Airline pilots lobby to fly past age 60

[vetrider]

A short session between the elections and the convening of the next regular session. Some of the members will have been defeated at the polls, but still have a few days remaining in office.

Thanks Tom for the info, and also for being a gentleman about it. I'm a little embarassed, I wouldn't have blamed you if you would have said "look dipstick, do a little research yourself, it would only take 2 seconds using google..."

 

[FoxHunter]

Whoa... easy ex non member... What do you mean!!!

Taking action to insure that another individual loses his job so you can replace him. uke:

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Taking action to insure that another individual loses his job so you can replace him. uke:

But is that really scabbing.... I mean it is all fair within defined politics...

Besides, if you use the scab term too loosely... then when someone really crosses the line its kinda deluted... save the scab word for the real thing... Mr. ex non member...

 

[Hootie9750]

Here will be the outcomes


-Govt wont have to pay five extra years of social security
-Govt gets five more years of extra taxes from the 150k+ tax bracket
-Old farts get more toys, and johhny gets to go rack up a bill at Riddle
-Old farts know that social security will still be around till they die

on the other hand

-airlines have increased labor costs pushing them further into the red
-i have to spend five more years flying a rj around
-i have to pay my whole life to support old farts and when my time
comes I have no social security even though I am forced to pay for it

The "I got mine, so FVK you" crowd wins again!!!

Hoo-ray!!!

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Here will be the outcomes


-Govt wont have to pay five extra years of social security
-Govt gets five more years of extra taxes from the 150k+ tax bracket
-Old farts get more toys, and johhny gets to go rack up a bill at Riddle
-Old farts know that social security will still be around till they die

on the other hand

-airlines have increased labor costs pushing them further into the red
-i have to spend five more years flying a rj around
-i have to pay my whole life to support old farts and when my time
comes I have no social security even though I am forced to pay for it

The "I got mine, so FVK you" crowd wins again!!!

Hoo-ray!!!

Maybe you'll also get five more years of B797 pay... or A380 or whatever the jet flavor of the month is....

 

[Andy]

Maybe you'll also get five more years of B797 pay... or A380 or whatever the jet flavor of the month is....

No Rez. How stupid do you think he is? If the seat on the B797 or A380 takes an additional 5 years to become vacant, he will merely be flying the same number of years on that equipment ... 5 years older. He will get the additional 5 years flying time in whatever equipment he's in when the music stops and retirement age changes.

Hootie9750, don't kid yourself about this stopping at age 65. Once the pro-change crowd has their foot in the door, it will eventually slide out to 'full retirement age'; for anyone born after 1959, that's 67. And don't be surprised when full retirement age changes again over the next 10 years.

 

[Caveman]

Name me one other industry where the youngsters think they have a god given right to jobs currently held by someone older than them. You can have my seat when I'm good and ready to leave it and not a moment sooner. I don't want to change the mandatory retirement age, I want to abolish it.

Why don't we change it from a retirement age to retirement at at certain longevity, say 20 years on property. When you get 20 years worth of seniority you have to retire and give the junior guys a chance. How about that? 20 years should be enough time to save for your retirement. Sounds just as stupid as a mandatory retirement age if you ask me.

If you want to retire at 60, be my guest. No one's stopping you. There isn't one working agreement that says anybody has to work past age 60. Not one. So why should you care what I choose to do? It's none of your business whether I work or not. You have no right to my job, my seat or my domicile.

 

[FoxHunter]

But is that really scabbing.... I mean it is all fair within defined politics...

Besides, if you use the scab term too loosely... then when someone really crosses the line its kinda deluted... save the scab word for the real thing... Mr. ex non member...

Does addressing me as an "ex non member" really do something for you? Hey that scab word is thrown around by quite a few ALPA Kool-Aid types that would probably would be among the first to cross if things went bad. No, ALPA would like the age 65 problem to go away. The problem is that guys and gals keep getting older and then they have a change of heart. What do you think the results would be if ALPA had held a poll in 1970 regarding women and minorities in the cockpit? Should women and minorities not been hired if the vote was 9 to 1 against, 8 to 2 against, 7 to 3 against or would you argue that ALPA should have opposed women and minorities if 50%+1 were against? No Rez, some things are not goverened by polls. Opposition to the age 60 change comes only from those whose self interest is for it not to change, until they are old enough to want it to change.

No Rez, I quit ALPA over that fraud of an "Age 60 Education Campaign". I rejoined because I believed the issue would be resolved. It was no mistake to quit, just waiting to see if it was a mistake to rejoin.:beer:

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

What do you think the results would be if ALPA had held a poll in 1970 regarding women and minorities in the cockpit?

