AGE 60 passes Senate today..

[Beetle007]

...that 747 CA still got the PBGC bailout...

Age 65 annual PBGC maximum guarantee is $49,500, while the age 60 annual PBGC maximum guarantee is $32,175

Even though the government forces pilots to retire at at 60 the PGGC assumes they are retiring early.

 

[jke406]

who among us can say, truthfully, that if we had started at a legacy carrrier in the 70s, 80s or even early 90s, that we would have planned for anything other than a full pension at age 60?

Why would we expect anything other than the deal we were promised? I am just starting at a legacy carrier, but I don't understand how some can throw others (who have lost their pensions) under the bus, when the rules got changed in the middle of the game.

am I being naive, and if so, please elaborate.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Because I would run out of band width listing companies who were bought out and their pensions terminated, terminated in bankruptcy or liquidation. If you made $400,000 for a good portion of your life cry me a river if you can't afford to retire.

 

[Daddy]

Well said squirrel...406, your avatar is freaking me out...there is no amount of viagra to overcome that face (no pun intended)

 

[tomgoodman]

No real winners

The push for "age 65" had been tried many times before, but was always a dead duck until pensions were dumped. That gave it the support it needed.
As a result, all pilots lose in one way or another.

--Retirees lost previously-earned pension money.
--Active pilots did too. They can make it back, but only by giving up years of retirement.
--Junior pilots get years of stagnation to boot.
--Furloughees get additional years on the street.

What could have prevented all this? Pensions in our own names, held by outside financial institutions. Unfortunately, we didn't want to spend the "negotiating capital" to get this during the years of airline prosperity. Those who still have pensions, take note.

 

[Wesb737fo]

As long as it don't pass before November, I'm hopin' to get rid of someone over here....

I bet there are alot of us hoping to be rid of one or two.

 

[Charlie Brown]

Exactly.

On a positive side this change will get you to medicare without having to pay out of pocket for you and your family.

It is good also to take care of the folks that have lost everything and taken a 50% paycut. I had a UAL 747 Capt on the jumpseat to ORD the other day and was saddened listeneing to his story. Seriously, the guy has lost his pension and taken a 40/50% paycut. His kids are starting college, his wife has played housewife for 20 yrs so she can't work leaving him as the sole bread winner for the household. We have a responsibility as a pilot group to not leave the senior guys out on the street cold and hungry.

Just my thoughts.

That is actually pretty funny. :laugh:

 

[Charlie Brown]

I figured out what it would cost me at SWA where there is actual projected growth. The union sent us a worksheet based on expected retirements etc, and projected aircraft deliveries. That was before last month's announcement of reduced growth.

Anyway, having been hired at SWA at age 31, I will lose, yes, lose $400,000 because of the rule change. That's if I compare my earning when retiring at age 60 with and without the rule change. If I stay till age 65, (as I never planned to do) I will make the money back, i.e. another 400k. BUT, I will work 5 extra years to catch up money I should have earned. So f u all you age 65 guys!

Being in this same position, I was wondering if you can tell me how you came up with the $400K figure. I appreciate it.

CB

 

[StripAlert]

Cry me a river, Dude

It is good also to take care of the folks that have lost everything and taken a 50% paycut. I had a UAL 747 Capt on the jumpseat to ORD the other day and was saddened listeneing to his story. Seriously, the guy has lost his pension and taken a 40/50% paycut. His kids are starting college, his wife has played housewife for 20 yrs so she can't work leaving him as the sole bread winner for the household. We have a responsibility as a pilot group to not leave the senior guys out on the street cold and hungry.

Good grief. This guy had more than enough opportunity to retire at 50 and probably blew it on three or four flight attendant vampire wives and a bunch of child support, not to mention his Mooney and the motorboat and three jet-skis at his lakeside vacation home, all the while feeling secure in the knowledge that he wouldn't need to save for retirement because the A-fund would take care of his a$$. Whatever.

