Oppose change to age 60? A must read.

[Andy]

I was going to PM this to a list of FIers, but opted to post it on the board in order to get it maximum exposure.

There is one last hurdle to overcome to keep age 60 in place for the next couple of years (I make no predictions past that). When the 109th Congress adjourned, they didn’t complete their task of funding the government for FY07; they passed a temporary Continuing Resolution to fund the effected agencies and left nine appropriations bills as unfinished business. One of those appropriations bills, HR 5576, funded the Department of Transportation. The text of S 65 (changing pilot retirement age to 65) was inserted during subcommittee markup of HR 5576 in the 109th Congress. While HR 5576 is dead, the Appropriations subcommittee will likely use HR 5576 as a template for the final appropriations bill.

It will be up to the 110th Congress to pass those appropriations bills and they’re likely to do so in one omnibus appropriations bill. After the bills leave committee, Senators will only have a yes or no vote; they’ll be unable to remove any offensive parts of the bill. Therefore, it’s very important to target key Democratic Senators on the Appropriations Committee to have the text of S 65 stripped from the Transportation Appropriations Bill.

I’ll break it down into three groups of Senators where your efforts will get the most bang for the buck. The first group is THE KEY group; if you are only going to contact one group, hit the ones on the Appropriations Committee. Note that many names are on multiple lists.

First are the Senators on the Appropriations Committee and Appropriations Subcommittee for Transportation (this is where any changes to the bill will be made). They have not been finalized, but this is the latest information from Sen. Reid’s (D-NV; Senate Majority Leader) website. The key targets here are:
Sen. Byrd (D-VW) *
Sen. Inouye (D-HI)
Sen. Leahy (D-VT) *
Sen. Harkin (D-IA) *
Sen. Mikulsi (D-MD) *
Sen. Kohl (D-WI) *
Sen. Murray (D-WA) *
Sen. Dorgan (D-ND) *
Sen. Feinstein (D-CA)
Sen. Durbin (D-IL) *
Sen. Johnson (D-SD)
Sen. Landrieu (D-LA)
Sen Reed (D-RI)
Sen Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Sen Ben Nelson (D-NE)
* indicates member of Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

Second, several Senators received contributions from ALPA and APA PAC. They are: (note that the first six were in key races)
Sen. Brown (D-OH), $10K ALPA, $5K APA
Sen. Cardin (D-MD), $5K ALPA
Sen. Casey (D-PA), $5K ALPA
Sen. McCaskill (D-MO), $5K ALPA
Sen. Menendez (D-NJ), $10K ALPA
Sen. Webb (D-VA), $5K ALPA
Sen. Akaka (D-HI), $7.5K ALPA, $5K APA
Sen. Baucus (D-MT), $2.5K ALPA
Sen. Bingaman (D-NM), $10K ALPA
Sen. Byrd (D-WV), $10K ALPA, $4K APA
Sen. Carper (D-DE), $5K ALPA
Sen. Clinton (D-NY), $5K APA
Sen. Conrad (D-ND), $7.5K ALPA
Sen. Durbin (D-IL), $5K ALPA
Sen. Feinstein (D-CA), $7.5K ALPA
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), $7.5K ALPA, $5K APA
Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ), $5K ALPA
Sen. Murray (D-WA), $5K ALPA
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), $10K ALPA
Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV), $2.5K ALPA
Sen. Sanders (I-VT), $10K ALPA
Sen. Stabenow (D-MI), $7.5K ALPA

Third, are the Democrats on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. They are:
Sen. Inouye (D-HI), Committee Chair
Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV), Aviation Subcommittee Chair
Sen. Kerry (D-MA)
Sen. Dorgan (D-ND)
Sen. Boxer (D-CA)
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Sen. Cantwell (D-WA)
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Sen. Pryor (D-AR)
Sen. Carper (D-DE)
Sen. McCaskill (D-MO)
Sen. Klobuchar (D-MN)

