UNBELIEVABLE! - CAL ALPA supports change to Age 60 Rule

[Tejas-Jet]

Many CAL pilots have a long and distinguished history of F'ing other pilots just to get something for themselves. Understand that fact and this shouldn't surprise you either. Gee, SCABS want to throw younger guys under the bus? Go figure.

I don't know if you remember or not, but the CAL strike was almost 25 years ago. I don't even work there but common sense would tell me that the remaining scabs are a very small miniority of the total number of Pilots at CAL.

Even as a voting block ( assuming they all think the same) wouldn't give them a majority.

Anyway, I still think this vote is GREAT !!!

 

[ToThePain]

Let me ask those against the rule change just what is your objection? Is there any imperical evidence that pilots are not capable of meeting medical standards beyond age 60? Is there any imperical evidence that there would be a higher bust rate on checkrides for those over 65? Just what are your objections based on? The only arguement I've heard that isn't complete Bulls**t is that it will delay YOUR upgrade/transition/payraise. It is the very same greed that you accuse the senior pilots of guiding their decision. Did anyone notice that your said upgrade/transition/payraise will still happen, just at a higher rate as you acquire longevity? And those last 5 years, should you choose to accept them, will also be at a higher rate. But I will be assuming that all objectors will voluntarily retire at 60, right? Or are your arguements just oral diahrrea?
This retirement age was determined, as previously stated, in 1949 and was established at the request of airline management. It was created simply to hold down payroll of all the WW2 vets that made up the bulk of the seniority lists of the day. It was a purely financial decision, backed up with smoke and mirrors medical science. Even if it was remotely applicable in 1949 the average life expectancy of a US citizen has increased almost 20 years since then. All credible contributors agree that there is no longer any medical reason to require retirement at age 60.

So, have at it, gentlemen and ladies. Come up with something other than "get the f**k out of MY seat" and I'll be happy to listen. Otherwise, wallow in the same greed that you accuse others of.

This is not to hard but I will take a stab......
I’ve grown tired of reading all the reasons why “junior guys” should want to work till 65. We will make more money and have more saved up for retirement. I decided to run the numbers myself. This is based off CAL current contract, which is a concessionary contract and will get better which will further skew the numbers against the junior guys.
These calculations are based off:
1. 2008 contract rates:
2. Figuring 20% 401k (includes companies 12% defined contribution)
3. 76 hours guaranteed (also a low number but that’s our reserve B number) any increase in hours will increase the difference between delay and no delay.
4. 6% compounded interest over the career to the age of 60.
5. All these numbers are base on a 3 year delay in upgrade. (Just a guess, no one really knows the exact affect, obviously more than 3 makes it worse on the junior guys, less makes it better)

No delay-
Total salary earned $3,096,968
Total 401k savings $1,257,321
Total $4,354,289

With delay
Total salary earned $2,821,468
Total 401k savings $1,182,318
Total $4,003,786

Total difference $350, 503. This means that I would have to work an additional 2 ½ years to break even with the loss of income putting me at 62 ½ years of age, essentially working for no pay given that I would have had that with no delays. That leaves me 2 ½ years to “make more money” These numbers are all conservative, you can see that with a better contract the differences in total income would increase. This also does not include the quality of life issues especially with PBS. There are also several recent studies that show the longer you work the average person has a shorter life span. I have listed a current report ALPA has. Here is the link to it, very interesting: http://www.mytruebrain.com/Creativity%20&%20Longevity.pdf
I don’t plan on working past age 60. I am planning on the age change to happen and am increasing my retirement savings to 24% a year (including CAL contributions) to offset this loss in wages. I shouldn’t have to.

 

[xjhawk]

now my two cents for the idiot who is angry about the change in the age 60 rule. lets see, most of us do not have defined pensions, some of us do not even have much of a 401K (since anyone like me has been stuck as an Fo getting crappy pay and before that I was busy getting crappy pay while serving my country for years, oh yes and going to college). Oh yes and some of us think we will NEED to work past 60 in order to survive.

I know the reasons why a lot of pilots do not want the rule changed, its typical pilot greed and idiotic reasoning. You want the speedy seniority when all these guys retire, you want movement, you want to relax and live in your retirement home at 60, all these things. And in wanting this, you are forcing guys to look for jobs at 60 when they are forced out, even though they are medically able to fly . ALPA has done many things, and by not supporting the change to the rule is about as low as they can be. For those of you who want to retire at 60, there is nothing stopping you, just do not make up reasons why I should have to.

