Home





Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Pilots Consider Age 60 Options
L-1011
post Oct 13 2009, 01:40 PM
Post #1


Boeing 737 Member
***

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 147
Joined: 22-April 08
Member No.: 6,228



QUOTE
The lawyer for a group of pilots caught in the time warp of the age 65 rule said his clients are considering what their next move might be now that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco has turned down their appeal of a dismissal of their class-action suit.

Anthony P.X. Bothwell was seeking relief for Southwest Airlines pilot Michael Oksner and 225 other pilots who were shut out of continued flight status by a 2007 law that extended the mandatory retirement age to 65 for commercial airline pilots. Congress allowed pilots under 60 to continue working until they reached 65. But it did not account for pilots, such as Oksner, who had passed 60, and thus had been forced to retire, but were not yet 65. (DAILY, June 10).

In Oksner v. Blakey, Bothwell sought compensation for their lost income.

“We are considering our legal options,” he said. “We may file a petition for certiorari, that is, for a U.S. Supreme Court review. We may file a new case.”

On Sept. 3, the Court of Appeals affirmed a dismissal by the U.S. District Court of Oksner’s petition (CV 07-2273 SBA). On Sept. 16, the U.S. Circuit Court denied Bothwell’s appeal for a rehearing.


Why would they do that?
Here is the link: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...mp;channel=comm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AirRabbit
post Nov 8 2009, 02:58 PM
Post #2


The Rant Master
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 1,225
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Member No.: 1,333



QUOTE(L-1011 @ Oct 13 2009, 01:40 PM) [snapback]131434[/snapback]
Why would they do that?

Why would "who" do "what?" The pilots undoubtedly wanted to keep flying and were forced to retire at age 60. Since the rules were changed, they obviously wanted to either go back to work, or be compensated for the fact that they believe they were denied the opportunity to work ... since the rule had changed. Unfortunately, laws change all the time. But, for logicial reasons, laws are not retroactive, and they certainly can't be selectively retroactive. No one wants to be shipped off to jail for having done something 10 years ago - particularly when whatever was done was legal when they did it, but now, with a new law, its illegal. The same principle holds here. The airline didn't do anything wrong - they were merely obeying the law. I feel for the guys who had to retire ... but, sometimes it just rains on your parade. Heaven knows, my parade has been rained on more than once! Welcome to life.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

 
 
Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th May 2013 - 12:35 PM

Home | Webmail | Forum | Random Video Generator | Link to us | Aircraft Fact Sheets | Help
Upload videos | Become a videographer | Terms of Use | Privacy | Contact us | About Flightlevel350.com | Ad Choices

© 2004 - 2009 Flightlevel350.com
Aviation Videos - Airplane Videos - Loudest place on the web!