As far as the content of any letter/e-mail/fax/phone call to the Senators’ offices, I recommend hitting on the following points:
1) In the 109th Congress, a legislative amendment to change pilot retirement age to 65 was added to HR 5576, an appropriations bill. Since changing pilot retirement age is a legislative action, it’s inappropriate to leave this legislative amendment in an appropriations bill.
2) On 4 Jan 2007, Sen Inhofe introduced a legislative bill, the Freedom to Fly Act, with the exact same content as is contained in the appropriations amendment. This is a subject that should be debated in the light of day, not buried deep within an appropriations bill.
3) Include something in the subject line indicating that you are writing in reference to the Transportation Appropriations Bill so that your correspondence can be directed to the proper Senate staffer.

Congress does not like to use appropriations bills for legislation, and even Senators in favor of an age change will have problems with a legislative amendment attached to an appropriations bill.

Here is a link with information to contact these Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

 

[ohplease!]

why oppose raising the age?....honest question...no flame

 

[BoilerUP]

why oppose raising the age?....honest question...no flame

So there isn't a five year hold on everyone's career progression.

So those older pilots pushing the hardest for this change don't get to have their cake and eat it too (ie benefit their whole careers from the forced retirement of pilots older than them, then change the rule so they can work another five years).

So safety isn't compromised...because if there was no safety issue, why must the FO be under 60?

My question to those fighting so hard to change this rule - you claim you fly because you love it. If thats really the case, then why is the compromise of allowing over 60 pilots to fly only as SIC unacceptable? That preserves career progression while allowing over 60 pilots to continue earning a paycheck for another 5 years.

Oh yeah, one more question...air traffic controllers have to retire at age 56. You have to be 35 to run for President. You can be drafted by the military and issued an M9 at age 18 but you can't buy a Beretta 92 (or a beer) until you turn 21. I can't rent a car until I turn 25. Why are these forms of age discrimination acceptable yet the Age 60 rule is not?

 

[wmuflyguy]

So there isn't a five year hold on everyone's career progression.

So those older pilots pushing the hardest for this change don't get to have their cake and eat it too (ie benefit their whole careers from the forced retirement of pilots older than them, then change the rule so they can work another five years).

So safety isn't compromised...because if there was no safety issue, why must the FO be under 60?

My question to those fighting so hard to change this rule - you claim you fly because you love it. If thats really the case, then why is the compromise of allowing over 60 pilots to fly only as SIC unacceptable? That preserves career progression while allowing over 60 pilots to continue earning a paycheck for another 5 years.

Oh yeah, one more question...air traffic controllers have to retire at age 56. You have to be 35 to run for President. You can be drafted by the military and issued an M9 at age 18 but you can't buy a Beretta 92 (or a beer) until you turn 21. I can't rent a car until I turn 25. Why are these forms of age discrimination acceptable yet the Age 60 rule is not?

Couldn't of said it better myself

 

[bailout]

You both are WAY too short sighted. Quit chasing the quick upgrade. It will benefit everyone in the long run. 5 more years of income is exactly that. You guys must think you have your 'portfolio' all figured out.

 

[rtmcfi]

You both are WAY too short sighted. Quit chasing the quick upgrade. It will benefit everyone in the long run. 5 more years of income is exactly that. You guys must think you have your 'portfolio' all figured out.

Evidently the miracle of compound interest has escaped you. Either you are being deceptive, and attempting to mislead others into believing that age 65 is good for their pocketbook, or you are ignorant to one of wealth buildings fundamental tenants.

An additional 5 years of income at the end of your career is worth far, far less than upgrading to a higher pay scale 5 years earlier, and investing even a modest portion of the money. The short version is this...

Leave the retirement age alone, upgrade or move on to your last stop 5 years sooner, and retire at 60 with a bigger nest egg.
OR
Change the retirement age to 65, and work an additional 5 years and have a smaller nest egg.

