News reporting FAA raises age to 65

[AA717driver]

What everyone against the change is missing (or failing to acknowlege) is that until recently, there was no reason to save for retirement independent from your company retirement.

Unless your company went out of business (like BN or Eastern) you would have your pension. After 2000, when 1113 was first threatened, that all changed. By then it was too late.

No ALPA pilot (other than TWA whose A plan was frozen but not dissolved and was replaced by a Directed Account Plan) was advised to save--their pensions were secure. (I would like to see how many AA pilots have fired up their 401k and are maxing out the contributions even today.)

But, post 9/11 (not 1980), the rules changed.

So, it's ok to screw a bunch of people because of one rule change but not another group? If you don't like getting screwed by rule changes, you'd better get out of aviation--or get into management. TC

 

[Huck]

Rumor is we are stopping hiring after March, due to this thing. I dare you to write a post to the guys in the pool and tell them, "Relax children. Everything will be all right."

 

[Flopgut]

What everyone against the change is missing (or failing to acknowlege) is that until recently, there was no reason to save for retirement independent from your company retirement.

So, it's ok to screw a bunch of people because of one rule change but not another group? If you don't like getting screwed by rule changes, you'd better get out of aviation--or get into management. TC

Point taken. It's bad that the pilots who've gone out recently had a bad deal, sure. But, I think we're going to begin to realize now that this rule change will so disproportionally deliver benefit to a small group that our problems have multiplied. A minority few are going to enjoy cradle to grave gainful employment with 2 times the earnings of a majority of pilots who were either marginalized or totally screwed.

Combine this with the effects on collective bargaining for the next 25 years and you begin to see, we just screwed up royally.

 

[aussiefly]

So you want to hold the vast majority of the pilot community to ransom for the select few ???

I'm sorry but that does not make sense. The rule is already in place and should stay there. By changing the rule for your benefit you are efectively costing me thousands of dollars (read the previous post on the cost of the rule change).

I agree it sucks that they got their pensions dumped, It really sucks. But why then penalise everyone else???

That is what this is tantamount to. You are lining your pockets on the rest of the pilot community. Are you happy with that ???

What everyone against the change is missing (or failing to acknowlege) is that until recently, there was no reason to save for retirement independent from your company retirement.

Unless your company went out of business (like BN or Eastern) you would have your pension. After 2000, when 1113 was first threatened, that all changed. By then it was too late.

No ALPA pilot (other than TWA whose A plan was frozen but not dissolved and was replaced by a Directed Account Plan) was advised to save--their pensions were secure. (I would like to see how many AA pilots have fired up their 401k and are maxing out the contributions even today.)

But, post 9/11 (not 1980), the rules changed.

So, it's ok to screw a bunch of people because of one rule change but not another group? If you don't like getting screwed by rule changes, you'd better get out of aviation--or get into management. TC

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

I have to give Boiler credit.. He actually seems to know what he's talking about. What you guys forget, is the money you put away when your young is the most important money there is.... Basically, if you get hired by a major at 28 and you figure to upgrade at 35, but now you can't upgrade until 40, they extra money you would have made being a captain for 5 years, when invested for 20 years, would be worth more than the money your gonna make between the ages of 60 and 65. Now, pilots are gonna have to work an extra 5 years to make less money.. Can someone please explain how this is a good thing for us?? The only people this helps is the old guys who didn't plan accordingly, or the guys who had all their eggs in one basket and got screwed. I would almost be willing to say that the only people this is gonna help is the guys who get hired after about 40 years of age, with those between 35 and 40 being about a wash. Those who got hired under 35 are getting screwed..

For those of you who don't get it. Take the extra 60K or so a year of being a captain 5 years earlier, put it in a good investment account, and that money will be worth more in 20 years than what you will make your last 5 years of flying. Hopefully this makes sense now. This is not a good thing for pilots...

Thank God. Guys are starting to get it. Except for those at the top, for most of us, we will end up working an extra five years for very little net gain. It will force most of us to spend an extra five years in an already unstable profession.

Even at SWA, growth doesn’t last forever. All it takes is a terrorist hit or a bad buyout to bring things to a screeching halt.

This is a screw job by the older generation against the younger pilots. Think of it as the B-scale of the 21st century.

