UNBELIEVABLE! - CAL ALPA supports change to Age 60 Rule

[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?

 

[Vastly Underemp]

Flop

Dude, I don't even know where to start......

"The age 60 rule also came to be because mgts felt they couldn't transition older pilots to new equipment."

Like from DC-3 to DC-4? From B-17 to DC-4? From radial engines to...radial engines? I've never heard of this particular arguement, but considering the day (1949) I find it unlikely. And it was this exact group that made the transition from props to jets. It was also this group and those they trained that wrote the book governing everything you do in an airplane 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."

I thought we were talking about the relative merits of the age 60 rule change. I have no intention of ever seeking elected union office, so my actions beyond age 60 should have no effect on you, particularly since we don't fly for the same airline (I hope). If you (and a majority of your union's members) feel unrepresented by your elected representatives, vote. Either with your ballot or your feet, but vote.

"Additionally, add this to your greed paradym:"

Did you mean paradigm?

"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.

A bit theatrical, wouldn't you say? Let's return to airline 101. Within any system seniority list are the base/equipment/seat seniority lists. It seems to me that the 2 1/2 to 3 years additional spent as a senior WIDE F/O would allow you greater bidding freedom within your bidding status to get weekends/holidays/birthdays/little league game days off than a junior SN Capt. sitting in a crash pad in EWR or Guam. It also allows greater flexibility for trip trading, layovers, and bring-the-wife-along trips. So it would seem to me that you'd have more time to spend with your family, not less.

"There is no more abundant proof of this than that these guys are almost ALL senior!

I am a first year F/O with a major. I have been furloughed 4 times in my career. There are many like me, junior at our respective companies but have been around this business for a long time. We tend to do things and support issues that have long term goals for the profession. If this measure passes then I will have my upgrade delayed. I support this anyway, even if the benefits to me personally are also delayed.

"How can you see equal greed in a junior pilot wanting the same progression a senior pilot enjoyed"

Dude, have you ever talked to anyone that's retired? Some of those guys spent 20 years on the engineer panel! Some never made Captain because of it. Should we go back to Boeing and force them to reinstall the Engineer's panel on the 737 so you can fly that too? Career progression is a myth. You are at the mercy of economic forces that are out of your, or anyone else's, control. There are a thousand things that will determine your career path, and NONE of them have anything to do with what age you retire at.

"but taking hundreds and hundreds of days with their families away?

I believe I addressed this in the relative seniority discussion above, but please also read my previous post. You would work less than 4 1/2 months, assuming you had no sick bank left at age 60, to make up the difference. That equates to approximately 60 days, not hundreds and hundreds. Additionally, you would enjoy more time off while waiting for upgrade, so it's pretty much a wash.

"How can you see equal greed in a junior pilot...."

Because time and again, with the possible exception of your post, the ONLY arguement I've heard is that this will delay their upgrade. As if someone were simply keeping the seat warm for them until they were ready for it. Advancement comes only from vacancies, be it attrition or growth. It ain't yours until you're awarded it.

I know there were several other points your made in another thread.....

"age 60 works" ......so did piston engines, lets go back to those...

being one of them, and I can't recall the rest, but I'm going to go outside, away from the keyboard, and enjoy some life away from aviation.

Cheers!

Vastly

 

[FoxHunter]

The age 60 came in 1959 not 1949.

 

[Jonny Sacko]

Flop

Dude, I don't even know where to start......

"The age 60 rule also came to be because mgts felt they couldn't transition older pilots to new equipment."

Like from DC-3 to DC-4? From B-17 to DC-4? From radial engines to...radial engines? I've never heard of this particular arguement, but considering the day (1949) I find it unlikely. And it was this exact group that made the transition from props to jets. It was also this group and those they trained that wrote the book governing everything you do in an airplane 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."

I thought we were talking about the relative merits of the age 60 rule change. I have no intention of ever seeking elected union office, so my actions beyond age 60 should have no effect on you, particularly since we don't fly for the same airline (I hope). If you (and a majority of your union's members) feel unrepresented by your elected representatives, vote. Either with your ballot or your feet, but vote.

"Additionally, add this to your greed paradym:"

Did you mean paradigm?

"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.

A bit theatrical, wouldn't you say? Let's return to airline 101. Within any system seniority list are the base/equipment/seat seniority lists. It seems to me that the 2 1/2 to 3 years additional spent as a senior WIDE F/O would allow you greater bidding freedom within your bidding status to get weekends/holidays/birthdays/little league game days off than a junior SN Capt. sitting in a crash pad in EWR or Guam. It also allows greater flexibility for trip trading, layovers, and bring-the-wife-along trips. So it would seem to me that you'd have more time to spend with your family, not less.

"There is no more abundant proof of this than that these guys are almost ALL senior!

I am a first year F/O with a major. I have been furloughed 4 times in my career. There are many like me, junior at our respective companies but have been around this business for a long time. We tend to do things and support issues that have long term goals for the profession. If this measure passes then I will have my upgrade delayed. I support this anyway, even if the benefits to me personally are also delayed.

