Capt Prater: Here is your sign!

[PlaneDrvr]

Originally Posted by vtwo
It is just age discrimination plain and simple.


Guess what, so is 65.

So is any age.
65 is just closer to what the rest of American society is used to.

I have an Idea let make retirement mandatory at age 40.

Sorry to inform you but it is definitely NOT "age discrimination" as that case was already taken to the U.S. Supreme Court and they ruled that the 'Age 60 Rule' was NOT age discrimination. Unless you want to take a case all the way to the Supreme Court and get them to 'overturn' their previous ruling it is NOT age discrimination.

Also, I guess that it is also 'age disrimination' that ATC controllers are 'required' to retire at age 55; or the 'fact' that no one over the age of 38 yrs old can apply and be hired as a 'Sky Marshall' and so on and so.........

Again, Age 60 is NOT Age Discrimination.

Hope that makes it clear for you.

DA

 

[PlaneDrvr]

The one thing people tend to ignore on this issue is the QUALIFIED pilot shortage we already find ourselves in. Most of the regionals are scraping the bottom of the barrel, and increasing pay does no good if there are no pilots in the training pipeline.

Retaining pilots beyond age 60 helps mitigate that shortage.

What pilot shortage???????????

I have been hearing about the "impending pilot shortage" for almost all of my 20+ yrs. in this business. Haven't seen it yet.

Here's a thought. The reason why the regionals are as you put it "scraping the bottom of the barrel" and have trouble finding 'experienced/qualified' pilot is that They Don't PAY $hit. There are still plenty (in the thousands), of experienced, qualified pilot out there, 'furloughed' who won't work for a company that won't pay a 'decent' wage. And, the "bottom of the Barrel" guys are applying in mass to outfits like SkumBus; who only pays an 'experienced A320 Capt' all of $65,000.

There is NO pilot shortage, so please don't use that as some 'poor, stupid' excuse for repealing age 60.

DA

 

[TheBaron]

I notice that you didn't list ME as responsible for your pension disappearing. So please explain why it is ME you want to steal from to replace it? This is going to personally cost me thousands upon thousands of dollars and years of my life that I don't want to work.

Who said you were guaranteed anything in this industry? Are you some kinda' pinko commie or socialist that you think you are "entitled" to employment for life under specific and unchanging rules? How is your position any less greedy than that of some 58 year old pilot that wants to provide for his family? Maybe you should look into Avon or Mary Kay so you can be your own boss.

 

[Huck]

There is NO pilot shortage, so please don't use that as some 'poor, stupid' excuse for repealing age 60.

Yeah, I didn't get that - we're all supposed to take a break in our career progression to give the ATA time to recover from years of sh!t wages and crap working conditions....

 

[SkiFishFly]

Sorry to inform you but it is definitely NOT "age discrimination" as that case was already taken to the U.S. Supreme Court and they ruled that the 'Age 60 Rule' was NOT age discrimination. Unless you want to take a case all the way to the Supreme Court and get them to 'overturn' their previous ruling it is NOT age discrimination.

Also, I guess that it is also 'age disrimination' that ATC controllers are 'required' to retire at age 55; or the 'fact' that no one over the age of 38 yrs old can apply and be hired as a 'Sky Marshall' and so on and so.........

Again, Age 60 is NOT Age Discrimination.

Hope that makes it clear for you.

DA

The rules of the game have changed since the supreme court ruled on this issue.

The courts will no longer hold up the age 60 rule. When a Government agency prohibits a US citizen from performing a job based soley on age and yet the same gov agency allows a non US citizen to perform the same job on US soil past the age at which it allows the US citizen to work - that is age discrimination.

 

[Flopgut]

Who said you were guaranteed anything in this industry? Are you some kinda' pinko commie or socialist that you think you are "entitled" to employment for life under specific and unchanging rules? How is your position any less greedy than that of some 58 year old pilot that wants to provide for his family? Maybe you should look into Avon or Mary Kay so you can be your own boss.

Who said [you] were guaranteed a pension? Seems adequately causal in your case that if you lose one it's OK to take from your peers? If you have another setback after the age change are you going to hit up your peers again? The arguement to keep age 60 is "less greedy" because it only seeks to pass the same onto others. No more no less. That 58 year old can go work somewhere else. Pilots have lost pensions in the past and dealt with it.

