Mica trying to fast-track Age 65 - 12/6/07

[Dumb Pilot]

I happen to know for a fact that SWA FO's are pissed about this issue. And I have first hand knowledge of boiling points that have already gotten ugly.

You really are a dumb pilot.

If the SWA F/O's are getting pissed and arguing in OPS with one another? Maybe the congressmen should take a closer look because if this is creating problems in the LUV? Perhaps this is the revolution you are talking (out your arse) about. :laugh:

Listen all you airline managers, you better upgrade all these bad boys before you institute age 65, or the SWA F/O's will release their anger upon you

 

[iwannabeatmidex]

Just wrote Congressman Micah in support of our CURRENT regulations...

 

[Caveman]

Indy:

If the age increases to 65 now, and then keeps increasing, it's going to make more pilots work longer than they want. There has to be an age we all feel is fair for retirement; and we need to maximize pay up to that age.

Changing the rule to age 65 won't require anybody to work any longer than they want to. The proposed change doesn't say you have to work to age 65 it says you may work to age 65. It's your choice. Every CBA currently in effect is based on age 60. Permitting someone to work past that won't invalidate any of them as they are now written. You can still retire at age 60 or earlier if you want to. Look at the comments above made by Lufthansa pilot. They still retire at 55 or 52 or whatever because they choose to or because their CBA is set up based on age 55. The new legislation doesn't require your CBA to be based on age 65 and if your pilot group allows your CBA to be changed because of age 65, that's your fault, not mine.

I agree that changing the age will cause some pilots to have their upgrade delayed, including mine. Some of you are forgetting that we work in a seniority based system. The guy in front of me got here first. His wants and needs supercede mine. That's the way it is. If he wants to keep his seat a bit longer I have no say in the matter. It's his seat until he is done with it. What I want is irrelevant. It's called seniority.

I also think that any arbitrary age is wrong. I'm in favor of age 65 only because it is less discriminatory than what we have now. In my world I'd get rid of any mandatory retirement age and base it solely on demonstrated ability and demonstrated good health.

I've been against age 60 since I first heard about it. I have not benefitted from it and I'm not a 'geezer'. I'm in my late 40's (very late...). I'm just opposed to an arbitrary rule that forces me or anyone else to quit working before I choose to. As long as I can still make good decisions and still pass a physical it should be my choice, not yours or the governments.

Flopgut, I'm not directing this post at you specifically. I've heard and read your point made by a lot of others. I'm commenting on what I believe is a false premise. When I use the words 'you' and 'yours' I'm speaking generally not to you personally.

 

[Full of LUV]

End of pilot unity.....

We permitted our pensions and salaries to be raped and took it crying like a little school girls. Talking out your arse didn't work then. If you think that your upgrade being pushed a couple of years is going to create a revolution:laugh:

I think that this will be the end of an opportuntiy for ALPA to show it's significance by developing ways to mitigate the damage to the careers of the WHOLE COMMERCIAL PILOT PROFESSION. We always hear, rightfully so, that any individual MEC negotiates and signs a local contract, well here is a HUGE windfall to a few that happen to turn 60 the week after the legislation is signed, and the National union has done NOTHING to mitigate that. Isn't the purpose of the national union to steer the profession and intervene with the FAA and Congress..... Junior pilots standby, this is a monumental power/money grab from the senior leadership. Granted SWAPA has been pushing this for decades, but ALPA represents a majority of pilots nationwide.
Leadership from national ALPA is nonexistent. You see it in the AWA/US merger, you see it on the age 65 issue. All we get from national is, "oh well, out of our control, junior guys, were looking out for your interests too" yeah right, greed is a powerful emotion that needs to be kept in check, even for ALPA national.
USPA or whatever is just the beginning, why should all of the ALPA carriers bother with National if your less than the top 10% of your seniority list?????
Rant over, but the day that age 65 is rammed down my throat, I will send nothing again to ALPA PAC (used to believe they were using my donations to help the profession) and instead start my own search for politicians who are against the "age 70" issue that will address the discrimination of the age 65 rule.
OK now rant over!

