Age 65 proposal from another board

[Osmosis]

If a compromise were possible, this would be reasonable. Unfortunately, I don't see many in favor of this going for it, because why should they compromise? With the NPRM announcement, they are getting their cake, and soon will be eating it, too. I am still in shock that a vocal minority has won over the majority. And as many proponents to this rule change probably see it, only a minority of their people will lose out, and we already know how they feel about their fellow pilots.

I am sure this has been questioned, but with the NPRM announced and soon coming, how do I protect myself and other fellow pilots from not being punished when I/we don't want to fly at age 60? Maybe we should change our fight to that. Are we strong enough as opponents to Age 60 changing to at least grandfather those of us that don't want to die in the cockpit and protect our retirement. I would really like to be drinking beer on the porch at 60 and laugh when a plane goes by that 60 some year old is flying, knowing I didn't get penalized by making the choice to enjoy life.

 

[Huck]

Since the FAA does not want both pilots in the cockpit to be older than 60, the rule needs to be that a pilot cannot hold a CA postion at 60. Once they hit the golden year, they can go back to flying the right seat. This will help solve the problem of two pilots in the cockpit older than 60, and keep upgrades from stagnating at each airline. A compromise if you will.

I propose a slogan:


RSO: RIGHT SEAT ONLY

 

[Purpled]

So the announcemnt of the NPRM already has people comprimising? Come on, hold the line and stand firm. The only way to make it fair to 'everyone' is to keep it as is. These comprimises sell-out the furloughees and potential new-hires. Don't do it.

 

[AA717driver]

So the announcemnt of the NPRM already has people comprimising? Come on, hold the line and stand firm. The only way to make it fair to 'everyone' is to keep it as is. These comprimises sell-out the furloughees and potential new-hires. Don't do it.

The seduction has begun. That is the sound of the ladder being pulled up by the junior guys at every major... TC

 

[Purpled]

The seduction has begun. That is the sound of the ladder being pulled up by the junior guys at every major... TC

Yes, they are in 'protection mode' after being attacked by the senior guys. I hope the reaction is one that will benefit the profession as a whole, including furloughees etc. Perhaps it will be so when the emotional dust settles.

 

[SOVT]

How about this for a compromise; raise the retirement age to 65 BUT establish a fund to compensate any pilot that retires at age 60 for his/her lost wages. We could restrict the payout of these funds to those who have been in this industry for twenty years or more, lost their pensions thru bankruptcy, involuntarily not have had more than 24 months of Captain seat time and have two or more furloughs under their belt. You know, those of us that have been hammered by this industry for a decade or two.

The federal government could fund this proposal thru the implementation of a gross payroll tax on anyone who checks out as a captain after the effective date of the legislation. I would guess that an above the line tax surcharge of about 10% ought to do it.

The beauty of this proposal is that it would allow those who have been severely affected by the bad times in this industry to have a decent retirement and at the same time allow you young guys the Captain’s seat you so desperately crave, albeit with a small financial penalty.

C’mon be willing to compromise, step up to the plate, pony up a little cash and you guys can have my seat. Hell, give me the pension I was “promised” (back then that was kind of like the age 60 rule) and I will gladly retire today.

 

[kwick]

APA gave us the "B" scale, now they're against the age 65 rule. Guy's, this is a great deal for everybody, if you look down the road a few years. Think long term. As much as you might be against this right now, it probably will mean about a million dollars to you, if you consider you're 401k's or retirement plans and insurance coverage. I'll bet you a domestic beer that when you're 50 or 55, you'll be for this. I know you might not believe this now, but I think you will. Just consider the possibility.

 

[Huck]

Guy's, this is a great deal for everybody

With all due respect, it's a great deal for everybody that's in a captain's seat when the rule changes.

For everybody else it is less money, less B fund, less bidding seniority and a chance to die/get violated when the 64 year olds can't cut it when the sh!t hits the fan. The money I make from 60-65 (if I'm one of the ~66% who can keep their medical that long) will be after my kids are out of the house and through college and my house is paid off - i.e. I won't need it then.