"How can you see equal greed in a junior pilot wanting the same progression a senior pilot enjoyed"

Dude, have you ever talked to anyone that's retired? Some of those guys spent 20 years on the engineer panel! Some never made Captain because of it. Should we go back to Boeing and force them to reinstall the Engineer's panel on the 737 so you can fly that too? Career progression is a myth. You are at the mercy of economic forces that are out of your, or anyone else's, control. There are a thousand things that will determine your career path, and NONE of them have anything to do with what age you retire at.

"but taking hundreds and hundreds of days with their families away?

I believe I addressed this in the relative seniority discussion above, but please also read my previous post. You would work less than 4 1/2 months, assuming you had no sick bank left at age 60, to make up the difference. That equates to approximately 60 days, not hundreds and hundreds. Additionally, you would enjoy more time off while waiting for upgrade, so it's pretty much a wash.

"How can you see equal greed in a junior pilot...."

Because time and again, with the possible exception of your post, the ONLY arguement I've heard is that this will delay their upgrade. As if someone were simply keeping the seat warm for them until they were ready for it. Advancement comes only from vacancies, be it attrition or growth. It ain't yours until you're awarded it.

I know there were several other points your made in another thread.....

I'm self centered really, and desire to be in charge as many years as possible. I have a little weenie. No one in my family listens to me, they mock me. Damnit, they mock me. Not those glorified hookers, or those smart mouthed pud knockers, they keep giving to me. I show them! I'm in charge. I'm in charge. Mommy.

"age 60 works" ......so did piston engines, lets go back to those...

being one of them, and I can't recall the rest, but I'm going to go outside, away from the keyboard, and enjoy some life away from aviation.......

Cheers!

Vastly

Atleast you finally came out of the closet.

 

[ToThePain]

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.
Quoted from the Charles Schwab website:"
Contribution Limits
Each year, you can contribute a percentage of your annual salary until you reach the I.R.S. dollar maximum. Once you reach the annual limit, 401(k) contributions are no longer taken from your paycheck for the rest of the year. The range of contribution rates you can choose from is determined by your company plan.
The maximum dollar amount you can contribute annually through pre-tax and Roth elective deferrals to your 401k is determined by the I.R.S. and in 2007, the annual pre-tax and Roth elective deferral limit is $15,500 or $20,500 if you are above the age of 50 by the end of this year ($15,000 in 2006)and a maximum conbined contribution limit of $45,000 that applies both across the 401(k) and Plan B. Once you reach the annual limit, pre-tax and Roth elective deferrals should no longer be deducted from your paycheck for the remainder of the year. Please note, the annual pre-tax and Roth elective deferral limit does not apply to any matching or other contributions that your employer may provide.



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.
Expand that amount over 17 years (which is what I would have):
Total saved: $131,716
Starting with $62,928 and depositing $0 annually over 17 years (at a rate of return 6%, compounded monthly and taxed at your marginal rate of 28%), you will save $131,716.Initial balance:$62,928Total deposits:$0Total interest earned:$95,538Total taxes paid:$26,751Total Saved: $131,716

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.
I agree this about choice. I was on average 5 years older than the guys in my training class. Most of them went to the regionals first then made it to a major. They have stronger feelings on this issue than I do. I plan on retiring at 60 but I also will have a military retirement.
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.
I'm not so sure that you can discount quality of life and upgrade time. While it is true that iw will be different at every airline for the most part this law will have a negative effect on the above for junior guys.

 

[ToThePain]

double post.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

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!

Age 65 pilots are the just like SCABS. They are stealing pilots work with their greed and dishonesty.

 

[Vastly Underemp]

Sacko,

Had you been capable of read AND understand, you'd have noticed that I was quoting someone else's post in the spot where you chose to insert your own comments, making them appear to be the thoughts of the postee. This is perilously close to slander and defamation. Check with your lawyer. You may want to grow up a bit or you will be financing my kid's college education.

 

[Vastly Underemp]

To The Pain,

First, let me apologize for a piece of mis-information. The date of proposal for the age 60 rule was 1959, not 1949. It was implemented in either March or June of 1960, depending on what source you use.

I applaud your math and dedication! And while the truely dedicated may be able to put every dime of that $23/hour difference into the bank, many cannot. There are braces and college educations and the Captain house and family vacations and the occasional self-reward for having finally made the big time. We're human! That's why I tried to remove as many variables (quality of life issues, interruptions to career progressions, economic concerns) as possible from the calculations. I was simply trying to demonstrate that the gap wasn't that wide, and would be easily made up.

I think we can agree that this issue is about choice. If you'd like to retire at 60 I think you should be able to. Heck, I may retire at 60. But I really don't want anyone telling me I have to so they can have the seat I'm in.

Cheers

Vastly

 

[ToThePain]

To The Pain,

First, let me apologize for a piece of mis-information. The date of proposal for the age 60 rule was 1959, not 1949. It was implemented in either March or June of 1960, depending on what source you use.