Talk about "employment for life", you've got it backward. Age 65 as a retirement age is championed by a bunch of greedy geezers who insist cradle to grave employment is their inalienable right!

 

[tomgoodman]

Blame the pension-dumpers

I notice that you didn't list ME as responsible for your pension disappearing. So please explain why it is ME you want to steal from to replace it? This is going to personally cost me thousands upon thousands of dollars and years of my life that I don't want to work.

Since you had no part in any pension-dumping, you may become one of the innocent victims, along with retired and furloughed pilots who could not vote. The ALPA pension-dumpers didn't want to stagnate careers either, but they should have foreseen that those deprived of compensation ALREADY EARNED would make legal efforts to get it back, via an extension of the retirement age. Unfortunately for junior pilots, the consequences will fall upon many, innocent or not; but it won't be retirees who block your career advancement -- we can't come back.

 

[TheBaron]

Who said [you] were guaranteed a pension? Seems adequately causal in your case that if you lose one it's OK to take from your peers? If you have another setback after the age change are you going to hit up your peers again? The arguement to keep age 60 is "less greedy" because it only seeks to pass the same onto others. No more no less. That 58 year old can go work somewhere else. Pilots have lost pensions in the past and dealt with it.

Talk about "employment for life", you've got it backward. Age 65 as a retirement age is championed by a bunch of greedy geezers who insist cradle to grave employment is their inalienable right!

Who is "taking" something from their peers. There goes that entitlement mentality. Where did you get the idea you were "owed" an upgrade at a certain point in your career. When the economy tanks and pilots are furloughed should the "greedy" geezers give up their jobs so the younger pilots can keep theirs? The only thing constant in this career is change. How is it any "less greedy" for a junior pilot to be worried about how this will affect his bottom line? Both sides of the coin have valid points and they are all EQUALLY self serving.

 

[regionaltard]

There is NO pilot shortage..................

DA

Yeah, right.

 

[Hamburger]

Who said you were guaranteed anything in this industry? Are you some kinda' pinko commie or socialist that you think you are "entitled" to employment for life under specific and unchanging rules?

No, dumbass, I don't want 'employment for life'. I want to retire at 60. If you want to start comparing people to socailists, note that raising the age falls in step with the EU way of doing things.

How is your position any less greedy than that of some 58 year old pilot that wants to provide for his family?

This is unbelieveably simple. Those on our side want nothing more than the same opportunities that those before us enjoyed. NOTHING MORE. Those on your side want to alter the rules so that they benefit at the expense of those on my side. Only one party here is greedy. It is very, very, Black and White. No amount of rationalization will change this fact.

 

[Hamburger]

Let's try terms that may be easier to grasp.

We are pilots trying to protect quality of life and pay issues that have been industry standard for as long as every working pilot has been employed as such.

Those who are for the change are like a management team coming to the table with a concession package. Replace the words pension and family with profits and company/employees and it's the same song.

If you are against management doing it to pilots, you should be against pilots doing it to pilots.

 

[Flopgut]

Who is "taking" something from their peers. There goes that entitlement mentality. Where did you get the idea you were "owed" an upgrade at a certain point in your career. When the economy tanks and pilots are furloughed should the "greedy" geezers give up their jobs so the younger pilots can keep theirs? The only thing constant in this career is change. How is it any "less greedy" for a junior pilot to be worried about how this will affect his bottom line? Both sides of the coin have valid points and they are all EQUALLY self serving.

Wait, you're entitled to something, and no one else is?

OK, Look: There is a certain amount of money one get's in this business based on when you were hired, when you retire, and what your CBA contains. If a minority number of workers seek extra pay (through seniority), outside the CBA, they're basically desiring to be replacement workers.

Look at recent UAL events: The more senior pilots didn't spare the junior ones in the least attempting to save their A fund. PW emerged from negotiating away scope and pay and the creation of the low cost side and proclaimed "I've saved the A fund". Well, it didn't work out, did it? Now the junior guys are getting extremely screwed in the narrowbodies. I don't care how valiant you might think his efforts were, they didn't work! And when you screw up that bad, you've got to go! I can't believe the audacity some of these senior types have. You don't get to continuosly remortgage the careers of those junior to you until you are perfectly satisfied! Senior UAL types should be after the people who took their pension instead.

