US Pilots Labor Discussion

[RSVP767]

Maybe this will settle the eastie misunderstanding of the age 65 rule...but maybe not...



Ok, easties - any questions? Pi, how about you? Barrister? Any other eastie have any questions or doubts?

Maybe this will settle the Westie misunderstanding of the age 65 Law....but maybe not...

H.R. 4343

Summary

12/13/2007--Public Law. (This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act - Amends federal transportation law to allow a pilot who has attained 60 years of age to serve as a passenger airline pilot until the age of 65, provided that a pilot who has attained age 60 may serve as pilot-in-command on international flights only if there is another pilot in the flight crew who has not yet attained 60 years of age. Prohibits subjecting pilots to different medical examinations and standards on account of age unless to ensure an adequate level of safety in flight, except that no person who has attained 60 years of age may serve as a pilot unless such person has a first-class medical certificate.

Requires air carriers to: (1) continue to provide FAA-approved training to pilots, with specific emphasis on initial and recurring training and qualification of pilots who have attained 60 years of age; and (2) evaluate, every six months, the performance of pilots who have attained 60 years of age through a line check of such pilot.

Requires the Comptroller General to report to Congress on the effect of the modification of pilot age requirements, if any, on aviation safety.

Ok Westies, any questions?

 

[Res Judicata]

My God...you can work to 65 now. That's it.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Which westie claimed it wasn't a law. We know an eastie claimed it wasn't a FAR...

FWIW, Congress doesn't pass laws - they pass bills. Once the president signs them they become law, not before. In this case, Congress passed an "Act" which had as it's intent a modification of Title 49 of the U.S. code by adding language to Chapter 447 of Title 49.

Jim

 

[A320 Driver]

Which westie claimed it wasn't a law. We know an eastie claimed it wasn't a FAR...

FWIW, Congress doesn't pass laws - they pass bills. Once the president signs them they become law, not before. In this case, Congress passed an "Act" which had as it's intent a modification of Title 49 of the U.S. code by adding language to Chapter 447 of Title 49.

Jim

I can't believe that after nearly a full day we are still arguing over this...
Kinda shows you where we are as a company.

Driver...

 

[prechilill]

I can't believe that after nearly a full day we are still arguing over this...
Kinda shows you where we are as a company.

Driver...

You're the clown that brought it up pal.

 

[Pi brat]

Of course the east lost more hulls than the west. The east was in bankruptcy and was operating a fleet and route structure that guaranteed financial ruin unless hulls were eliminated and route structures were realigned so that the operation could begin to produce a profit. This would have very likely happened in a stand-alone reorganization plan just as it did with the barbell acquisition plan. The east was bleeding cash and nearing extinction; thus surgical amputation of the acutely damaged appendages was absolutely required.

There is no logical way for Management to have shared or matched the east hull reductions on the west. AWA was not in bankruptcy and leases for hulls could not just be discarded. Outside of bankruptcy the west hulls had to stay until the end of their lease terms unless paying the penalty for early termination was still an economic advantage.

So in order for the merger to make financial sense to Management and the investors was to lop off the unprofitable assets on the east and then blend in the assets from the west so that the new merged entity could return a profit and survive. Making equal cuts east/west was never going to be considered because there was no legal means of accomplishing such with the only benefit being to the east workers who were facing chapter 7 anyway.

You keep searching for things that don't meet your definition of "fair" so that you can justify your stance against the NIC. Life isn't fair and there was never a promise that life would be fair by anyone to anyone. Management and the investors didn't agree to make things fair as a condition of their merger proposal. George Nicolau was never held to a standard to make things fair for either the east or the west pilots. If Management attempted to insert fairness into the transaction it was because they felt it was in the best interest of the newly combined company going forward, but they weren't required to do so. If Nicolau made attempts to be fair it wasn't because he was required to do so but because he felt the integration needed to be done in a manner fully consistent with the ALPA merger policy and because he is/was a dispassionate neutral who gained nothing be intentionally harming one group more than another when other more equitable options were available to him. I've already explained multiple times that I believe Nicolau was exceedingly fair and in fact objectively favored the east slightly more than the west in terms of positioning on the relative integration of the seniority lists.

Of course none of this will change how judge Silver reviews the legal basis upon which USAPA and Management can move forward with negotiating a JCBA. Fairness is not an aspect of the law she needs to consider in this matter.

Oh boy. First we get to hear from the High Priest of High Point, now the Reverend of the Little White Ball.

Come on CG, you know we saved your job. You don't even thank us, you try to justify your windfall. 🙂

Did you go back to the start of this latest round of this topic? It was a west poster saying that all that mattered was the PID. I countered that it must not have. Also, in your trip back, check out where I agreed about "fair" then added that it didn't matter what I think. A little study before you sermon can go a long way.