If you are not familiar with compound interest, google it. It really doesn't take a genius to see how much better off you will be in the long term getting to a higher pay scale 5 years earlier. Write your congressman...........

 

[Aviation Geek]

The list goes both ways... if you are in favor of changing the retirement age to 65, contact the same list in the same order. That's the nice thing about lists like this... when published in a public forum, they can be used by both sides of an issue.

 

[Andy]

You both are WAY too short sighted. Quit chasing the quick upgrade. It will benefit everyone in the long run. 5 more years of income is exactly that. You guys must think you have your 'portfolio' all figured out.

If the age changes, do you really think that salaries and benefits across the board are not going to decrease? Basic economics. This change would be a field day for airline management.

 

[Andy]

The list goes both ways... if you are in favor of changing the retirement age to 65, contact the same list in the same order. That's the nice thing about lists like this... when published in a public forum, they can be used by both sides of an issue.

Don't stop at this list. Write to every Senator. Tell them that you want this legislative amendment left in the transportation appropriations bill. It's a free country; express your opinion.

 

[Axel]

This argument amuses me by its predictability. All the old guys want it changed, all the young guys don't.

 

[Quack]

Someone posted it on another link, but if these old tymers want to keep working so bad, then why not make them permanent F.O.'s? It would allow the one's who want to keep the age to upgrade at a normal rate, and satisfy those who feel the need to work.

 

[zawillif]

This argument amuses me by its predictability. All the old guys want it changed, all the young guys don't.

I'm a young guy and I want it changed. It is way too short sighted to oppose it simply because of the 5 year slow-down in advancement. All the young guys fighting it now will be fighting FOR it by the time they hit 55. The airline industry is supposed to grow in double digit percentages over the next 10 years so it might not be as big of a "slow-down" as everyone predicts. And finally, no one is moving fast anywhere anyway. Pass it now and get it over with, then we'll all enjoy the benefits when the time comes.

 

[Joe Schmo]

So there isn't a five year hold on everyone's career progression.

So those older pilots pushing the hardest for this change don't get to have their cake and eat it too (ie benefit their whole careers from the forced retirement of pilots older than them, then change the rule so they can work another five years).

So safety isn't compromised...because if there was no safety issue, why must the FO be under 60?

My question to those fighting so hard to change this rule - you claim you fly because you love it. If thats really the case, then why is the compromise of allowing over 60 pilots to fly only as SIC unacceptable? That preserves career progression while allowing over 60 pilots to continue earning a paycheck for another 5 years.

Oh yeah, one more question...air traffic controllers have to retire at age 56. You have to be 35 to run for President. You can be drafted by the military and issued an M9 at age 18 but you can't buy a Beretta 92 (or a beer) until you turn 21. I can't rent a car until I turn 25. Why are these forms of age discrimination acceptable yet the Age 60 rule is not?

Second that, I for one would not like to be making the scrap end salaries in the industry for another five years.

 

[acaTerry]

You both are WAY too short sighted. Quit chasing the quick upgrade. It will benefit everyone in the long run. 5 more years of income is exactly that. You guys must think you have your 'portfolio' all figured out.

When pilots were paid better, age 60 was time to retire. Now you should work 5 years longer, denying 5 more years to your family so you can make 5 more years of substandard wages which, in the grand scheme of things, benefits your CEO, not you.
I say that its time to say no to 65 and make progression to bigger, better jobs happen, and also do something make the airlines pay up so you can get back the wages of 20 years ago.

 

[Andy]

Template

For those that asked for a template, here it is. Feel free to disseminate widely and modify as necessary.