Desiring to remain status quo is far "less greedy" in any case. Reamortizing career progression once will simply lead to it again, and again, and again. We need to fix the larger problem.

 

[Huck]

There are those who will be captains for 5 more years,
and there are those who will be F/O's for 5 more years,
and there are those who will be unemployed/underemployed for 5 more years.

Capt. Prater's in the first group,
most of the national and MEC-level ALPA leaders are in the first group,
the Blue-Ribbon Committee (save one) is in the first group,
all of my management pilots are in the first group.

All we can do is shake our fists at this point, but somebody tell Capt. Prater not to expect a tremendous amount of unity after all this - it's going to cost me (and a majority of his members) in the six figures.

 

[hoover]

I will never get used to the fact that I'll be getting ~5 more years as an F/O.

I seriously doubt that you would, either.

AN FO with a 6 digit income. Life's rough isn't it? C'mon folks lets get some perspective here. The most junior mainline guy is pulling down upper 5, if not 6 digits. Meanwhile some of these senior guys worked their entire career only to have the rug pulled out from under them at the last minute. It has nothing to do with how they planned. They "planned" to have their pension. They didn't "plan" to have their pension taken away with nothing to replace it. If the worst thing that happens to you is that you have to spend an extra 5 years at First Officer wages (the aforementioned 6 digit income) then life's been pretty good to you hasn't it?

This is why management always gets the better of pilots. You're too busy screwing each other to fight back.

 

[Neubyfly]

I think you have ALPA confused with bankruptcy court. That is where the pensions were trashed.

ALPO has had years and the hard leasons learned by Pan AM, Eastern and TWA, to name but a few, to see that the current pension plans are NOT safe. Now add United, USair, Delta... ETC ETC. When will they learn?

 

[Falconjet]

Hoover, you may need to work on your reading comp and math skills.

If you think that the senior guys getting 5 more years in the left seat while the junior guys (many of whom also lost their pensions) sit in the right for another 5 years aren't screwing anybody then YOU probably ARE management material.

FJ

 

[Falconjet]

This issue should have nothing to do with anybody's pensions or lack there of.

That is just smoke and mirrors.

FJ

 

[Huck]

C'mon folks lets get some perspective here.

Dear Hoover, I agree.

I found a website that is pretty interesting: Dollar Value Calculator.

According to them, last year I made $90,000 in 1990 dollars (using the consumer price index). This after 21 years of flying, three carriers and some corporate jobs. Yeah, life is good. But with three kids and a wife that stays home, I'm not willing to relax yet. Would you?

And there is no dam way that cargo isn't going to get the same "correction" that the pax world has. In 10 years we'll be back below the majors in pay and benefits - that's the nature of the free market.

MBA's in Louisvlle and Memphis read the WSJ too. So I want max income NOW, before the same sh!tstorm hits us.

Fedex pilots did good with the last contract. But I'm assuming we're comparable to UAL about 1999. I have to.


(On a side note - my dad's salary in 1991 was $225k to fly whales. In today's dollars (CPI) that's $323,000.....)

 

[Yuppyguppy]

If it wasn't a a safety issue then why must one of the pilots be under 60??? They have already admitted to the fact that it could be a problem and what a scheduling nightmrare. Absoulute joke is what this is. AND no I'm not going to get used to it like A350 said.

 

[SuperFLUF]

Come on "fly boy"..
You sound like someone who is uneducated or easy to rush to a conclusion.

A LOT of those senior guys were making great money... and probably saving a small portion based on their expectations of having their RETIREMENT.
They didn't have to save a huge portion of their income. They had a company paid and promised retirement plan.
Of course, promises are not guarantees.

I suggest you not rush to blame or judge people so carelessly.
Maybe as you get older and WISER, you may see how foolish you appear now.

So are you saying then that those who counted on their full pensions without any regard to what was happening to pensions in other industries (steel & auto), without any consideration of the amount acutally "guaranteed" by the PBGC are "older and WISER"?

