News reporting FAA raises age to 65

[SkiFishFly]

Most of the big airline pensions were considered as secure as Gov pensions. It was for this reason that a lot of guys in the 90s did not save much for retirement purposes. Very few felt the need to tie up money in a retirement account. Most professional advisors probably told them the same thing.

2000 rolls around and the airlines are starting to hurt a little. 9-11 happens and bam the airlines are really in trouble. Big losses, bankruptcy and then they kill the defined benefit pensions (all while management keeps theirs).

I have a hard time faulting a guy who wants a chance to try to salvage something after Management and the bankruptcy courts shafted him.

This issue really points out how divided us pilots can be. How about some sense of shared sacrifice for the guys that got shafted like this post 9-11? Maybe management has no scruples but do we have to become as cold-hearted and self-centered as them?

OBTW - I would bet that a lot of the guys who still have a retirement are going to go ahead and retire. We should work TOGETHER to make sure that the company DOES NOT penalize anyone for choosing to retire at 60. I know I intend to step aside at 60 - maybe earlier if I can swing it financially. Life is not all about work and there is plenty of other flying to do...

 

[TV9Driver]

I don't fault the guys wanting to salvage what management has taken away. However, to say that I haven't sacraficed is completely false. I've been furloughed for 5 years so far at a loss of about $250K in salary (what i have made minus what I was making). I'm still only making 1/2 the salary I was 5 years ago! Now we raise the age limit and i'm looking at another 5 years of furlough.

I think i'm sharing in the sacrifice enough.

 

[aussiefly]

I don't fault the guys wanting to salvage what management has taken away. However, to say that I haven't sacraficed is completely false. I've been furloughed for 5 years so far at a loss of about $250K in salary (what i have made minus what I was making). I'm still only making 1/2 the salary I was 5 years ago! Now we raise the age limit and i'm looking at another 5 years of furlough.

I think i'm sharing in the sacrifice enough.

Damn Straight and now they expect us to burden their loss as well as ours.

It's time to burn ALPA down and start again.

 

[BobbyB]

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.

The difference is that there is no COST to the old guys. They upgraded whenever they did, and will get a bonus 5 years of pay, benefits, and growth on retirement money. The young guys have a direct cost in pay for not having the opportunity to upgrade plus the growth of whatever retirement/profit share/seniority based access to premium time contributions one might have over a long period of time. The result is that the young guys will be "forced" to work past age 60 just to be where they would have been had the rule not changed. We all don't get the same benefit from working an extra 5 years at the end.

 

[IAHERJ]

My very informal polling of the captains I fly with seems to be about 50/50 as far as retiring or staying if the rules change. Our guys have their lump sums albeit a smaller chunk than before the A-fund was frozen so about half seem to think that they are better off taking the money and leaving. The other half are either bored at home or feel that the extra few years of B-fund(12.75%) will benefit them. Who knows.

 

[SkiFishFly]

I don't fault the guys wanting to salvage what management has taken away. However, to say that I haven't sacraficed is completely false. I've been furloughed for 5 years so far at a loss of about $250K in salary (what i have made minus what I was making). I'm still only making 1/2 the salary I was 5 years ago! Now we raise the age limit and i'm looking at another 5 years of furlough.

I think i'm sharing in the sacrifice enough.

Agreed.

 

[Huck]

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.

It all depends on what group you are in:

- those who will get another 5 years in the left seat;

- Those who will get another 5 years waiting for the left seat (or a front seat, or a recall, or a job....)

 

[Laughing_Jakal]

Big difference

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.

The difference hoover is that the younger guys signed up to play by the rules the older guys set in motion, supported, and benefited from. Now they want to change it. Many of us made the decision to change careers based on retirement age, YOS etc.

Saying that younger guys are selfish because we don't want the change is tantamount to accusing a football team in the Superbowl from objecting when the other team trys to convince the ref to change the rules of the game.

Young team, you have more yards to make to qualify for a first down.
Young team, you can't take the extra point.
Old team, we know you're behind, but we'll put more minutes on the clock so that you can finish the game with more points on the board. Now you won't feel so bad in comparison to the young team. (Quite frankly, the refs were surprised you asked for an extended quarter, because last year, you made sure that we blew the whistle right on time for the last year's old team when you played them).

I'll have to live with how this turns out one way or the other. I punched from the military mid-career (with no retirement) to make the switch based on the rules of the game.

I gotta live with my decisions, and the outcome of this, but I don't have to like it. Don't try to waste my time trying to make some moral equivalency out of this. It is what it is, and if you deny it, you are either disingenious, or a fool.

 

[100 c.i.]

It all depends on what group you are in:

- those who will get another 5 years in the left seat;

- Those who will get another 5 years waiting for the left seat (or a front seat, or a recall, or a job....)

Guys, with the new medical requirements for guys over 55, I see myself back to work and on my way to left seat much faster if this ******************** passes. Many of the pro 65 crowd will soon be on the street as well. BE Careful What you wish for, and most importantly "young guys" take care of yourself.

 

[nwaredtail]

took my First class FAA physical yesterday, my doc is some sort of liason for my area. NO CHANGE to physicals if they change the age.........

 

[aussiefly]

took my First class FAA physical yesterday, my doc is some sort of liason for my area. NO CHANGE to physicals if they change the age.........

YET....

 

[StopNTSing]

Here's a novel idea if this thing actually comes to pass: Conduct a vote of all pilots at your airline on this issue. If the majority want the retirement age to stay at 60, then get your contract amended to reflect that. If most want 65, then go with it. Heck, AA management (CR Smith) was the one that gave us age 60 in the first place, so I wouldn't think most mgmts would really care if the pilots want age 60 to stay....gets the senior dudes off their payroll sooner.

 

[AAPilot]

Here's a novel idea if this thing actually comes to pass: Conduct a vote of all pilots at your airline on this issue. If the majority want the retirement age to stay at 60, then get your contract amended to reflect that. If most want 65, then go with it. Heck, AA management (CR Smith) was the one that gave us age 60 in the first place, so I wouldn't think most mgmts would really care if the pilots want age 60 to stay....gets the senior dudes off their payroll sooner.

Good response

 

[Andy]

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...

I sent a PM to your mailbox to let you know that I accept your offer to call your dad an idiot to your face for blowing all of his savings on speculative 'investments' just before retirement age. Your mailbox is full and until you clear it out, you can't accept PMs.

 

[maximizer]

Habib, fortunately for us, these approaching-60 selfish ba$tard$ have seen to it that those who already retired won't be returning and can't even sue to try to return. So much for this being a 'discrimination issue.' It's purely a selfish issue. Thanks Greediest Generation!!! Your parents, who selflessly saved the world from Facism, would be disappointed in you.

another dopey coolaid drinker