 

[skydash]

Changing the rule to age 65 won't require anybody to work any longer than they want to. The proposed change doesn't say you have to work to age 65 it says you may work to age 65. It's your choice. Every CBA currently in effect is based on age 60. Permitting someone to work past that won't invalidate any of them as they are now written. You can still retire at age 60 or earlier if you want to. Look at the comments above made by Lufthansa pilot. They still retire at 55 or 52 or whatever because they choose to or because their CBA is set up based on age 55. The new legislation doesn't require your CBA to be based on age 65 and if your pilot group allows your CBA to be changed because of age 65, that's your fault, not mine.

I agree that changing the age will cause some pilots to have their upgrade delayed, including mine. Some of you are forgetting that we work in a seniority based system. The guy in front of me got here first. His wants and needs supercede mine. That's the way it is. If he wants to keep his seat a bit longer I have no say in the matter. It's his seat until he is done with it. What I want is irrelevant. It's called seniority.

I also think that any arbitrary age is wrong. I'm in favor of age 65 only because it is less discriminatory than what we have now. In my world I'd get rid of any mandatory retirement age and base it solely on demonstrated ability and demonstrated good health.

I've been against age 60 since I first heard about it. I have not benefitted from it and I'm not a 'geezer'. I'm in my late 40's (very late...). I'm just opposed to an arbitrary rule that forces me or anyone else to quit working before I choose to. As long as I can still make good decisions and still pass a physical it should be my choice, not yours or the governments.

Flopgut, I'm not directing this post at you specifically. I've heard and read your point made by a lot of others. I'm commenting on what I believe is a false premise. When I use the words 'you' and 'yours' I'm speaking generally not to you personally.

AHHHH...finally a voice of reason...no name calling...no insults... no disingenuous logic...just common sense. Well stated!

 

[Flopgut]

If I were to put what is best for the profession first, I would forget about age 60 and be working to create brand wide and nationwide seniority lists to prevent the whipsaws and give pilots the ability to move between carriers and retain their seniority. I would be so willing to get these things that I would be prepared to shut down the company in order to get it. It would be nice if pilots had the same ability to shop themselves to other airlines that the executives do. That way executives in bankruptcy will be worried about retaining their talented pilots as well as their talented management. Then most of these pilots will happily retire as soon as possible, because given the choice, I guarantee most of them would love to retire as soon as possible and lounge by the beach.

Preventing whipsaws and making seniority portable would do more for the profession than anything to do with age 60. But right now all of these pilots groups are primarily interested in what is best for themselves, and not the profession.

Now that's a post!! Let's work on that stuff!!

I'm afraid that by accepting age 65, and then later enduring the argument for age 70, we are getting further from these possibilities than closer. Matter of fact: It's almost as though we're being fed this possible age change to keep us from working on broadbased changes like what you're talking about. Doesn't it maybe feel like that's what's happening? Does it not feel like maybe the age should have changed already? I mean, IF they really wanted to change it?? Or do they just want our profession locked in this debate perpetually, never gaining ground?

 

[CA1900]

Changing the rule to age 65 won't require anybody to work any longer than they want to. The proposed change doesn't say you have to work to age 65 it says you may work to age 65. It's your choice.

I disagree. If Age 65 passes, contracts will devolve over time such that a pilot's earning potential will go down unless he works until he's 65.

The only ones who will benefit from this are those that'll turn 65 in the next 5-10 years. After that, we're right back where we started: with the same amount of money at retirement, and fewer years left to enjoy it.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Listen all you airline managers, you better upgrade all these bad boys before you institute age 65, or the SWA F/O's will release their anger upon you

SWA FO's make the airline run. Who do you think keeps those planes on time? Who do you think busts their butts to get those 10 minute turns done? Its sure not those over the hill geezers sitting on their fat $250k wallets.

Pissed off SWA FO's will get the attention of SWA management when SWA comes to a grinding halt.