I submit that anyone who counted on a pension from a corportation without doing any research in to what was actually covered by the PBGC and the true funding situation was a fool. The company can promise anything they want to you, do you just believe it without checking the facts?

How many of those crying poor mouth now spent the money for a decent financial planner when it counted? Any financial planner worth his or her salt would have had a retirement savings plan that only included a small portion of their pension because pensions were on their way out long before 9/11. Hell even Consumer Reports had a story on the death of pensions in the late '90's.

The majority of those lobbying to change the age 60 rule scream about "fairness". Where is the fairness in making up for their mistakes at the expense of everyone junior to them? It does suck that pensions are going away. I was "promised" 2 million at retirement with my pension. Now it will be $60-70k in todays dollars if that is even there when I retire. And don't give me that BS about "you have the time to make it up". Maybe I could if I wasn't being held out of the left seat for an additional 3-5 years and working 5 more years on the back end doesn't make up for that. Not understanding how that works just shows why "they" don't have enough money to retire. Which also brings the question to mind. Retire how? Are you entitled to stay in your "Captain" home and keep your toys along with a $500k motorhome? I imagine most of the "poor mouth" crowd could live just fine with their NEEDs met right now. Just not their WANTS. And so everyone junior to them should pay for that as well. We OWE it to them somehow, I'm sure.

One good thing to come out of all this is to learn the lesson from those "older and wiser" fools who spent all their money and then started thinking about retirement when they hit 45 or 50. Get a good financial planner right now. Then earlier in your carreer, the less it will cost you and the less of your earnings you will have to put away. It is especially critical now that we will lose substantial earning power early in our careers due to the mistakes and greed of others. The writing is on the wall so plan for it. Hopefully the majority opinion can defeat the NPRM but its best to start planning as though it will pass. If it doesn't then your just in better shape for your responsible retirement planning and may be able to scale back the savings a bit later on.

 

[Freight Dog]

They "planned" to have their pension. They didn't "plan" to have their pension taken away with nothing to replace it.

Hoover, tell that to Enron employees who "planned" for their Enron stock to split a number of times. Instead we all saw what happened.

A-plan was a promise! It was nothing more than company promising to fund a pension plan. When the managements ceased funding it, we ALL got hosed. Under federal rules, it became too cost prohibitive to bring the pensions back up to their required levels hence the bankruptcies. The previous generation could have converted DB plans to DC plans, instead they chose the risks associated with DB plans. They gambled and they lost.

Now they want to stay and work til 65 at the detriment of every FO and junior captain out there, and ALPA National is okay with that.

Well, this FO will no longer give a rusty penny to ALPA-PAC. I feel bad enough already paying $150/mo in dues. I'd rather pay $200/mo for APA at my same pay. At least I know they're doing something aside from surrendering... but then again, Prater sounds French...

 

[skykid]

...just hope this process gets dragged out as long as possible.

Ditto. Hopefully this screw job takes at least a couple years.

If it wasn't a a safety issue then why must one of the pilots be under 60???

Absolutely!! That's what makes this such a joke.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Now they want to stay and work til 65 at the detriment of every FO and junior captain out there, and ALPA National is okay with that.

On this issue, ALPA National is not OK with it. They know how the membership feels about this. But they also know that this rule is going to change.

You can't have American citizens flying on foreign carriers, in American airspace, in jets commanded by pilots over age 60, with the approval of the American government, and not expect this change. To stop this from happening, you've also got to stop our (The U.S.) participation in the ICAO, and the alloowing of ICAO carriers to fly in our airspace with Pilots over age 60.

Do you honestly think that Capt. Prater hasn't even discussed this with the FAA Administrator? He has and knows where the Administrator stands on this issue. Would you rather he come in and pound on her desk? All that does is alienate him from the Washington decision makers. If ALPA can't stop this from happening ( like Deregulation) then the best thing is for them to try to have a voice in the implementation of these new rules ( unlike Deregulation).

Every day in our (U.S.) airspace we get a living example of how safe it is for an over age 60 pilot to be in command of a passenger carrying aircraft.

