S. 65 and H.R. 1125 still alive (age 65)

[The Prussian]

Sorry...guess I broke your 'train' of thought!!?!

 

[BluDevAv8r]

Just got off the phone with ALPA National. Had a very candid discussion with a person familiar with what's going on.

Who did you speak with? If you are uncomfortable posting it in public, PM it to me please.

Neal: You got 5 minutes, everybody else knew exactly what they were going for. I'm sorry to say, you've been duped! Prater sought to trade on your reputation and it worked. There's no way you could have known what was going to happen, so don't feel bad. You were the token FO and carried great credibility.

When I said 5 minutes, I meant that each of the 7 of us gave our personal opinions and then we moved on. Are you saying that you spoke with the other 6 people on the BRP and they are all working outside of the mission of the BRP to affect this change? If so, please provide a source and evidence for such a statement.

-Neal

 

[BluDevAv8r]

I wasn't trying to sound as snide as I guess my question did, I beg your pardon. I am quite frustrated. About two weeks ago you suggested I start calling national and that I would be pleased with what I learned was going on around this issue. I put two calls into national 9 days ago. I talked to one person in R&I and left a message for a guy with a last name that starts with J. I've followed up every other day since and heard nothing, but I wil continue to try.

Neal, you must feel some frustration with this too? Your collective bargaining reputation is outstanding. You've been put on this panel with a very limited scope and are the only FO. The polling isn't even done and a Fastread goes out telling the membership that ALPA may change the rule in spite of any official polling results. How can that be anything but frustrating? I think Prater wanted to trade on your reputation but really never intended to allow you input.

I know you are frustrated. Many pilots are. I'm frustrated by certain things with the politics (congress, etc) but not by my direct interaction on the BRP. Again, the BRP's mission and our actions have nothing to do with this possible change to ALPA policy, etc. My input has been taken...but the input has been on negotiations issues and communications issues going forward IF this change sees the light of day. It isn't the BRP's mandate to push (or not push) for any sort of change. Nothing in our presentation to the EC (and soon to the EB) will even talk about the merits (or lack thereof) of a change.

-Neal

 

[humuakalaka]

learherkjay...

This is a MUCH more complicated issue than simply giving yourself the option to work past age 60. That is one of the pro-65 crowd's favorite arguments; "it gives you the option to work to 65...nobody will force you to work past 60."

This issue has much to do with the time value of money. If you understand the idea that a dollar earned today is worth more than a dollar earned twenty years from now, then you know what I mean. For junior FO's at my airline, the difference in money saved at age 60 is $1.3 million. That's A LOT of money. In other words, if today's FO's were to upgrade on time vs taking a significant delay due to age 65 coming into place, they would be $1.3 million ahead of where they will be at age 60 as a result of the retirement age being extended. When you compare apples to apples (total earnings and savings at age 60), today's FO's will be well behind where they would have been without age 65.

The net effect of this impact on earnings is to essentially force today's FO's to have to work past age 60. It is true that no one will force you legislatively to work past age 60. However, for all practical purposes, you will be forced financially to work until age 65.

Listening to the pro age 65 crowd's arguments without a very skeptical ear is akin to trusting a used car salesman.

 

[learherkjay]

Well, for sure, I have never been accused of being smart (government education), hence me asking for the con argument to raising the age to 65. As a young FO (only 34) I generally see getting to work 5 more years as a good thing, but I know I don't have the whole picture. Yes, things are complicated and more importantly timing is everything. While, the age 65 does make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer - this if for a limited pilot population. Yes, I know a lot of variables come into play - but I am seeing the scope of who this affects. If you are at an airline that is not hiring, you have furloughees, and have limited growth, raising the age definitely affects your bottom line. If you are at a growing airline and are a lot younger, then I think your bottom line is affected less (perhaps even negligible when adding the 5 years of extra income in the mix). Then again, today's growing airlines could be tomorrow's BK queen. What about the young FO yet to be hired? If the age limit raises then the guys 5-10 years out from being hired, will have the ability to make more money in this industry over their career. So, I am still a little confused as to which side (pro or con) actually benefits the universal American (not the airline, the pilot) pilot group, future pilots included.

 

[kwick]

The age 65 rule will mean at least a billion dollars additional income for the pilot group, as a whole. Probably, a lot more. The airline fleet is projected to double by 2020, so there is plenty of opportunity for everyone. And Learherkjay, you're right, it means 5 more years of income. It's the ultimate "Win-Win" situation. Any other profession or industry would jump on this deal in a heart-beat. To be against this is putting your personal issues above the group, as a whole. If your a team-player, and are in reasonably good health, then you stand to gain a lot in terms of total income and increased retirement benefits. It's hard to look long-term when you're in you're thirties, but it looks like common sense is going to prevail to all of our benefit.

 

[vixin]

Not to mention it is worth billions in social security payments for the gov't. Most SWA Captains (and other airline captains) have maxed out or will max out the benefit from SS (like it will be there when I retire). They do this well before 60. Thus they pay SS without getting the additional benefit. Push this to 65 the govt gets more free money. This helps pay the old blue heads that are getting more then they paid into it now.

I say have a Grandfather clause in the 65 debate. The day it goes into effect. If you have a seniority number with an airline you are subject to 60. If you are hired after it goes into effect you can goto 65. We all knew when we were hired what the retirement age was. No animosity this way. Why isnt 65 age discrimmination or 70 heck 85. A 15 year old should be able to get his ATP also. We should have 100 year old firefighters to.

 

[kwick]

Any pilot worth his salt can adapt to change, that's what they pay us for. If you can't you're in the wrong business. Maybe you should be flying a desk. Not everyone is cutout to be an airline pilot.