And don't you think AMR pilots waiting 20 years to upgrade are going to be pissed retiring without ever upgrading? AMR FO's are going to go through the roof.

 

[Caveman]

I disagree. If Age 65 passes, contracts will devolve over time such that a pilot's earning potential will go down unless he works until he's 65.

The only ones who will benefit from this are those that'll turn 65 in the next 5-10 years. After that, we're right back where we started: with the same amount of money at retirement, and fewer years left to enjoy it.

If they do devolve it will be our fault. The contractually accepted age right now is age 60. Most CBAs also allow for an earlier retirement if you meet a certain minimum age (usually 50) and certain number of YOS (usually 10). That doesn't have to change unless we negotiate it away. Besides, the main reason age 60 was arbitrarily decided upon was to get rid of more senior (spelled more expensive) pilots. There is no incentive for management to keep pilots on the seniority list longer than they have to. The sooner they retire the cheaper it is for them.

 

[Beetle007]

SWA FO's make the airline run. Who do you think keeps those planes on time? Who do you think busts their butts to get those 10 minute turns done? Its sure not those over the hill geezers sitting on their fat $250k wallets.
quote]

I always thought it was superior airport operations that turns the airplane quickly. If a pilot's preflight takes longer than unloading pax/bags and reloading pax/bags (at any airline), then I would be surprised.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Disregard everything Caveman says. He lists himself as a NEOCON.

That means he was a liberal Democrat turned conservative Republican so he could use the patriotism of the country to dominate foreign affairs beyond American interests prior to 911.

Caveman is a flip flopper. He is for opposite ends of the spectrum at different times.

Caveman has been opposed to changing age 60 and now is for changing age 60.

Caveman is a NEOCON!

What is a NEOCON? http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_196286.html

 

[Flopgut]

Changing the rule to age 65 won't require anybody to work any longer than they want to.

Point taken. You are not incorrect, as long as you understand: Earnings beyond normal retirement age are what should be re-amoritized. NOT the earnings of those disciplined to an organizational form that supports the profession equally. Certainly NOT the earnings of the majority.

You should also consider: Maybe this is all just a scam and they don't intend to change it?? They're just rolling this out because they know a certain minority number of pilots will push it. And about the time all pilots get another bite at the apple, they'll float the minority another bad idea? At what point are you going to cut the rope? Honestly, compare that possibility against the idea that, those who need to, go get another job at age 60?

 

[luckytohaveajob]

I always thought it was superior airport operations that turns the airplane quickly.

Who do you think gets the clearance, loads the box, does the weight and balance, produces the performance numbers and sets up the entire cockpit for the flight?

Those tasks are not done by airport operations. And those tasks are vital for the flight to block out on time.

Lets see some over the hill geezer try to load an ATC clearance with two intersecting airways without a named intersection. It will take ten minutes for the geezer just to get the right chart out of his bag.

The SWA FO have a lot of control over the system and will react badly should this law change. All they have to do is drag their feet for five extra minutes and when the captain blows up on them look over and say," You do it," while think about how old he is!!

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Here is a perfect AP story proving my point about the pilot being ready to retaliate against any further decay of this profession.

AMR, SWA, and other FO's will be PISSED!!!!!!!!

AP
Pilots: Eagle Sale Will Hurt Passengers
Thursday December 6, 7:28 pm ET
By David Koenig, AP Business Writer
Pilots Say AMR's Plan to Sell Eagle Regional Carrier Will Hurt Passengers, Employees
DALLAS (AP) -- Pilots' union officials said Thursday that if AMR Corp. sells the American Eagle regional carrier it would hurt employees and passengers.The union stopped short of outright opposition to a sale.

 

[Caveman]

Point taken. You are not incorrect, as long as you understand: Earnings beyond normal retirement age are what should be re-amoritized. NOT the earnings of those disciplined to an organizational form that supports the profession equally. Certainly NOT the earnings of the majority.

You lost me on this. I read it several times and I don't understand what you are saying. Seriously, I'm not flaming you. I don't understand. Explain please.