Something bad....I mean, real bad, would have to happen for the Administrator to change her stance on the repeal of the age 60 rule.

...who wants to go first....?

Tejas

 

[pipe]

On this issue, ALPA National is not OK with it. They know how the membership feels about this. But they also know that this rule is going to change.

You can't have American citizens flying on foreign carriers, in American airspace, in jets commanded by pilots over age 60, with the approval of the American government, and not expect this change. To stop this from happening, you've also got to stop our (The U.S.) participation in the ICAO, and the alloowing of ICAO carriers to fly in our airspace with Pilots over age 60.

Do you honestly think that Capt. Prater hasn't even discussed this with the FAA Administrator? He has and knows where the Administrator stands on this issue. Would you rather he come in and pound on her desk? All that does is alienate him from the Washington decision makers. If ALPA can't stop this from happening ( like Deregulation) then the best thing is for them to try to have a voice in the implementation of these new rules ( unlike Deregulation).

Every day in our (U.S.) airspace we get a living example of how safe it is for an over age 60 pilot to be in command of a passenger carrying aircraft.

Something bad....I mean, real bad, would have to happen for the Administrator to change her stance on the repeal of the age 60 rule.

...who wants to go first....?

Tejas

Then Prater should address what he can control -- contracts. Just tell Blakey that, until the membership says otherwise and an equivalent level of safety is proven, the official ALPA national stance will be to disapprove contracts that don't set a retirement age of 60.

PIPE

 

[Shrek]

I will get used to the flying age changing to ICAO rules as long as we get their REST REQUIREMENTS TOO..........

 

[doer42]

I find it simple. All these guys that knew the rules when the joined the industry that balk this is age discrimination, nothing more, simply state, if you are hired post the age change to 65, you get to stay to 65. Otherwise you are gone. They will find this reprehensible, because they don't get to benefit like they did when the Capt they were flying with that turned age 60 the next day retired making a new spot for them. Saying in the back of their mind, "see-ya old geezer, I will be a captain that much sooner." The only people that benefit from this rule change are the guys that are captains now, period. They say that we will be captains until we are 65 too, however it will be 5 year later at their expense. If they want to reapply after they retire and start over again let them if it is only really about the flying, but I bet you would find none of them return. And too all you ex-military guys out there, I don't know of a single military guy over the age of 60. I don't seeing you cry foul there. Give me a break, it is really about you and your squandered wages.

out

 

[doer42]

You can't have American citizens flying on foreign carriers, in American airspace, in jets commanded by pilots over age 60, with the approval of the American government, and not expect this change. To stop this from happening, you've also got to stop our (The U.S.) participation in the ICAO, and the alloowing of ICAO carriers to fly in our airspace with Pilots over age 60.

/QUOTE]

Maybe we should let americans smoke pot like the Europeans do too, just because it is legal there in Amsterdam.

 

[Hamburger]

AN FO with a 6 digit income. Life's rough isn't it? C'mon folks lets get some perspective here.

You simply Cannot be serious.

How deep in the sand could your ********************ing head be to not realize that the majority of us who don't happen to work for FedEx or Southwest won't see six figures unless we UPGRADE.

Retards like you reaped the benefits of those who had the dignity to retire with class when their number came up. Now you want to force the guys who had the unfortunate luck to be born after you to suck up another five years at the bottom so you can suck five more years (half a million plus) at the top of the scale?

You and your kind can sugar coat your position all day long. You can play it up in your own mind that your are some sort of Robin Hood. Say it over and over enough and you may actually belive it.

The thing is, the Robin Hood angle doesn't fly. You're not stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. You are stealing from your fellow pilots (who are far from rich), and giving to yourself.

You might talk a good game to yourself, but deep down inside, you know you are notihng more than a thief.

 

[Falconjet]

We already have Americans over 60 flying around in our airspace.

Just have to do it for a part 91 carrier.

See how easy that is?

FJ

 

[PCL_128]

Well, this FO will no longer give a rusty penny to ALPA-PAC.

So you're willing to allow foreign control, foreign ownership, cabatoge, bankruptcy reform, etc... to go unaddressed simply because you disagree with how Captain Prater has handled a single issue? Very short-sighted.