Senator ,

The 109th Congress adjourned prior to enacting into public law several Fiscal Year 2007 appropriations bills. Among those was HR 5576, the Appropriations Bill that included funding for the Department of Transportation. Contained within HR 5576 was a legislative amendment increasing airline pilot retirement age to sixty five.
While I realize that HR 5576 died with the end of the 109th Congress, I know that you will be very busy and that HR 5576 is likely to be used as a template for a new transportation appropriations bill that will become public law. For that reason, I request that you ensure that any appropriations bill passed by the 110th Congress be stripped of this legislative provision since it is inappropriate to use appropriations bills for legislative matters.
The item that I am referring to was contained in HR 5576.RS under Title I, Department of Transportation, Administrative Provisions—Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Section 114.
On 4 January 2007, Senator Inhofe sponsored S. 65, the Freedom to Fly Act, which increases airline pilot retirement age to 65, accomplishing the exact same thing as the amendment to HR 5576. This is a legislative issue, not an appropriations issue, and I request that you ensure that the issue receives proper consideration on the Senate floor rather than buried deep within an appropriations bill. Please ensure that this legislation is removed from the FY07 transportation appropriations bill.

 

[NoJoy]

Thanx for the template Andy!

 

[Bluestreak]

Evidently the miracle of compound interest has escaped you. Either you are being deceptive, and attempting to mislead others into believing that age 65 is good for their pocketbook, or you are ignorant to one of wealth buildings fundamental tenants.

An additional 5 years of income at the end of your career is worth far, far less than upgrading to a higher pay scale 5 years earlier, and investing even a modest portion of the money. The short version is this...

Leave the retirement age alone, upgrade or move on to your last stop 5 years sooner, and retire at 60 with a bigger nest egg.
OR
Change the retirement age to 65, and work an additional 5 years and have a smaller nest egg.

If you are not familiar with compound interest, google it. It really doesn't take a genius to see how much better off you will be in the long term getting to a higher pay scale 5 years earlier. Write your congressman...........

Umm...How much better is it that I work at top of scale for five extra years,hmmm ? Will you make as much your first five vs. your last five at a major ? Nope,not even close.

 

[ATTCS]

This argument amuses me by its predictability. All the old guys want it changed, all the young guys don't.

I know, I am laughing about that too. Look at the airlines who have been flushing their pension programs the last few years. If you were one of these folks who retired recently or are about to you would have been planning on this for years.

Now think of this. Since flushing the pension plans started by USAirways several other airlines have jumped on that bandwagon. I forsee AA and NWA following suit. They cannot afford not to and remain competitive. This has even started in the other industries too. Companies are trying to save money.

One other thing to think about. When will you be able to draw full Social Security benefits?
Year of birth age for full retirement benefits
1943-1954 66
1955 66 & 2 months
1956 66 & 4 "
1957 66 & 6 "
1958 66 & 8 "
1959 66 & 10 "
1960 67

Most of the folks on this board are young. But think to the future for yourself and your family. They have been trying to overcome the age 60 rule since it was made law. If it isn't changed in the present climate then I don't think it will change.

Also I HIGHLY suggest that if you remain in this industry (or go to any other for that matter) that you set up your own retirement. Do not plan on any pension plans from your company for your retirement. You have many ways now (401K, Roth, etc.) available to you now that the old folks did not have available when we were your age. USE THEM!!!!! I would not even plan on Social Security to be available for my retirement if I were in my 30's or even 40's. Plan for your own retirement as though nothing else will be available except what YOU personally have saved.

 

[time builder]

If it isn't changed in the present climate then I don't think it will change.

I agree, the main motivating factor isn't that we've now determined that its safe to extend our careers, but rather there's a "looming pilot shortage," and they're looking to stagnate the effects of all the baby boomers retiring. If it doesn't happen now, its even less likely to happen 20 years from now.

My question is: do all the 61-64 year olds get to come back, or do we just draw the line on the day that the legislation is passed?

 

[zawillif]

When pilots were paid better, age 60 was time to retire. Now you should work 5 years longer, denying 5 more years to your family so you can make 5 more years of substandard wages which, in the grand scheme of things, benefits your CEO, not you.
I say that its time to say no to 65 and make progression to bigger, better jobs happen, and also do something make the airlines pay up so you can get back the wages of 20 years ago.