I used to fly with an ex-legacy guy who told me about how me made over $550,000 his last year there by picking up green slips (leaving more new hires stuck on furlough post-9/11) and then in the same conversation lamented the fact that, despite a 7-figure buyout of his pension, he still had to work to cover his expenses and was hoping that the age-65 rule would pass in time to allow him to do so for five more years. Absolutely incredible.

 

[AlbieF15]

The push for "age 65" had been tried many times before, but was always a dead duck until pensions were dumped. That gave it the support it needed.
As a result, all pilots lose in one way or another.

--Retirees lost previously-earned pension money.
--Active pilots did too. They can make it back, but only by giving up years of retirement.
--Junior pilots get years of stagnation to boot.
--Furloughees get additional years on the street.

What could have prevented all this? Pensions in our own names, held by outside financial institutions. Unfortunately, we didn't want to spend the "negotiating capital" to get this during the years of airline prosperity. Those who still have pensions, take note.

Not true. The over-60 crowd at FedEx, UPS, and other places with FEs will have the chance to reclaim their left seats due to the Obestar points. That means about 180 or so guys who HAD a retirement at a solid company can now extend their years of service, their B plans, and keep their salaries until they are 65. They can quit the day they want and retire. I don't consider them losers. They won a huge windfall. According to some on the Blue Ribbon Panel, it was none other than our own Dave Webb at FDX who pushed for the retroactive policy (ie....an "active crewmember") at the MEC executive meeting in May. So there are some very, very big winners in this deal.

 

[slinky]

Good grief. This guy had more than enough opportunity to retire at 50 and probably blew it on three or four flight attendant vampire wives and a bunch of child support, not to mention his Mooney and the motorboat and three jet-skis at his lakeside vacation home, all the while feeling secure in the knowledge that he wouldn't need to save for retirement because the A-fund would take care of his a$$. Whatever.

I used to fly with an ex-legacy guy who told me about how me made over $550,000 his last year there by picking up green slips (leaving more new hires stuck on furlough post-9/11) and then in the same conversation lamented the fact that, despite a 7-figure buyout of his pension, he still had to work to cover his expenses and was hoping that the age-65 rule would pass in time to allow him to do so for five more years. Absolutely incredible.

True that brother. That whole "me" generation is just amazing. The better part of that story, probably the same guy, was telling me how the junior guys should thank the age 65 thing becuase it would allow us to work longer.

Thanks. Now I get to work five more years just to get what I would have had if this rule was not changed.

B@stards.

 

[highsky]

I won't get an extra five years as a captain; I'll get an extra five years as a first officer. And I'm one of the lucky ones. At least I'll be a first officer at a prestigious cargo carrier (thanks for the help AlbieF15; I owe you a fine Belgian beer, and then some).

Most will get an extra five years at a Regional. Many will get an extra five years at a CFI job. Many sad souls will get an extra five years staring at their furlough letter.

Those 60+ guys are smiling all the way to the bank.

 

[skypine27]

According to some on the Blue Ribbon Panel, it was none other than our own Dave Webb at FDX who pushed for the retroactive policy (ie....an "active crewmember") at the MEC executive meeting in May. So there are some very, very big winners in this deal.

Yet another good deed done by our Dave Webb. Between that and the LOA, I wonder if he'll get alot of Christmas cards...

 

[highsky]

According to some on the Blue Ribbon Panel, it was none other than our own Dave Webb at FDX who pushed for the retroactive policy (ie....an "active crewmember") at the MEC executive meeting in May. So there are some very, very big winners in this deal.

Thanks Dave!...Tool.

Benefit a couple of hundred, to the sacrifice of 110,000. You belong in the Dark Ages. Thank God fools like you weren't running the second World War.

 

[K-Mart]

The push for "age 65" had been tried many times before, but was always a dead duck until pensions were dumped. That gave it the support it needed.
As a result, all pilots lose in one way or another.

--Retirees lost previously-earned pension money.
--Active pilots did too. They can make it back, but only by giving up years of retirement.
--Junior pilots get years of stagnation to boot.
--Furloughees get additional years on the street.

What could have prevented all this? Pensions in our own names, held by outside financial institutions. Unfortunately, we didn't want to spend the "negotiating capital" to get this during the years of airline prosperity. Those who still have pensions, take note.