Now is the time for the younger guys to get off the sidelines. The next 12-18 months will be very important. If you don’t like it – get involved and vote. We are dealing with a well organized and vocal minority.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[Andy]

What everyone against the change is missing (or failing to acknowlege) is that until recently, there was no reason to save for retirement independent from your company retirement.

Unless your company went out of business (like BN or Eastern) you would have your pension. After 2000, when 1113 was first threatened, that all changed. By then it was too late.

No ALPA pilot (other than TWA whose A plan was frozen but not dissolved and was replaced by a Directed Account Plan) was advised to save--their pensions were secure. (I would like to see how many AA pilots have fired up their 401k and are maxing out the contributions even today.)

But, post 9/11 (not 1980), the rules changed.

So, it's ok to screw a bunch of people because of one rule change but not another group? If you don't like getting screwed by rule changes, you'd better get out of aviation--or get into management. TC

What you fail to acknowledge is that more airlines have gone out of business than are currently operating. Every airline hits a bad streak; if you've got 20+ years at a single airline, you're going to experience financial turbulence at your airline. Some of those bad streaks end up causing airlines to go chap 7. If a pilot thinks that the company that he gets hired at will be the same in 20 years, then he's a fool. Anyone who counted on an airline pension pre-911 was a fool. Period.

 

[hoover]

It seems to me that you younger guys are opposing age 65 for the same selfish reasons as the older guys are supporting it: me, my career, my advancement, my pocketbook. So which one do you want to be? The pot, or the kettle. It doesn't really matter. They're both black.

 

[gt1900]

Im sorry a lot of those guys lost thier retirements, I really am. But I agree, to screw everyone else for a fews misfortunes is ludicrous... I'm sorry those guys put all thier eggs in one basket, but every financial advisor in the world will tell you to diversify, that way, when the chit hits the fan, your not completly decimated finacially... This rule is gonna screw hundreds of thousands of pilots for the next 30 or 40, or hell, even 50 or 60 years... Why, because a few thousand got screwed after 9/11... AA717.. I'm not trying to bash or offend you. But, to say there was no reason to save because of a company retirement is just piss poor planning. I'm sorry to say this, but if that is your idea of finacial planning, you really need to talk to a couple financial planners or at least read a few books. That is one of the most uneducated comments I have ever heard about finances. And that is the reason so many old guys want to change the rules. They simply don't understand how to gain wealth. All they see is how much they make a year and how much their gonna loose if they have to retire at age 60. If they even had half a brain they would have probably lost all their pensions, and still had twice as much money as they needed to retire......... Hoover, its not the pot calling the kettle black. Those old guys had thier chance under the same working rules we have now (about to change). So, it other words, they had the same oportunitys as everyone else, now they want more??? B.S... Im just asking for the same oportunity they had. Explain to me how thats the pot calling the kettle black.. They knew the rules comming in, and now they want to change them.. I just want the same rules they have worked under for the last 20 or 30 years...

 

[SWA/FO]

Anyone who counted on an airline pension pre-911 was a fool

I find this funny, since this was the major slam on SWA for years. "But you guys have no pension"....etc... Out wit da old in wit da new!!!

 

[Andy]

Incidentally, you forgot option D. "My dad is over 60 and lost his retirement to a bad investment just prior to the crap hitting the fan".

His own fault for not playing more reserved with his retirement so close to the end game, but I'm willing to take an extra 5 years if it gives him an extra 5 as well, but that's 'cause he's my dad and for everything he's done for me, I'd say I owe him one (or two or three or five).

Lear70, your dad's a friggin' idiot. And when he loses everything in another high risk 'investment' at 64 1/2, I guess that we should raise the age limit again, eh?
He deserves to live in a van down by the river.

 

[Andy]

I find this funny, since this was the major slam on SWA for years. "But you guys have no pension"....etc... Out wit da old in wit da new!!!

I agree. I didn't avoid SWA because of no pension; it was the fact that there's no international long haul flying at SWA.

 

[BoilerUP]

It seems to me that you younger guys are opposing age 65 for the same selfish reasons as the older guys are supporting it: me, my career, my advancement, my pocketbook. So which one do you want to be? The pot, or the kettle. It doesn't really matter. They're both black.

I've made no bones about the fact this is a purely financial matter for me. Its the pro-change crowd that keeps whining about "love of the job" or how its "unfair" for them to be forced into retirement when they are perfectly healthy. Very few pro-change supporters on this board have outright said "I want the money", which is what we all know the reason for this change is.

