Delay of the Age 65 Rule

[PlaneDrvr]

Hey Duke: Just for fun, tell us what the IBT would do with a leader that voted opposite of the membership's majority?[/quote]

Ask Jimmy Hoffa!! Maybe he can answer that question, NO wait, forget about that.

DA

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Yeah, Ill take that Pepsi challenge (your words, not mine!)

No pay DH...yes, I remember,...and after I arrived, 1/2 pay Dh to everything...

It was assumed that if the company wasn't making anything, why should we???...IE...flight was cancelled...no money to company...no money to our bottom line...no money to our paycheck....kinda like we were all entrepreneurs...

No 401k...period...(or match)...period...no 401k..

4-day trip...pays 16.0...no rigs...months on end....

Sr. line pays 103.5...Jr. line pays 86.5...no guarantee, or rigs...

Oh yeah...I forgot to mention that the profit sharing was realigned before my arrival!!!

I may be wrong. but certain memories seem to burn pretty deep, so correct me if I'm wrong!!!

Oh....by the way,...I luved it back then...times were great...


Hummm......I sense hostility...not going to go there now...just had some nostalgic recollections...allow me the moment....



TP

You say you took the challenge, but all you did was relive some memories and forget why you started your post. So which costs more--Being a newhire/junior dude under the old rules vs. 5 more years as FO. You can factor in how fast you dudes made Captain too.

Are you a 59 1/2 guy? Getting lost in the parking lot yet?

I can assume Chest Rockwell can't do it either since there has been no response.



Why don't you cats just tell me what you really want to say--

"Life was tougher when I was new guy. I don't care about your career progression--I want more now and I won't let you stop me."


I do feel for the guys who retired under the conditions you describe. They deserve more.

 

[Flopgut]

You're right FBJ. "Cradle to grave", lucrative employment is their birthright. Everyone else is doing this at their discretion.

 

[The Prussian]

I do feel for the guys who retired under the conditions you describe. They deserve more.

Yeah...like maybe 5 more years...

BTW....had a guy here at SWA retire in Dec 2006 as an FO...so sad....finally had his dream job, but was forced to retire from it before he got to upgrade. Not to mention a whole host of legacy guys in the same boat....

 

[Flopgut]

Yeah...like maybe 5 more years...

BTW....had a guy here at SWA retire in Dec 2006 as an FO...so sad....finally had his dream job, but was forced to retire from it before he got to upgrade. Not to mention a whole host of legacy guys in the same boat....

THE HUMANITY! Someone had to retire as an FO because there is a manditory age limit!? Better get on this age 65 thing post haste! That will fix all our problems!

Do any of you guys ever wonder what pilots did when their airline shutdown overnight? I can tell you without hesitation, that is much worse than dealing with a retirement age requirement. You SWA guys shut one down in Dallas years ago and I didn't hear much outcry for their needs?! Prussian: why don't you take your mocking "Not to mention a whole host of legacy guys in the same boat...." comment and stick it up your butt. Yeah right...you care about legacy guys?!

Don't feel sad for that FO you think should make captain. He can fly elsewhere, as many have. What he probably needs is the money. YOU can fix that! Your in section 6 soon and you work for a profitable airline. Go get him and all you other coworkers a comfortable retirement and fix everybodys problems.

 

[FlyinGuy]

It is funny how the pro 65 guys complain about how unjust the law is and how they are being discriminated against. All the ones that benefited from the rule are now trying to change it! You did not care about the thousands of guys that had to retire, but now that you are in the left seat with a good line you want it to change. If I told you I wanted it to change when I was 59, you would say I was greedy and selfish. THAT IS WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING!!!


I used to be neutral on the issue. What changed me was when I was talking to two cappies and told them that I was ok leaving it as is. Well they started to tell me how I was forcing guys on the street and how greedy I was. After beratement was over, I listened to them over the next hour talk about how much money they could make if they could stay for another 5 years. So, needless to say I am against changing the rule now. Leave it like it is and get on with your life. If you cared about "healthy" dudes losing their jobs, I have one question for you....What have you done for all the furloughed??? That is what I thought!

 

[nightrider]

Wow foxhunter all these people cosponsors signed up and still no action since feb 07, this bill is really building momentum.

 

[ttuite]

Yep. Exactly.

Don't think about the average guy. Think of the worst pilot you ever flew with. Now think of him at 69.5 - or 64.5 for that matter.

It's be one thing if we could pick and choose, but the weak sisters will get to go longer too. And because nobody will do any research into this - the free market will have to rule.

What does that have to do with age 60? At all of the airlines that I have worked at the weak link eventually gets discovered. Once discovered they are either reprogrammed or reassigned (made into chief pilots or some higher position) or eliminated. I really do not get your point.

 

[GuppyWN]

What Prussian forgot to mention is that the FO that turned 60 spend a full career plus in the military by choice and came to SWA late in life - by choice.

Gup

 

[The Prussian]

What Prussian forgot to mention is that the FO that turned 60 spend a full career plus in the military by choice and came to SWA late in life - by choice.