Oh cudos to CAL MEC, I wish XJ's had that kind of leadership in our MEC

 

[Whiskerbizkit]

I don't know if you remember or not, but the CAL strike was almost 25 years ago. I don't even work there but common sense would tell me that the remaining scabs are a very small miniority of the total number of Pilots at CAL.

Even as a voting block ( assuming they all think the same) wouldn't give them a majority.

Anyway, I still think this vote is GREAT !!!

Oh no, there are LOTS of scabs still there.

 

[ToThePain]

now my two cents for the idiot who is angry about the change in the age 60 rule. lets see, most of us do not have defined pensions, some of us do not even have much of a 401K (since anyone like me has been stuck as an Fo getting crappy pay and before that I was busy getting crappy pay while serving my country for years, oh yes and going to college). Oh yes and some of us think we will NEED to work past 60 in order to survive.

I know the reasons why a lot of pilots do not want the rule changed, its typical pilot greed and idiotic reasoning. You want the speedy seniority when all these guys retire, you want movement, you want to relax and live in your retirement home at 60, all these things. And in wanting this, you are forcing guys to look for jobs at 60 when they are forced out, even though they are medically able to fly . ALPA has done many things, and by not supporting the change to the rule is about as low as they can be. For those of you who want to retire at 60, there is nothing stopping you, just do not make up reasons why I should have to.

Oh cudos to CAL MEC, I wish XJ's had that kind of leadership in our MEC

I'm not sure is this was directed at me considering it was written directly after my post but here goes: Is it any less greedy that you want to work past 60 and delay others what was expected according to the rules that we have all been hired in so that you can make more money because your company doesn't offer a 401k and you won't have enough to retire with at 60? How about the fact that most of the Captains that retire over the next 10 years will get social security while others like myself will probably never see it. Changing the rule will force many FO's to HAVE to work till 65. Are you aware that they are already pushing for age 70 in Europe? Once the age has been changed once it will be easily changed again, and it will when social security gets moved to 67. Have you seen any of the reports of what the age change may do to our insurance and disability plans? Do you understand what the airlines will do to wages if this passes? The over all percentage increase per year and postition (FO) will be smaller.
By the way I also served my country (10 years active and now on year 2 of the reserves) and paid my way through college while also getting my MBA.

 

[Jonny Sacko]

I know the reasons why a lot of pilots do not want the rule changed, its typical pilot greed and idiotic reasoning. You want the speedy seniority when all these guys retire, you want movement, you want to relax and live in your retirement home at 60, all these things. And in wanting this, you are forcing guys to look for jobs at 60 when they are forced out, even though they are medically able to fly.

You mean like you did, you greedy pompous arrogant ass.

 

[pkober]

Oh no, there are LOTS of scabs still there.

Define lots. I looked at our seniority list and us normal non scabs far out weigh those low lifes. The scabs point of view is never taken seriously and since we out number them it will mean even less now.

In the end remember that ALPA will do what is best for increasing their payroll and bank account. Our desires are of little concern to ALPA national.

Why are pilots who don't work for CAL so concerned about what goes on at CAL? Last I checked we don't fly A320's.

 

[COpilot]

Oh no, there are LOTS of scabs still there.

Tell us how many are there; how many are on the total list? We would love to know the number.

Come on smart a$$...

For the record I'm 45, '87 hire, and pro 60.

 

[Pocono Pilot]

Tell us how many are there; how many are on the total list? We would love to know the number.

I think it may be down to less than a thousand by now, but they do control the union, the chief pilot offices and the training center.

 

[catIIIc]

I think it may be down to less than a thousand by now, but they do control the union, the chief pilot offices and the training center.

There is not one SCAB working for the union right now . Things are definately going to change here. Ponoco you made your decision move on, we know you hate CAL and think you are better then everyone here, so be it. People like you will eventually get what is coming to you one way or another. Good luck with your career.

 

[pkober]

I think it may be down to less than a thousand by now, but they do control the union, the chief pilot offices and the training center.

How do they control the union? Please educate us, oh wise one!

 

[Vastly Underemp]

This is not to hard but I will take a stab......
I’ve grown tired of reading all the reasons why “junior guys” should want to work till 65. We will make more money and have more saved up for retirement. I decided to run the numbers myself. This is based off CAL current contract, which is a concessionary contract and will get better which will further skew the numbers against the junior guys.
These calculations are based off:
1. 2008 contract rates:
2. Figuring 20% 401k (includes companies 12% defined contribution)
3. 76 hours guaranteed (also a low number but that’s our reserve B number) any increase in hours will increase the difference between delay and no delay.
4. 6% compounded interest over the career to the age of 60.
5. All these numbers are base on a 3 year delay in upgrade. (Just a guess, no one really knows the exact affect, obviously more than 3 makes it worse on the junior guys, less makes it better)