 

[PCL_128]

Vixin, you've got it half right. Safety, according to the recent Flying magazine article, dictates that we keep the experienced heads in the cockpit. The flying public deserves no less.

Yes, because Flying Magazine is a well-respected medical institution that is capable of accurately determining the effects of aging on the pilot population. [/sarcasm]

 

[vixin]

Any pilot worth his salt can adapt to change, that's what they pay us for. If you can't you're in the wrong business. Maybe you should be flying a desk. Not everyone is cutout to be an airline pilot.

What does my statement have to do with me flying an airplane or flying for an airline? I can answer that....NOTHING! This is one of the dumbest statements I have read. I adapt just fine. Just saying it would cut down on the animosity. Lets adapt and have 100 year old firefighters and policemen.

I have flown with plenty of retired airline pilots. I can think of 1 maybe 2 that should have continued flying after 60. The first 1 was and is as sharp as a tack. The other was and you could see a huge decline in his abilities year after year. There were plenty that you had to babysit. Now I am not saying I couldnt and didnt learn from some of these guys. I have and always will be very open to learning anything from anybody. Whether its a low time FO or a high time retired airline pilot. The fact is I have seen plenty of retired guys that just should not have been flying on a regular basis.

 

[kwick]

Maybe read the article, wise guy. It quotes the most recent studies.

 

[Flopgut]

Who did you speak with? If you are uncomfortable posting it in public, PM it to me please.



When I said 5 minutes, I meant that each of the 7 of us gave our personal opinions and then we moved on. Are you saying that you spoke with the other 6 people on the BRP and they are all working outside of the mission of the BRP to affect this change? If so, please provide a source and evidence for such a statement.

-Neal

I'm going to decline to tell you who it was. I had a very candid discussion and probably got more info than most.

You were the only FO. Everyone else on that group knew the plan before they started. The BRP and all other associated activity was part of an elaborate scheme to bat the issue around a little bit and see if they could change ALPA's stance on the issue. Looks like it's going to work, doesn't it? Proof? You should need no more proof than to look at ALPA's history in these sorts of instances. ALPA eats their own, and they care about senior type as a first priority. You've done exactly what they wanted you to do. Carry the seemingly harmless message that you were just handling secondary concerns when in fact the opposite is true. They played you perfectly; You still believe you've stayed on mission with the BRP despite the facts we have before us. Stop disagreeing with me and look at where we have arrived.

 

[Flopgut]

Well, for sure, I have never been accused of being smart (government education), hence me asking for the con argument to raising the age to 65. As a young FO (only 34) I generally see getting to work 5 more years as a good thing, but I know I don't have the whole picture. Yes, things are complicated and more importantly timing is everything. While, the age 65 does make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer - this if for a limited pilot population. Yes, I know a lot of variables come into play - but I am seeing the scope of who this affects. If you are at an airline that is not hiring, you have furloughees, and have limited growth, raising the age definitely affects your bottom line. If you are at a growing airline and are a lot younger, then I think your bottom line is affected less (perhaps even negligible when adding the 5 years of extra income in the mix). Then again, today's growing airlines could be tomorrow's BK queen. What about the young FO yet to be hired? If the age limit raises then the guys 5-10 years out from being hired, will have the ability to make more money in this industry over their career. So, I am still a little confused as to which side (pro or con) actually benefits the universal American (not the airline, the pilot) pilot group, future pilots included.

Jay: It's never one thing that puts your airline retirement future in doubt. It's a chain of events that lead to a result. This is one [very large] link in a chain of events that can put our retirements in jeoprody. It's what may come next that we have to worry about. The supply curve Andy speaks of, disability, collective bargaining, time value of wages, are all issues we will have to deal with. And apparantly, those of us in ALPA won't be able to count on our union, and we will all be attached at the hip to a bunch of old senior pilots who will no longer have ANYTHING to worry about! And in fact, these guys aren't going to want to lift a finger to help any flatspotted junior pilot out and place their windfall in doubt.

 

[PCL_128]

I'm going to decline to tell you who it was. I had a very candid discussion and probably got more info than most.

You were the only FO. Everyone else on that group knew the plan before they started. The BRP and all other associated activity was part of an elaborate scheme to bat the issue around a little bit and see if they could change ALPA's stance on the issue. Looks like it's going to work, doesn't it? Proof? You should need no more proof than to look at ALPA's history in these sorts of instances. ALPA eats their own, and they care about senior type as a first priority. You've done exactly what they wanted you to do. Carry the seemingly harmless message that you were just handling secondary concerns when in fact the opposite is true. They played you perfectly; You still believe you've stayed on mission with the BRP despite the facts we have before us. Stop disagreeing with me and look at where we have arrived.

Those are some pretty serious allegations. Especially since you refuse to corroborate them with a source. I call BS.

 

[Flopgut]

Those are some pretty serious allegations. Especially since you refuse to corroborate them with a source. I call BS.

Just look at where we have arrived. I'm not pi$$ed at Neal; we are both frustrated. Some of you guys are not ready to accept how ugly ALPA can get, but it's going to sink in. We can't assume anything.

Scariest thing the guy admitted to me: "could we replace this issue with say, cabotage and see the same thing happen?" [meaning this group of senior pilots sell out the rest of us] His answer: "yes". NOT suggesting or admitting that they going to go seek out this negative sort of thing. But understand, if junior members get between the senior ones and another nice & easy, enormous wad of cash again, this is what is going to happen. And this change is going to occasion many such negative things. How are we going to sustain disability? How are we going to divide up anything we can get out of collective bargaining? What's going to come out of the many lawsuits we will undoubtedly face? Medical changes?

But please, do feel free to not believe me and call BS. I don't care if anybody thinks I'm right. Just interpret the situation and consider where this may take us.