I applaud your math and dedication! And while the truely dedicated may be able to put every dime of that $23/hour difference into the bank, many cannot. There are braces and college educations and the Captain house and family vacations and the occasional self-reward for having finally made the big time. We're human! That's why I tried to remove as many variables (quality of life issues, interruptions to career progressions, economic concerns) as possible from the calculations. I was simply trying to demonstrate that the gap wasn't that wide, and would be easily made up.

I think we can agree that this issue is about choice. If you'd like to retire at 60 I think you should be able to. Heck, I may retire at 60. But I really don't want anyone telling me I have to so they can have the seat I'm in.

Cheers

Vastly

Very true,
The other reason I posted the compounded interest amount was to help others who may not realize what their dollar can do for them long-term. The age 65 is apon us regardless of what I think or feel should happen. My feeling is that once it is changed to 65 it is only a short time to when they change it to 67 (what the new retirement age will be for social security once politicians face reality). Heck they are pushing for age 70 in Europe. My true fear is that airline management will take advantage of this and reduce the amount they are willing to pay in Plan B because we have a "longer time" to save for retirement.

 

[Flopgut]

Age 65 pilots are the just like SCABS. They are stealing pilots work with their greed and dishonesty.

They are seeking seniority, that they have NO previous claim to, outside the collective bargaining process. What else could one possibly term this?

 

[Flopgut]

Vastly, I don't know what to say to you. You were a DECADE off on the age 60 start date...How far are we to suppose you are off on your financial computations? For goodness sake, Foxhunter jumped in to correct you! This is his pet arguement and even he couldn't resist correcting you!

Look bud: If we're going to have a union, and all be under a seniority system, then we need to make sure that as much as we possibly can we improve our profession by getting pay and benefits out of our employers. NOT the other half of our seniority lists! Especially when the profession is on the verge of recovering from the morbidly bad contract situation we were all in. I personally think we're being fed this deal to spoil future contract increases that are almost a certainty. Now the guys/gals on the top half of the list may feel like they are getting screwed by age 60. What they have to understand is that at some point they aren't going to be on our seniority lists no matter what! Maybe it gets changed this time, but it is still going to be an AGE and it is still going to happen! I don't want to suffer this arguement again in 5 years when these bozos still aren't ready to retire.

 

[munson]

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

your an idiot... have a nice day

 

[Flopgut]

Now the guys/gals on the top half of the list may feel like they are getting screwed by age 60. What they have to understand is that at some point they aren't going to be on our seniority lists no matter what! Maybe it gets changed this time, but it is still going to be an AGE and it is still going to happen! I don't want to suffer this arguement again in 5 years when these bozos still aren't ready to retire.

Vastly, I want to follow this post up a bit, so I'm quoting myself.

It sounds like you've been through the furlough ringer. I'm sure that sucked and I won't pretend I know what that was like. I can tell you I know what it's like to lose a pension and face forced retirement because that happened in my family. Obviously we both know how to deal with adversity and we can both deal with age 65 if it happens. But we have to keep constant pressure against it because we don't know what they are going to want next! Prater's frozen A plan will pay him a 100% lump sum in the neighborhood of 800K. A CAL pilot 20 years junior to him has NO chance of having that sort of benefit with the current combination of pay and saving vehicles. If he gets this switched to 65 the gap goes ballistic. Not ONE pilot gets any benefit from this age change until the day they work past 60. Prater wants a windfall for his contemporaries and he could care less about any member 10-20 years younger than him. APA isn't wasting any time with this, they're pushing hard for a 30% raise. Prater/ALPA's plan is to get out there with some non-message about "taking it back" with no specific plan except to answer age 65 ?s from old farts during the breaks. If the change is truly imminent then he should be telling us all to be against it! His demographic will still take the benefit and the rest of us can pick up a still-strong argument for age 60 normal retirement and a more healthy cause for payraises. He's NOT doing that, he's got NO longterm plan, he's NOT interested in seeing this scaled to help everyone and we're going to be left with what can no longer be termed a "union"!

You'll deal with age 65 if it changes and so will I and so will every other marginalized pilot. But, it's not entirely inappropriate to point out that if it doesn't change, these old a-holes should be able deal with that too.

 

[COpilot]

......................

I see Pocono does not have the guts to be big enough to put the actual results of the vote on the board. Of course he/she just comes in here and blows B.S. on CO; thats fine, what a low-life...

"do you favor changing age 60?" yes, 43.6% no 52.2%

 

[Pocono Pilot]

This thread is older than the poll results.

Don't be mad at me. You're the one who works for a bottom feeding airline that is lowering the bar for all legacy airlines!

Ya' know, WalMart pays insurance to their new employees, but Continental doesn't pay it to new hire B-777 pilots. What an embarrassment.

Then there is this:

* AA must have a CAL like pilot agreement from APA or the company will not survive as we know it today
* Not only must the APA give AA a CAL like contractthere will be no growth associated with the concessionary contract

Face it, you are the benchmark on low pay now.

Peace. Oh, and don't hate. I was having a nice picnic today with my husband and his family, whose father is a vet. It puts things into perspective. Family, friends, sacrifice are very important.

Happy Memorial Day.