....and was ushered out the door by....choice????!?

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Age 60=bad law. Age 65= good law? (You're going straight after 70, aren't you?) By your own admission, really, both are bad laws. One just happens to augment your wallet. What you are REALLY saying is: that you're too special to be saddled with ANY type of retirement requirement? In the history of powered flight, and since early man's first vocational endeavors, you're the first to walk among us too sacred an employee to be held to the terms of a normal retirement age? Wow, I guess we should all feel special that you graced us with your presence.

Both are indeed bad. Come up with an age based on facts and put it into place. Thge law will slow my advancement in seniority for many years, and I may benefit if I choose to fly past 60. Take your personal shot at me when you fully know my situation. If you cannot stomach that I simply feel that mandatory age 60 retirement is simply wrong and unjustified then I have no clue as to how to convince you otherwise. "We all knew the rules" doesn't hold water. This business and the rules that regulate it have always evolved. I have no problem complying with a normal retirement age when one is factually determined.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

You say you took the challenge, but all you did was relive some memories and forget why you started your post. So which costs more--Being a newhire/junior dude under the old rules vs. 5 more years as FO. You can factor in how fast you dudes made Captain too.

Are you a 59 1/2 guy? Getting lost in the parking lot yet?

I can assume Chest Rockwell can't do it either since there has been no response.



Why don't you cats just tell me what you really want to say--

"Life was tougher when I was new guy. I don't care about your career progression--I want more now and I won't let you stop me."


I do feel for the guys who retired under the conditions you describe. They deserve more.

If you can come up with factual justification to put a mandatory retirement age into effect, I am fine with that. I think that the curernt rule is wrong, period. Believe what you want, but $ is not in my reasoning on this issue, although it obviously is on many on both sides.

 

[PCL_128]

BTW....had a guy here at SWA retire in Dec 2006 as an FO...so sad....finally had his dream job, but was forced to retire from it before he got to upgrade. Not to mention a whole host of legacy guys in the same boat....

Allow me to shed a tear for the guy that retired making a six-figure income with 18 days off, plus a military pension. He had it so rough! So much more deserving of that job than the guy who's been furloughed for the past 5+ years. [/sarcasm]

 

[The Prussian]

Frame the person all you want....class envy isn't going to get you anywhere. Frame the issue, and you'll have a better argument.

 

[PCL_128]

Frame the person all you want....class envy isn't going to get you anywhere. Frame the issue, and you'll have a better argument.

You're the one that brought this "sob story" into the debate, not me. I'm just pointing out that your example is absurd, and no one is going to have any sympathy for the guy. He retired in a better position than most pilots will, no matter what the age limit is.

 

[Flopgut]

Frame the person all you want....class envy isn't going to get you anywhere. Frame the issue, and you'll have a better argument.

Here's how I'd frame the arguement: What the he!! is this "class envy" BS?! We're all doing the same job here, right? When did this dude attain status in a class no other had claim to? When did any of you get into a "class" the rest of us won't ever see? Is that the deal? You all got hired before 01 so your in an altogether class?

Disgusting. None of us are better than another. We just got hired in a particuliar order and that is all!

 

[The Prussian]

He retired in a better position than most pilots will, no matter what the age limit is.

Fine...let "most pilots" have another five years, and then let's reevaluate your above statement.

 

[Flopgut]

Both are indeed bad. Come up with an age based on facts and put it into place. Thge law will slow my advancement in seniority for many years, and I may benefit if I choose to fly past 60. Take your personal shot at me when you fully know my situation. If you cannot stomach that I simply feel that mandatory age 60 retirement is simply wrong and unjustified then I have no clue as to how to convince you otherwise. "We all knew the rules" doesn't hold water. This business and the rules that regulate it have always evolved. I have no problem complying with a normal retirement age when one is factually determined.

Yeah, it's real hard to figure out your deal....NOT! You work for an airline where the most senior pilot really doesn't have a better schedule than the most junior. Cry me a river, but you're dipped in butter no matter how this goes so your gripe crap won't hold any water. If you had any seeds at all, you wouldn't support age 65 cause you know it's a half answer. I'd sooner support NO age limit before selling out for this five more years BS. You should as well; Any less and you have no claim to credibility. You'll just take it cause it helps you.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Yeah, it's real hard to figure out your deal....NOT! You work for an airline where the most senior pilot really doesn't have a better schedule than the most junior. Cry me a river, but you're dipped in butter no matter how this goes so your gripe crap won't hold any water. If you had any seeds at all, you wouldn't support age 65 cause you know it's a half answer. I'd sooner support NO age limit before selling out for this five more years BS. You should as well; Any less and you have no claim to credibility. You'll just take it cause it helps you.

Wow. No sense being sensibkle with you. Believe what lets you sleep at night. Make it personal rather than discuss facts. I think the current rule is wrong. Deal with it. I think 65 is a less unfair but not an ultimate answer.

 

[zonker]

Let's be honest.

If you have reached 60 years of age and you still need to work then you have really dicked up your life!