I think about 30% of the membership would particapte indicating that they really don't care...just like they did recently on the Age60 issue.

No Rez, I quit ALPA over that fraud of an "Age 60 Education Campaign". I rejoined because I believed the issue would be resolved. It was no mistake to quit, just waiting to see if it was a mistake to rejoin.:beer:

Wow... A one man boycott... How about if all of us boycott the organization over our issue de jour.

Take that over to US Politics... Americans renoucing thier citizenship over the latest scandal, invasion, crisis, whatever...

Fact is the gov't, local state and fed provide many essential services that citizens can't do well without. Many services we simply aren't even aware of or that we take for granted. So why quit over one issue when so many more issues and services are used?

When the Age60 issue poll/survey was made available did you participate? Could you have?

Why not man up and stick with the organization insteading of being a short term quitter... You have no voice when you pack up your marbles and go home.

Instead, continue to work the issue as member...

Glad you're back.... :beer:

 

[koko nw]

Name me one other industry where the youngsters think they have a god given right to jobs currently held by someone older than them. You can have my seat when I'm good and ready to leave it and not a moment sooner. I don't want to change the mandatory retirement age, I want to abolish it.

Why don't we change it from a retirement age to retirement at at certain longevity, say 20 years on property. When you get 20 years worth of seniority you have to retire and give the junior guys a chance. How about that? 20 years should be enough time to save for your retirement. Sounds just as stupid as a mandatory retirement age if you ask me.

If you want to retire at 60, be my guest. No one's stopping you. There isn't one working agreement that says anybody has to work past age 60. Not one. So why should you care what I choose to do? It's none of your business whether I work or not. You have no right to my job, my seat or my domicile.

These guy's come to mind off hand.

State and local police
firefighters
federal firefighters
federal law enforcement and corrections officers
air traffic controllers
Military
commercial airline pilots

So yea, get out of MY left seat when your time comes. Which when YOU signed up was 60.

And save me the I've been against it even before I got old and crotchety argument.

Koko

 

[FoxHunter]

Wow... A one man boycott... How about if all of us boycott the organization over our issue de jour.

Take that over to US Politics... Americans renoucing thier citizenship over the latest scandal, invasion, crisis, whatever...

Why not man up and stick with the organization insteading of being a short term quitter... You have no voice when you pack up your marbles and go home.

Instead, continue to work the issue as member...

Glad you're back.... :beer:

Sorry Rez, quitting is an individual choice but I'm far from alone. A number of pilots at FedEx have quit and remain non-members, another group has revolked DCO. I've met quite a few UAL people in DC and most have also canceled DCO. Yes, they have to pay their dues, eventually!

 

[Freight Dog]

Age 65 is gonna be screwing with a number of operational items, especially if ICAO standards are adopted.

Here's one.... captain and the FO bid the same pairing, both are senior to hold it. Both happen to be old farts over 60, who gets the pairing if one has to be under 60?

That brings up a question. Why does ICAO have that rule? Safety?

Here's a compromise for the old guys:

If you want to keep flying for the airlines past 60, fine. Here are the guidelines:

1) Ineligible to be PIC under Part 121 after 60. Eligible only for First Officer and Flight Engineer positions - just like the old times except now you can stay as an FO.

2) Mandatory sim every 6 months for pilots over 60.

3) Mandatory 1st class physical every 6 months.

4) No penalty for retiring "early" at 60.

 

[N1kawotg]

No one has asnwered my original ? It went into a psuedo history of politics.
So here it goes again. the validity test: If it was not a law today, could Alpa etc get it passed as one? Answer NO WAY
Therefore, it should not be one now. IMHO

 

[jbDC9]

Name me one other industry where the youngsters think they have a god given right to jobs currently held by someone older than them. You can have my seat when I'm good and ready to leave it and not a moment sooner.

Hey Klako, is that you with a new name??

With a rant like this you kinda sound like a senior old captain, but your profile shows otherwise; so tell us Caveman, if you're a senior old guy in the left seat, how do you think you came to be in that position? Were these senior dudes just born as graybeard captains, never to fly as FO/FE?? Uhh, no. They were once junior guys, drooling and waiting for the older guys above 'em on the list to hit age 60 and retire, allowing said junior guys to move up with much rejoicing.

How ironic that the guys whining the loudest about changing the rule don't want to admit that they actually benefitted from the rule throughout their entire careers, moving up the list due to Age 60 retirements above them, but now it's just not fair anymore. Waaahhhh, me me me!!!

 

[B6 Tech]

Hey Klako, is that you with a new name??