I believe you try to justify the Nic as fair because if you thought it was even slightly unfair you couldn't live with it due to your faith. So, you just convince yourself it was fair and the conscience is clean.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Oh boy. First we get to hear from the High Priest of High Point, now the Reverend of the Little White Ball.

Come on CG, you know we saved your job. You don't even thank us, you try to justify your windfall. 🙂

Did you go back to the start of this latest round of this topic? It was a west poster saying that all that mattered was the PID. I countered that it must not have. Also, in your trip back, check out where I agreed about "fair" then added that it didn't matter what I think. A little study before you sermon can go a long way.

I believe you try to justify the Nic as fair because if you thought it was even slightly unfair you couldn't live with it due to your faith. So, you just convince yourself it was fair and the conscience is clean.

I read it all, but I never discerned where after all this time that you now believe the NIC is fair and/or equitable and that you are ready to support the full and unmodified implementation of the NIC. If I missed that part please direct me to the appropriate post.

I have no need to try and justify anything related to the NIC. If he had come back with DOH I would support it for the very same reasons I have articulated previously related to why I believe USAPA's quest to have it disregarded is going to be proven legally incorrect. The TA cannot be ignored and it defines a process that was followed to achieve an integrated list. Legally it wouldn't matter to me if he did it by shoe size, hair color or throwing darts at a wall so long as the conditions called for in the TA (ALPA merger policy) were done in full compliance.

Would I have thought that any of those methods were fair? I doubt it, but if it were a legally-accepting and binding method, then I wouldn't try to avoid it the way the east has with the relative positions he used. I won't go over it again, but it should be obvious that every west pilot was pushed down the list by the NIC which means every east pilot not on a furloughed status got pushed up the list of active pilots based on the award. The #1 west pilot was nowhere near #1,2 or 3 when the award was released. So the closer a west pilot was to the top of the pre-merger list, the worse off he was in terms of relative position. The junior active pilots on both sides pretty much stayed where they started (being a small bump in the road away from going on furlough). Well, you get the idea even if you don't accept the concept of it being "fair". I think it was logical, well-anticipated and fair to both groups with a slight edge going to the east pilots. But that's just one man's opinion which doesn't mean much in comparison to what the law says and what will happen in a court of law.

I wan't there but boy did it seem like Silver was done and ready to retire to her chambers about 10 seconds after Siegel presented the legal issue at hand to the court. My guess is that she found the case interesting and intriguing until he rather succinctly showed that USAPA is grossly misinterpreting the RLA and the ruling made by the Ninth in Addington I. The new year approaches and we shall soon see which way she will go in no time compared to how long this has been going on.

 

[A320 Driver]

You're the clown that brought it up pal.

I'm not your pal...

Driver...

 

[A320 Driver]

Consider this, if the FAA changed the retirement age in 2005 Nicolau wouldn't have needed an updated list.

You're still just as wrong as you were this morning...just more of an a$$ about it. A simple "oops" would have fixed everything.

Driver...

 

[prechilill]

I'm not your pal...

Driver...

But you certainly have proven you are a clown...

And yes, the FAA did change the age 65 rule, read it in the FAR's. Are you finished being stupid or do you wish to continue your pointless debate?

 

[Phoenix]

But you certainly have proven you are a clown...

And yes, the FAA did change the age 65 rule, read it in the FAR's. Are you finished being stupid or do you wish to continue your pointless debate?

Some posters have said you are female. Thank you for clearing up that issue.

 

[prechilill]

Some posters have said you are female. Thank you for clearing up that issue.

I wear four stripes...
But Sit on the right...
Elated Addington not ripe
And Knit with all my might
But punt on Loa93
And sign my name TP


Who am I?

 

[767one]

314 pages????

It should be in 314 words or less...

Nic,

I guess it could have been worse but if it was important to change why give the airlines 2 yrs. because the ATA or whatever they call themselves say it is complex and will cost $. My guess is that no matter how complex the rule change if it would save the airlines a couple of bucks the change would occur within days. Actually the important part of the document is in the last few pages. The rest of the document is typical govt. doublespeak B.S.

Merry Christmas,


Bob


359 days and a wakeup........I'm gone

 

[A320 Driver]

I wear four stripes...
But Sit on the right...
Elated Addington not ripe
And Knit with all my might
But punt on Loa93
And sign my name TP


Who am I?

TP...

Toilet paper??? I finally get it.

 

[luvn737s]

Can't be. Toilet paper is useful, effective and you get what you pay for.