The only losers will be the companies.

 

[race#53]

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To permit pilots to serve in multicrew covered operations until attaining 65 years of age.

This is the same as them saying they will permit driving until 90 but you still have to get a license.
It's not a law until the FAA says so...and we know how fast they work!

Here is the actual senate wording, says effective 30 days after enacted but i don't see the system doing
anything in 30 days..should be interesting to see the mess it stirs up.

• SEC. 115. (a) IN GENERAL- A pilot who has attained 60 years of age may serve as a pilot of an aircraft operated by an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, until attaining 65 years of age only if the pilot serves--

• • (1) as a required pilot in multi-crew aircraft operations; and

• • (2) with another pilot serving as a required pilot in such multi-crew aircraft operations who has not yet attained 60 years of age.

• (b) Sunset of Age-60 Rule-

• • (1) IN GENERAL- Section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations shall have no further force or effect.

• • (2) REGULATIONS- Not later than 30 days after paragraph (1) takes effect, the Secretary of Transportation shall take such action as may be necessary to implement paragraph (1) and to modify the regulations relating to pilot privileges by reason of age.

• (c) Applicability- The provisions of subsection (a) shall not provide a basis for a claim of seniority under any labor agreement in effect between a recognized bargaining unit for pilots and an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, that is made by a person who was a pilot and who attained 60 years of age before this section takes effect and is seeking a position as a pilot with such air carrier following that person's termination or cessation of employment or promotion or transfer to another position with such air carrier pursuant to section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the day before the effective date of this section.

• (d) GAO Report After Modification of Age-60 Standard- Not later than 24 months after the effective date described in subsection (e), the Comptroller General of the United States shall report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure concerning the effect on aviation safety, if any, of the modification of the age standard contained in subsection (a).

• (e) Effective Date- This section shall take effect 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

 

[TheBaron]

I figured out what it would cost me at SWA where there is actual projected growth. The union sent us a worksheet based on expected retirements etc, and projected aircraft deliveries. That was before last month's announcement of reduced growth.

Anyway, having been hired at SWA at age 31, I will lose, yes, lose $400,000 because of the rule change. That's if I compare my earning when retiring at age 60 with and without the rule change. If I stay till age 65, (as I never planned to do) I will make the money back, i.e. another 400k. BUT, I will work 5 extra years to catch up money I should have earned. So f u all you age 65 guys!

So in 5 extra years at SWA, your saying you will only make $400k? That doesn't sound close to correct. Seems to me if you would lose $400k by retiring at age 60, then working 5 extra years at $220K+ per year would more than make up your shotfall.

 

[TheBaron]

Yet another good deed done by our Dave Webb. Between that and the LOA, I wonder if he'll get alot of Christmas cards...

You want to blame Dave for the LOA? How about blaming the 68% of the crewforce that voted for the P.O.S. I bet you still go out and drink with the "yes" voters on layovers.

 

[TheBaron]

True that brother. That whole "me" generation is just amazing. The better part of that story, probably the same guy, was telling me how the junior guys should thank the age 65 thing becuase it would allow us to work longer.

Thanks. Now I get to work five more years just to get what I would have had if this rule was not changed.

B@stards.

Welcome to the "me" generation. You are a member.
Where do you get the idea that you were owed some career and that some geezer is now taking what is yours. You are the exact same self-serving as the over-60 proponents. Stop fooling yourself.

 

[TheBaron]

• (c) Applicability- The provisions of subsection (a) shall not provide a basis for a claim of seniority under any labor agreement in effect between a recognized bargaining unit for pilots and an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, that is made by a person who was a pilot and who attained 60 years of age before this section takes effect and is seeking a position as a pilot with such air carrier following that person's termination or cessation of employment or promotion or transfer to another position with such air carrier pursuant to section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the day before the effective date of this section.

Seems to me that a pilot who has transferred to another position (Flight Engineer) has no claim to seniority to return to a pilot position. FE's aren't pilots in the eyes of the FAA.