My company has already slowed hiring down, Kwick.Talk to some furloughees about this and they're not going to be too excited either. And take a look at the time value of money. Thanks

 

[Purpled]

APA gave us the "B" scale, now they're against the age 65 rule. Guy's, this is a great deal for everybody, if you look down the road a few years. Think long term. As much as you might be against this right now, it probably will mean about a million dollars to you, if you consider you're 401k's or retirement plans and insurance coverage. I'll bet you a domestic beer that when you're 50 or 55, you'll be for this. I know you might not believe this now, but I think you will. Just consider the possibility.

This is only a great deal if you are 58 or older and want to fly past 60 in your current seat. It is a screw job for everybody else.

5 more years of being junior, 5 more years of not being a captain, 5 more years to put fatigue on your body. 5 more years to get hired at a major if you're not there yet.

That's not even considering that the companies will play this off as '5 more years of income for you' and your compensation will be affected. Don't even think about negotiating The IRS might have its eyes on your b-fund too. This is a BAD IDEA that we will rue years from now if it manages to go through.

The 58/59 y/olds have nothing to lose and are willing to ruin the job to get what they want. They are truly worthy of the title- the Greediest Generation.

 

[Jolly Roger]

This is only a great deal if you are 58 or older and want to fly past 60 in your current seat. It is a screw job for everybody else.

5 more years of being junior, 5 more years of not being a captain, 5 more years to put fatigue on your body. 5 more years to get hired at a major if you're not there yet.

That's not even considering that the companies will play this off as '5 more years of income for you' and your compensation will be affected. Don't even think about negotiating The IRS might have its eyes on your b-fund too. This is a BAD IDEA that we will rue years from now if it manages to go through.

The 58/59 y/olds have nothing to lose and are willing to ruin the job to get what they want. They are truly worthy of the title- the Greediest Generation.

Well said!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Benhuntn]

that sounds like a lot of hooooie to me you should work for the govt not flying airplanes....get over it change is here.

 

[Purpled]

you should work for the govt not flying airplanes.

You mean like for the FAA?

P.S. What's hooooie?

 

[Flopgut]

APA gave us the "B" scale, now they're against the age 65 rule. Guy's, this is a great deal for everybody, if you look down the road a few years. Think long term. As much as you might be against this right now, it probably will mean about a million dollars to you, if you consider you're 401k's or retirement plans and insurance coverage. I'll bet you a domestic beer that when you're 50 or 55, you'll be for this. I know you might not believe this now, but I think you will. Just consider the possibility.

Looking "down the road a few years"..... This will be the same rationale mgts will use to decline giving a raise to, or even insist on a paycut from pilots. (other airline workers will be able to better bargain outright for more)

Your looking down a shorter road than many of us. It's going to take 2 contract cycles, and a decade+ to get through this.....

 

[Flopgut]

How about this for a compromise; raise the retirement age to 65 BUT establish a fund to compensate any pilot that retires at age 60 for his/her lost wages. We could restrict the payout of these funds to those who have been in this industry for twenty years or more, lost their pensions thru bankruptcy, involuntarily not have had more than 24 months of Captain seat time and have two or more furloughs under their belt. You know, those of us that have been hammered by this industry for a decade or two.

The federal government could fund this proposal thru the implementation of a gross payroll tax on anyone who checks out as a captain after the effective date of the legislation. I would guess that an above the line tax surcharge of about 10% ought to do it.

The beauty of this proposal is that it would allow those who have been severely affected by the bad times in this industry to have a decent retirement and at the same time allow you young guys the Captain’s seat you so desperately crave, albeit with a small financial penalty.

C’mon be willing to compromise, step up to the plate, pony up a little cash and you guys can have my seat. Hell, give me the pension I was “promised” (back then that was kind of like the age 60 rule) and I will gladly retire today.

This is a good idea.

 

[Thedude]

C’mon be willing to compromise, step up to the plate, pony up a little cash and you guys can have my seat. Hell, give me the pension I was “promised” (back then that was kind of like the age 60 rule) and I will gladly retire today.

So are you saying ther has never been bad times in this industry before? That this industry isn't cyclical? Hmm Pan Am, Braniff? You didn't learn anything?