No delay-
Total salary earned $3,096,968
Total 401k savings $1,257,321
Total $4,354,289

With delay
Total salary earned $2,821,468
Total 401k savings $1,182,318
Total $4,003,786

Total difference $350, 503. This means that I would have to work an additional 2 ½ years to break even with the loss of income putting me at 62 ½ years of age, essentially working for no pay given that I would have had that with no delays. That leaves me 2 ½ years to “make more money” These numbers are all conservative, you can see that with a better contract the differences in total income would increase. This also does not include the quality of life issues especially with PBS. There are also several recent studies that show the longer you work the average person has a shorter life span. I have listed a current report ALPA has. Here is the link to it, very interesting: http://www.mytruebrain.com/Creativity%20&%20Longevity.pdf
I don’t plan on working past age 60. I am planning on the age change to happen and am increasing my retirement savings to 24% a year (including CAL contributions) to offset this loss in wages. I shouldn’t have to.

To The Pain,

I will try to address your calculations. I am, however at a disadvantage in that I do not have access to all the data you've used to complete your analysis. I think I can introduce a reasonable estimate with just what's available on airlinepilotcentral as far as your contract goes. Having said that, we must also agree that all the variables that may effect your pay/upgrade/transitions have to be eliminated from the discussion as they are unforcastable and would effect everyone.

Your first assumption concerning your 401K needs to be addressed. The IRS has established limits on how much pre-tax money can be contributed to your retirement fund. If you'd like to contribute after tax money to a separate fund that's entirely up to you, but should be removed from this analysis. The ceiling figure kicks in at approximately $100/hr which is approximately the same as a 5th year WIDE F/O. So any hourly increase beyond 5th year, whether it be due to longevity or upgrade, would have no effect on the amount contributed to your 401K. I think we can agree that upgrades will extend beyond 5 years, so the 401K is even, Captain or F/O.

For calculating career earnings I again did not have access to your total longevity, etc., so I examined things from a differences perspective. It is generally accepted that should the retirement age change to 65 that some will take it, some won't and some will be somewhere in between. The net effect has been calculated to somewhere between 2 1/2 and 3 years delay.
Using the last contract rates and a worst case scenario (6th year WIDE F/O vs. 6th year SN Capt) the hourly pay difference is $23/hr. For this examination we have to discount intangibles like quality of life of a senior F/O with 17days off/month (and 5 more off in Europe) with a commutable line versus a junior Captain sitting reserve in a crashpad in Newark. Based on your assumption of 76 hours that is $1748/month difference, admittedly a sizable sum. If we extrapolate that out to 3 years, that is $62,928.

Now if you choose to make up that pay difference and work beyond age sixty you've come up with a figure of 2 1/2 years. I calculate that at WIDE Capt pay of $186/hour, as that is everyone's "career expectation." $62,928 divided by $186/hour is 338.32 hours, or 4.45 months. Or just cash in your sick bank, your choice. For those in similar shoes that choose to work beyond that and retire on their 61st birthday, they will earn $106,868 more. Continue working to age 65 and you will earn $169,632/year or $785,396 after you've made up the "loss" from your delayed upgrade.

Less than 4 1/2 months. To correct an artificially placed restraint on our careers that had and continues to have no foundation whatsoever in medical fact. As stated in another thread, the age restriction was established by airline management to hold down payroll costs from all the WW2 pilots then populating the seniority lists. And the life expectancy of the average American has increased 20 years since then.

This measure is not about the immediate financial impact on you or me or anyone else currently on the payroll. No one will get the check without working for it. This is primarily about giving the option of a "normal" retirement age to every pilot that comes after us. For less than what you will give in union dues over the rest of your career you can positively impact each and every pilot that follows in your footsteps.

This is also about choice. Whatever the reasons behind the decision, I should be able to choose to work beyond an artificially placed limit. You don't have to if you so choose. It will be up to the unions to establish the right to retire at 60 without penalty, but that is a separate arguement. The point is, each of us should have the choice.

As far as the other issues raised, PBS is a fact of airline life. It can be great or it can severely hamper "career progression," it all depends on who pulls the strings. That is an excellent opportunity for your union to get involved in a joint-control committee. As previously stated, quality of life issues are intangibles and different for everyone and so a comparison for age 60 purposes is unfair.

As far as your (ALPA's) longevity study, Harvard Medical School has published several studies that conclude that you actually live longer if you work beyond retirement age. Admittedly, this does not necessarily mean at your full-time career, only that you work at something post-retirement (for normal careers), but it does not preclude you from continuing your career.