Yeah, like its not unfair for people who had a career worth of seniority advancement because of the Age 60 rule to fight to get it changed so that they can benefit...to the detriment of everybody behind them.

 

[Lear70]

OK... everyone needs to back off the Starbucks this morning and pick up some Sanka.

CTFO. Jeez.

What you fail to acknowledge is that more airlines have gone out of business than are currently operating. Every airline hits a bad streak; if you've got 20+ years at a single airline, you're going to experience financial turbulence at your airline. Some of those bad streaks end up causing airlines to go chap 7. If a pilot thinks that the company that he gets hired at will be the same in 20 years, then he's a fool. Anyone who counted on an airline pension pre-911 was a fool. Period.

That's not *ENTIRELY* accurate.

A FEW airlines hit bad streaks (ATA plus 9/11 plus fuel prices), TWA, etc.

But MOST of the airline bankruptcies that have occurred in the last 2 decades were because of corporate greed and gross mismanagement.

It is LUDICROUS for an airline to make over a quarter of a BILLION dollars in PROFIT (not revenue, PROFIT) one year, then lose less than $100 Million a year three years in a row and need to enter bankruptcy. All with a relatively stable non-fuel CASM and high load factors.

So be careful where you point that finger - most of the guys hired in the 80's had watched 30 years of retirements before them and had no reason to think the first round of bankruptcies were just a bad one-time adjustment.

Indeed, after that first big round in the 80's, thing settled down for almost another DECADE with retirements still ongoing, so where were the BIG warning signs?

Yes, a few well-informed financialists-turned-pilot saw the writing on the wall, but I certainly don't think MOST pilots have a grasp on money issues like we THINK we do.

They expected those pensions, and you have no right to dispariage them for believing in a promise made by a business that had NEVER defaulted on pensions in the history of aviation unless the company just ceased operations altogether (liquidated) and there were only a couple of those.

NOW: what would HELP all this, is to charge the cost of those pensions lost back to the airline who dumped them.

You want government action to help fund retirements and not impact your own? Here you go:

PBGC tax. You heard me; a TAX on EVERY airline that dumped their pension plan. $5 per person, per segment, no sales tax or airport taxes allowed on that amount; it goes STRAIGHT to each airline's retirement pension accounts.

That amounts to $10 to $20 per passenger. Not enough to hurt business, but certainly enough to add up.

HOW MANY passengers flew on UAir last year? UAL? DAL? Now multiply passengers by $20 (most connect through a hub).

Starting to see my drift here?

Yeah, I wrote just about every congressman I could think of, along with ALPA National and asked them if including this change in law to make the airlines who took advantage of the 1113 process have to pay some back and not hold revenue and profit hostage for those monies (no way to hide it).

This in conjunction with no age limit increase would help make the problem less about $$$ and more about what's fair or equivalent with ICAO pilots coming into this country.

Never heard a word back. From anyone.

Maybe it's a ludicrous proposition. It certainly would damage their ability to have the lowest fare in a market segment, but not by more than $5 or $10 which a good schedule should MORE than off-set.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Protest loud and long! (Till we get enough of those geezers out of the cockpit for me to get recalled! ) TC

You can protest loud...but how long depends on the time frame they put on the NPRM. After that...all protests are invalid.

Now, remember, in your public comments, Washington already knows that this is political...so health/safety talk, especially from a pilot, is pretty much gonna be tossed. They know the score there. Remember that the FAA medical staff has already said that this is not a health issue.

So, you need to word your comments more towards your superior aviation skills and how this will help/hurt your chances of making it to the left seat.

And don't forget the age 60+ pilots that are already flying in U.S. airspace...somehow, you've got to get the FAA to get them outta here.

That will make your arguement more valid.

Tejas

 

[Lear70]

Lear70, your dad's a friggin' idiot. And when he loses everything in another high risk 'investment' at 64 1/2, I guess that we should raise the age limit again, eh?
He deserves to live in a van down by the river.

You're more than welcome to PM me your contact information and we can figure out a time to "get together" and "discuss" that.

I didn't go on the personal attack against you, I simply stated a case where sometimes you make a decision and it bites you.

It's easy to cast stones from behind the cover of anonymity. Do it to my face and you'll regret it.

People need to remember that just because this is an "anonymous" forum doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want with absolutely no price.

Careful...