You can always quite at 60. If it passes there is no law saying you HAVE to stay. I don't think passing or not passing the legislation will magically make wages of 20 years ago appear or disappear.

 

[Tarzan]

My question is: do all the 61-64 year olds get to come back, or do we just draw the line on the day that the legislation is passed?

The way I undestand it will happen is the line will be drawn. One day, your gone. The next guy who turns 60 the next day, he stays.

 

[wmuflyguy]

The way I undestand it will happen is the line will be drawn. One day, your gone. The next guy who turns 60 the next day, he stays.

And how would that be fair? Keep it the way it is. If they do anything, they should let over 60 folks be a FO, that way you are not stagnating someones career and you get to work. You also keep the experince in the cockpit.

 

[flyslow24]

I can see it now... letter from management.

"Due to the increase in age requirements recently passed we are looking for ways to reduce costs." Blah blah blah.... Guys / Gals have to work five years longer at higher wages which costs the company more money. Therefore, we need consessions.

Let the watering down of wages continue.

 

[AWAITS747400]

tarzan...
Except for ending SLAVERY, NAZISM, FASCISM and COMMUNISM; War has never solved anything!

They all still exist...
slavery, in Arfrica.
Nazism, in USA.
fascism, ok your right there no one identifys themselves as a fascist as of the end of WWII.
communism, WTF ever heard of china.

 

[gnx99]

If I were 60, I couldn't imagine WANTING to work more. I'd love to retire at 40 if I could

 

[DontFeedTheBear]

Evidently the miracle of compound interest has escaped you. Either you are being deceptive, and attempting to mislead others into believing that age 65 is good for their pocketbook, or you are ignorant to one of wealth buildings fundamental tenants.

An additional 5 years of income at the end of your career is worth far, far less than upgrading to a higher pay scale 5 years earlier, and investing even a modest portion of the money. The short version is this...

Leave the retirement age alone, upgrade or move on to your last stop 5 years sooner, and retire at 60 with a bigger nest egg.
OR
Change the retirement age to 65, and work an additional 5 years and have a smaller nest egg.

If you are not familiar with compound interest, google it. It really doesn't take a genius to see how much better off you will be in the long term getting to a higher pay scale 5 years earlier. Write your congressman...........

GREAT POST!!! Please read this carefully, and let's not be short-sighted. I don't want to be noted as another educated professional with no business sense. Let's try to act professional, be intelligent and try to gain back the respect we have lost. Doctors are especially well known for their lack of business and money management skills, please let's not add pilots to that list.

 

[COOPERVANE]

I know several pilots in their late 50's who DO NOT want this rule changed. They are tired of this job and want their retirements to start.

Now some of you might say "retire anyway, just because they raise it to 65 doesn't mean the CANT retire at 60" ....... in some cases yes it does!

The pilots who STILL have a pension waiting for them cannot claim it unless they work until the allowed retirement age

 

[ERJFO]

Thanks Andy! I sent all of them e-mails.

 

[Tarzan]

And how would that be fair? Keep it the way it is. If they do anything, they should let over 60 folks be a FO, that way you are not stagnating someones career and you get to work. You also keep the experince in the cockpit.

Certainly it's not fair. I believe it needs to be looked at by the companies. Nor am I worried about my career stagnating. Maybe not upgrade as quick but I'd get that back by being able to stay around a little longer.

By the way, this what I've been told by a few guys I flew with that FIRED for turning 60.

 

[Tarzan]

tarzan...
Except for ending SLAVERY, NAZISM, FASCISM and COMMUNISM; War has never solved anything!

They all still exist...
slavery, in Arfrica.
Nazism, in USA.
fascism, ok your right there no one identifys themselves as a fascist as of the end of WWII.
communism, WTF ever heard of china.

You are.... A friggin knob. If you want to argue over crap like that, go to the forum for it. There you can rain piss upon each other until the cows come home or you get a clue.