With a rant like this you kinda sound like a senior old captain, but your profile shows otherwise; so tell us Caveman, if you're a senior old guy in the left seat, how do you think you came to be in that position? Were these senior dudes just born as graybeard captains, never to fly as FO/FE?? Uhh, no. They were once junior guys, drooling and waiting for the older guys above 'em on the list to hit age 60 and retire, allowing said junior guys to move up with much rejoicing.

How ironic that the guys whining the loudest about changing the rule don't want to admit that they actually benefitted from the rule throughout their entire careers, moving up the list due to Age 60 retirements above them, but now it's just not fair anymore. Waaahhhh, me me me!!!

And when your 57, 58, or 59 you will scream the same damn thing, so leave that hypocritical argument out. And when these "old farts" were benifiting from the age 60 rule, those hitting the magic number were leaving with the option of lump sum payouts in some cases in the 7 figures. Those guys didn't have the rug ripped out from them 3 years till 60. Easy to sit here at 39 or 40 and tell them they should have saved in the "good times". Just about everyone I know lives a lifestyle that they can support. Just as these "old farts" have been doing, atleast until 3-4 years ago. And i'm going to guess that you, and 90% of the people on this board, regradless as you will say, will do the same damn thing. Lets see, its june 1999 and I have a DFB and I clear 160K a year. I'm 58, the kids are grown ( damn that was expensive, the oldest had serious issues, and the youngest didn't have any structure because dad was on the road a minimum of 4 days a week, so they both ended up in " special " schools ) and finally the wife and I can look forward to the good years. She wants a new car, so I go get it. Why not? Then the CH11's come, and I never consulted my crystal ball at 40 to realize that I was going to have to fund my own retirement. Now i'm *************************ed. Hope the shoe is never on your foot my friend. But let me guess, you far to smart for that...you are a pilot after all....

I love you pilots...you're own worst enemies...

 

[Klako]

Who is it?

Hi Kit

 

[Caveman]

Hey Klako, is that you with a new name??

With a rant like this you kinda sound like a senior old captain, but your profile shows otherwise; so tell us Caveman, if you're a senior old guy in the left seat, how do you think you came to be in that position? Were these senior dudes just born as graybeard captains, never to fly as FO/FE?? Uhh, no. They were once junior guys, drooling and waiting for the older guys above 'em on the list to hit age 60 and retire, allowing said junior guys to move up with much rejoicing.

How ironic that the guys whining the loudest about changing the rule don't want to admit that they actually benefitted from the rule throughout their entire careers, moving up the list due to Age 60 retirements above them, but now it's just not fair anymore. Waaahhhh, me me me!!!

Wrong on all counts. Not senior, not old and haven't benefitted from the age 60 rule. I've only been in the business 5 years. I am a libertarian and that is the whole basis of my opposition to a mandatory retirement age. If I am physically and mentally able to work in my chosen profession I should be allowed to. The rule is arbitrary, archaic and violates the fundamental principle of personal freedom and choice. If you don't want to work, don't. You have no right to decide whether or not I choose to work.

So, I guess you'd be o.k. with a mandatory retirement based on longevity? 20 years and you're done. What if you're only 46? Too bad! You had you're turn. Move aside a let the junior guys get theirs. See, it really isn't about safety or age is it? It's about junior guys abrogating the seniority of pilots that got there first. In every other aspect of this business seniority rules except for this age discrimination rule. So who's really trying to change the rules that they've benefitted from? The junior guys, that's who. They want to get their bid instead of someone below them but they don't want to honor it completely and let the senior guys keep theirs. Only when it benefits them. Hypocrits.

 

[Flopgut]

And when your 57, 58, or 59 you will scream the same dang thing, so leave that hypocritical argument out. And when these "old farts" were benifiting from the age 60 rule, those hitting the magic number were leaving with the option of lump sum payouts in some cases in the 7 figures. Those guys didn't have the rug ripped out from them 3 years till 60. Easy to sit here at 39 or 40 and tell them they should have saved in the "good times". Just about everyone I know lives a lifestyle that they can support. Just as these "old farts" have been doing, atleast until 3-4 years ago. And i'm going to guess that you, and 90% of the people on this board, regradless as you will say, will do the same dang thing. Lets see, its june 1999 and I have a DFB and I clear 160K a year. I'm 58, the kids are grown ( dang that was expensive, the oldest had serious issues, and the youngest didn't have any structure because dad was on the road a minimum of 4 days a week, so they both ended up in " special " schools ) and finally the wife and I can look forward to the good years. She wants a new car, so I go get it. Why not? Then the CH11's come, and I never consulted my crystal ball at 40 to realize that I was going to have to fund my own retirement. Now i'm *************************ed. Hope the shoe is never on your foot my friend. But let me guess, you far to smart for that...you are a pilot after all....

