Well this was/is a very hot potato here too, as the company were expecting 6 FC's to retire this year. If they choose not to, then the company will probably make at least 6 FO's redundant!
Two independant law firms were hired by our union to review the law text, before the new deal was made, so I for one expect it to hold up in court.
I think the argument is that the main thing is job vs. no job, and the position (FC or FO) and conditions ie. LOL, pension etc, is secondary.
That does not mean that other companys willl not reach other agreements or that some terms will be changed further down the road. That's the reason for my curiosity.
I thought that normal retirement in BA for example was/is 55 ? If those who turn 55, decide to postpone their retirement, I would expect a heated debate to erupt.
When you say BALPA' are "pursuing the line........65 yrs. justifiable" do you mean that BALPA actually expects to get a say??
In other words does the industry expect some kind of slow introduction or further postponement ?
I think these are very serious issues, and was confused to not beeing able to find any debate on the subject on the forum.
Rgds. OY
Before Start! Without jumping to conclusions I think that everyone is hoping that nobody will put up with this and choose retirement instead.