Let me also say this. I am a first year F/O at a major. I have been furloughed 4 times in my career. If this measure passes it will delay my upgrade. But I support this for ALL pilots, present and future. My support is based on the idea that it is for the good of the profession, not just MY wallet.

Your mileage may vary......

 

[Flopgut]

Please write or call your mec and lec representatives and ask how this was not given to a vote. Why did they sell everyone out? Was anyone called, or did this survey ever get published results. Complete crap. Please try to find out what changed, and how no one was notified.

As of 5-21, the word I got from CAL ALPA is that the MEC has decided to deliver our rep to the EB with the broadest of instructions: Participate in the debate and vote your best judgement?! NOT the membership majority's vote...his personal vote?! I've known the guy I talked to for some time, he's one of our best ALPA guys in IAH. I didn't ask him his personal feelings on the issue, just whether or not he thought we could characterize ALPA and Prater's actions on this issue as proper union discourse. He said: "This has become an association, ALPA is no longer a union" [paraphrased slightly].

BTW, the new union guys that are acting hard and tough?...they're clowns. No idea what they're doing. Very sad. But at least we don't have to worry about being embarrassed by them in comparison to any other ALPA MEC or even National...They're ALL clowns! Top to bottom! This has to be the most bankrupt ALPA has ever been of talent and leadership.

 

[Vastly Underemp]

Hope you die in that seat, how's that you self centered, all about me, piece of ********************. You knew the age, live with it. Die from it, I don't care, but don't try to change it to double help you, and screw me. You have no life except that seat. Your 3 wife loves it when you leave for work so she can visit her boyfriend. You just aren't smart enough to see logic. Maybe you can understand this. F-u-c-k Off.

Mr. Sack-o,

Thanks for illustrating for everyone your demonstrated waiver on the "speak English" part of your certificate. Your voluminous vocabulary and sense of syntax is illuminating. Just let me know what airline you pretend to jerk gear for so I can make sure no one I care about ever takes the infantismal chance of having you in the cockpit.

Also, it's a shame they limit the amount of letters for your moniker, because I'm sure everyone would enjoy knowing yours in actually
Jonny Sack-On-Your-Chin.

Cheers!

Vastly

 

[Flopgut]

Let me ask those against the rule change just what is your objection? Is there any imperical evidence that pilots are not capable of meeting medical standards beyond age 60? Is there any imperical evidence that there would be a higher bust rate on checkrides for those over 65? Just what are your objections based on? The only arguement I've heard that isn't complete Bulls**t is that it will delay YOUR upgrade/transition/payraise. It is the very same greed that you accuse the senior pilots of guiding their decision. Did anyone notice that your said upgrade/transition/payraise will still happen, just at a higher rate as you acquire longevity? And those last 5 years, should you choose to accept them, will also be at a higher rate. But I will be assuming that all objectors will voluntarily retire at 60, right? Or are your arguements just oral diahrrea?
This retirement age was determined, as previously stated, in 1949 and was established at the request of airline management. It was created simply to hold down payroll of all the WW2 vets that made up the bulk of the seniority lists of the day. It was a purely financial decision, backed up with smoke and mirrors medical science. Even if it was remotely applicable in 1949 the average life expectancy of a US citizen has increased almost 20 years since then. All credible contributors agree that there is no longer any medical reason to require retirement at age 60.

So, have at it, gentlemen and ladies. Come up with something other than "get the f**k out of MY seat" and I'll be happy to listen. Otherwise, wallow in the same greed that you accuse others of.

The age 60 rule also came to be because mgts felt they couldn't transition older pilots to new equipment. The same sort of thing exists today: Todays old guys may handle the aircraft OK, but they are no longer equal to the task of collective bargaining in this new environment. We need new people with new standards and philosphies and we need them stat!

Additionally, add this to your greed paradym: For myself, and others like me, it's not just about the upgrade/transistion/payraise; It's more than just monetary. We DO NOT bid for days off, we all bid for minutes off. With seniority, you get part of a holiday or weekend off before you get all of it off. I want to spend quality time with my family on weekends and holidays, AND I want to see them when I retire at 60. What these age change proponents are insisting on taking from me is much more precious than money...they want my life. There is no more abundant proof of this than that these guys are almost ALL senior! They have weekends and holidays off and they are only willing to discuss this age change as long as they KEEP their schedules and their seniority. This IS plain and simple seniority aggression! They are acting just like replecement workers!

How can you see equal greed in a junior pilot wanting the same progression a senior pilot enjoyed, compared to a senior one wanting to exclude the junior one, not only from the money progression affords, but taking hundreds and hundreds of days with their families away?