I love you pilots...you're own worst enemies...

Your hypothetical scenario happened in my family, and guess what? I support age 60 retirement! I've actually lived it and it's worse when your family loses income, insurance, and retirement simultaneously...and it's a complete ambush at about age 50! These guys have had the luxury of knowing it was coming at 60, they should be somewhat prepared. You think I enjoy having to listen to how experienced, senior, deservant, special, and wronged they all are when I've actually lived out what they are fearing worst? He!! no, if they are so great they can do what we did in my family: gut it out!

 

[Flopgut]

Wrong on all counts. Not senior, not old and haven't benefitted from the age 60 rule. I've only been in the business 5 years. I am a libertarian and that is the whole basis of my opposition to a mandatory retirement age. If I am physically and mentally able to work in my chosen profession I should be allowed to. The rule is arbitrary, archaic and violates the fundamental principle of personal freedom and choice. If you don't want to work, don't. You have no right to decide whether or not I choose to work.

So, I guess you'd be o.k. with a mandatory retirement based on longevity? 20 years and you're done. What if you're only 46? Too bad! You had you're turn. Move aside a let the junior guys get theirs. See, it really isn't about safety or age is it? It's about junior guys abrogating the seniority of pilots that got there first. In every other aspect of this business seniority rules except for this age discrimination rule. So who's really trying to change the rules that they've benefitted from? The junior guys, that's who. They want to get their bid instead of someone below them but they don't want to honor it completely and let the senior guys keep theirs. Only when it benefits them. Hypocrits.

I think the idea of "20 years then your done" is pretty good. But I think your an off track libertarian when you characterize "junior guys abrogating seniority" and senior types differently. Junior pilots are the ones seeing their seniority abrogated. Their seniority will provide for less than those who came before them. Conversely, those senior types now will enjoy inordinately more than those who came before AND after them. It's too large a transfer of wealth in the current scheme of things.

 

[jbDC9]

So, I guess you'd be o.k. with a mandatory retirement based on longevity? 20 years and you're done. What if you're only 46? Too bad! You had you're turn. Move aside a let the junior guys get theirs. See, it really isn't about safety or age is it? It's about junior guys abrogating the seniority of pilots that got there first. In every other aspect of this business seniority rules except for this age discrimination rule. So who's really trying to change the rules that they've benefitted from? The junior guys, that's who. They want to get their bid instead of someone below them but they don't want to honor it completely and let the senior guys keep theirs. Only when it benefits them. Hypocrits.

Gotta disagree with Flop on this one. A 20 year longevity rule? Yep, that's somewhat retarded.

Caveman, why do you slam the junior guys as being greedy bastards and ignore the fact that the current crop of senior guys nearing 60 benefitted from the Age 60 rule as they climbed the seniority list? Yep, 20-25 yrs ago these senior guys were once junior greedy bastards themselves, waiting for the older guys to retire so they could move up. Get it yet??? I really don't know why this is such a hard concept for some to grasp.

 

[cactusboy53]

Proposal:
Change the age of retirement to age 65. Allow a quarterly vote by First Officers: Which Captains stay or "retire".

What do ya think?

 

[Caveman]

Gotta disagree with Flop on this one. A 20 year longevity rule? Yep, that's somewhat retarded.

Caveman, why do you slam the junior guys as being greedy bastards and ignore the fact that the current crop of senior guys nearing 60 benefitted from the Age 60 rule as they climbed the seniority list? Yep, 20-25 yrs ago these senior guys were once junior greedy bastards themselves, waiting for the older guys to retire so they could move up. Get it yet??? I really don't know why this is such a hard concept for some to grasp.

I wasn't slamming the junior guys. I am a junior guy. I was using absurdity to make the point that the logic of you got yours/I want mine is flawed and inconsistent. LIke I said before, I'm against the age 60 rule solely because it's federally imposed age restriction.

The problem with the you got yours/I want mine crowd is they are assuming everybody gets hired at the same age. While I still disagree with the premise I will concede that if everyone gets hired at 35 and stays until 60 there is a certain symmetry to the process that makes sense. The fly in the ointment is the fact that the industry has been pretty chaotic since deregulation. The old paradigm of how and when someone gets hired has changed. My new hire class at a regional had a 52 year old in it. That was their first airline job. How in the world have they benefitted from the rule? Furloughs, BK's, mergers, and the loss of pensions have upset the delicate balance of getting hired at 35-40, putting in your 20-25 years and then going home. The external factors have changed in the decades since the rule was imposed. Imposed under very backroom circumstances I might add.

