making in an effort to get coworkers to just give into their demands. Hmmm

The fact of the matter is that quite the opposite is true. Acting now, without knowing fully where this might, or might not, end up is ludicrous. Acting now without knowing fully our legal responsibilities and rights, since they are under attack and possibly subject to change, is a sure fire way to loose control or create unexpected liability later.

Because we are not dealing with one entity here, making changes now would actually make the situation worse. While you might be reasonable and maybe willing to strike a deal that is equitable for everyone there are others who are not willing. They want reinstatement back to their former position end of story. They will just challenge any changes made, that do not allow for all the contractual rights they had, before their 60th birthday. In fact they will likely claim we are acting to usurp their rights while the situation is before the courts. Acting to prevent full seniority entitlement post age 60. That would look like we feel we are are guilty of something wouldn't it? So what would acting to change retirement age do? It would just create more litigation. Muddy the waters further, and increase the chances of liability down the road.

You don't make decisions in an aircraft without doing your best to understand all the consequences of your actions. Why do expect ACPA to throw away that logic when it comes to this?

Acting slowly, as the courts clarify ACPA's rights, and the responsibility it has to those post 60, is the only way to make the best decisions possible, which will allow for continued control over our collective fate.

Maybe you should read the ALPA article again. The rule down there hasn't even changed yet but they are preparing themselves in a meaningful way. None of their collective agreements reflect age sixty five but they are preparing themselves for when it becomes a real serious possibility. All you guys are doing is holding votes and saying we're not going to change. You're relying on the courts to protect you and doing nothing to protect yourself except holding useless votes and fighting individuals who challenge the rule. Not a very indepth strategy if you ask me and one that's going to get run over and left in the dust by events. Like I said, it's not me who's threatening your right to retire at sixty with no penalty, it's you.

I've got a news flash for you. The coalition is the least of your worries so I would stop obsessing about them if I were you.

[Al707]

"How about if we compromised and allow the 60-65s to fly as FO? They get to fly past 60, and the others get to progress up the ranks and get their 5 years in on the widebodys before they turn 60 and can retire without penalty"

"On the LIGHTER side (and brighter side?), if this happened, I'm sure they'd get to avoid the PG..."

Would this not unfairly affect those poor ($$) fellows already within the "position group"? Now the F/O's get their progression... but the starving guys within the position group can stay there for 5 more years?

Anything other than F/O on the Embraer or an RP position will effect those who can least afford it would it not? This is just the financial cost, what about the lifestyle penalties to the now poorer position group fellows?

Just an observation.

[Brick Head]

Rockie,

You sure pedal the stuff. The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

You're relying on the courts to protect you and doing nothing to protect yourself

No we are relying on the courts for guidance. That IMO is a very prudent thing to do. If the retirement age does change, as I think it will, we will be guided in that direction. When the process is complete and all challenges from both sides are complete, ACPA, with input from the members, will respond accordingly in an informed manor.

"holding useless votes and fighting individuals who challenge the rule. "

You kill me. That vote wasn't useless. ACPA needed to poll the group to find out what the group wanted. Their job is to represent the will of the membership. Heck If the vote hadn't taken place you would be claiming that ACPA is acting in a fashion that is out of touch with the will of the group wouldn't you?

"Like I said, it's not me who's threatening your right to retire at sixty with no penalty, it's you."

Not me. I believe that as the process evolves, twists and turns, we will find a solution that does not negatively impact your co workers. I am very comfortable with the direction.

"that's going to get run over and left in the dust by events."

We both believe this is going to happen. However I see no reason to rush, in a panic, and make decisions we can not possibly know the future ramifications of, until the courts make a final determination of collective bargaining rights versus Human rights. I expect both sides to go to the Sup Court. Until then everyone is guessing as to how post 60 retirement will pan out. Until then any move by ACPA could turn out to be the wrong direction. So why make it?

So we all wait. Is that the problem? How fast the process is going? I mean you can't blame ACPA for that. ACPA did not create the process they just work within it.

"I've got a news flash for you. The coalition is the least of your worries so I would stop obsessing about them if I were you."

I agree. I am not worried about them. They are however a group that is fighting for age 60 retirement and status quo contractual rights. I have used them only for the purpose of illustrating why hostility is emanating and why ACPA can't do a deal.

I believe that at the moment age 65 retirement will likely not happen soon. One, mandatory retirement is a legal exception within the Human rights act as long as the age is normal. Two, the definition of normal, as defined within the latest ruling will likely not go above 60 within a short while. Three, the tribunal just upheld ACPA's right to set a date. Personally I doubt the tribunal will here anymore complaints until it appears 60 is no longer the normal age of retirement as defined by the last ruling. You will be just waisting their time.

The change will come from Parliament. We all know a worker shortage is looming. Parliament will be forced, likely within the next decade, to act in a fashion that encourages workers to remain in the work force beyond today's standard retirement. How that will take place will be a balance of the needs of the young, the needs of employers, and the needs of the elderly.

You are just a little ahead of your time.

[sportingrifle]

Brickhead.......

Thank you for so eloquently and insightfully arguing the obvious with those who are desperately avoiding acknowledging the double standard that they are trying to benefit from. I just don't have the energy these days.

sportingrifle

[Rockie]

ALPA = proactive
ACPA = reactive

I'm pretty sure you guys can see the difference between the two organizations approaches to this issue. I know which one I prefer, and you guys have made it clear which one you prefer. I don't want you to lose your pension at sixty which is the whole point of my wanting ACPA to get smart about this, yet somehow you think I do. In any event, I've spent all the time I'm going to spend on this. Good luck.