Besides, none of that really matters to me. I stand by my original point. The law is unjust and should be changed.

 

[luv2fly]

Here will be the outcomes


-Govt wont have to pay five extra years of social security
-Govt gets five more years of extra taxes from the 150k+ tax bracket
-Old farts get more toys, and johhny gets to go rack up a bill at Riddle
-Old farts know that social security will still be around till they die

on the other hand

-airlines have increased labor costs pushing them further into the red
-i have to spend five more years flying a rj around
-i have to pay my whole life to support old farts and when my time
comes I have no social security even though I am forced to pay for it

The "I got mine, so FVK you" crowd wins again!!!

Hoo-ray!!!

The Gov't doesn't pay SS at age 60 so the total payout will be the same regardless of the age 60 rule. Also, if a pilot retires at 60 the money he earns/draws out of whatever account is income. Therefore they will be paying in to SS, not drawing out.

 

[bman]

I've said it before the soultion to this is real Medical examinations by fewer cerified AME in the interest of safety. Like the ones given to JAL pilots (Japan being one of the member nations supporting the rule change). Even better make the standard a BMI of 27 or less.

Trust me boys this would thin the herd quickly and effiecntly and would be supportable by empirical data.

Ultimately I believe this is what the FAA will do as a poke in the eye to congress taking away its safety regulatory function. 1st class medicals will become real intense. Blood work, EKG, urinalysis, stool sample, heart rate elevation exercises, and required fasting 24hrs prior to exam. These are all requirements of any standard Executive physical done at the MAyo clinic that most fortune 500 OCE members must due. Pilots should be the same.

I really don't think congress is gonna get to this they only have another week in session right?

By the way I don't want to see it changed, but I do want higher physical standards. With some 60% of the US pop being obese and 30% being morbidly obese we could get rid of a lot of senority numbers that way for sure and REALLY be improving safety!

Like caveman said fly till ur 97 if ur healthy enough and can pass a real flight physical. By the way Caveman the rule would be unjust if it were made to be punitive. The premise and why the Regulatory body supported it was safety. What you are supporting is equality without regard to safety.

 

[Caveman]

Like caveman said fly till ur 97 if ur healthy enough and can pass a real flight physical. By the way Caveman the rule would be unjust if it were made to be punitive. The premise and why the Regulatory body supported it was safety. What you are supporting is equality without regard to safety.

No, not at all. I completely agree that one must be physically and mentally certified to continue flying. I also don't have a problem with someone past a certain age being subject to more scrutiny. We already do that now with the EKG requirements. If I'm competent and healthy I should be able to fly as long as I choose to.

 

[Klako]

If the United States Federal Government denies pilots who otherwise qualified person to practice in their profession, then that government must prove that there are enough reasons to deny them the full enjoyment of their profession. If pilots are denied for no reason other than age, then it is the Federal Government’s burden to prove they would suffer an unacceptable decline in treir ability to fly beyond age 60 which poses an unacceptable safety risk to the flying public. Such proof that age alone determines when a FAR Part 121 pilot must retire is something that Congress has directed the FAA to come up with but the FAA has failed produce such proof. That proof simply dose not exist.

 

[Flopgut]

Gotta disagree with Flop on this one. A 20 year longevity rule? Yep, that's somewhat retarded.

I'm speaking in the context that every pilot should have a fully funded pension or other retirement plan with 20 years. Like ATC, police, fire, railroad etc.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

I'm speaking in the context that every pilot should have a fully funded pension or other retirement plan with 20 years. Like ATC, police, fire, railroad etc.

That would be nice. Unfortunately, those gov't entities do not have to turn a profit to stay in business. Who am I kidding?...Most airlines don't turn a profit either.

 

[Flopgut]

That would be nice. Unfortunately, those gov't entities do not have to turn a profit to stay in business. Who am I kidding?...Most airlines don't turn a profit either.

Should airline have to turn a profit to stay in business? Probably. Should our retirements be as provisional as our companie's fortunes? I don't think so. Why is our collective bargaining is covered by the Railway Labor Act, but our retirements are not at all like the railroads? Seriously, can anyone answer that? Shouldn't we be working on railroad, craft/guild or maybe even professional sports league type retirement for ALL of us instead of changing the retirement age and helping a very few?

 

[Thedude]

Out of all the guys that are age 55+, how many of them are on medical leave at any airline? Exteneding it to age 65 gives the guys 5 more yrs to be on med leave and therby costing the company more dollars even though they aren't producing revenue.

And before you answer, there are more guys out on med leave than you think and some of them have no qualms about sitting out until their time is up.