Age 60 Back Again!!!!

[El-Rushbo]

Pot, meet Kettle!!!

​

SWAPA = for it.

Big surprise.

​

Guys like Jim that cheapen the profession? What about all the other carriers lowering the bar, daily...

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!

 

[SWA/FO]

Another guy with under 5 posts attacking me. Maybe I'm getting old, what does ROTFLMAO mean? What is that some Military jargon? I guess maybe you didn't see the question mark at the end of my second quoted line above...

AA currently has an A fund, B fund and 401k... Hopefully, that remains the case. Continental has too, right?

These other folks can argue about A funds, b funds whatever.... most are being cancelled. What was done to try and keep em'..... Are you guys comparing a 401K to something that you once had? If thats the case I'd take my 401k against any cancelled plan a or b out there.

And STILL the most quoted man on flightinfo.com

I think AA's plan is working for them... The employees there still have their future to work for.

 

[Phaedrus]

What does the number of posts have to do with anything when it comes to determining whether or not the post is valid? Nada.

 

[Jim Smyth]

Jim,It's guys like you that cheapen the profession... 401k and profit sharing. So what happens when/if the profits stop? 401k. You call that a retirement?

Profit sharing is a variable that I have very little control over other than doing a good job at work for my company and my passangers. SWA has had historically good profit sharing returns for 30+ years now and I dont see an end in sight.

By law I can put away $15,000 untaxed dollars this year alone which my company matches me on at the rate of 7.3 percent. So you can almost double that 15K to 30K. Thats without any profit sharing at all. Compound that by my 32 year career and you get the point. Well maybe then again you dont..........

I work within the system that I am currently in. 401K is a retirement plan by law that I am proud to be associated with. Sure beats having a defined benefit like most of the other airlines have that is now going to be defaulted the the PBG&C that the tax payers will have to fund. I take responsibility for myself and plan for the time when I turn 60 and can no longer fly. If that cheapons the profession...........then so be it!

 

[Flopgut]

For God's sake enough with the stupid "safety" aspect of it. Just be a man and say you oppose it because it will affect your, 1. Upgrade 2. Furlough 3. QOL or whatever you want to insert here. The one thing I hate hearing so much is the idiotic statement "it's unsafe". At least have some balls and say why you really oppose it. I could care less about it, but with these whiners it makes me want to call my congressman and support it, just because they come off like idiots in their argument.uke:

It is very much a safety issue. We are in the safety business. Any change to qualification criteria must be considered a safety issue. Does it make things safer, less safe, null affect? We have to take a look at it. There is data in both regards and ramifications that reach beyond our profession. It would be no less wrong to oppose a change for the want of a timely upgrade than for the want to allow a senior group of pilots to augment their retirements. Agreed?

Personally, I want to upgrade. I want my furloughed contemporaies to get back to work. I don't want to see my recently retired friends get burned by seeing pilots, a scant bit junior to them, get a windfall by continuing to work. I don't want to see those captains get a freebie on five extra years at the top of the game! They have benefited from this age 60 rule their entire careers. Do I care about them losing their retirements? A little, but not too much. Why? Because the EXACT same thing happened to my family. My father lost everything after 23 years flying the line. No paycheck, retirement gone, no health insurance, and there were four of us kids. We all went to work and did without a lot of things. We made it, and there was no one who gave a crap about us. These pilots had a full career, they had the luxury of being able to retire, their company was not "retired" out from under their feet. That is as much as I want to say about that.

Beyond that, there is another reason these types need to go. We need some fresh blood at the legacies. We are on the verge of turning over a lot of talent at key positions at our airline. Management and training to be specific. Most people occupying these strategic positions go back a long time. (back to early de-regulation) They have old, failed idealologies, advocate cronyism, and long ago their creativity dried up. Many have cycled through more than once. They are no longer equipped to lead competitively in this business. Have any doubt about this? Look around, legacies are dying on the vine. They aren't just financially BK, they are BK of effective leadership, creativity, ideas, etc. You think those of us who are junior legacy pilots don't want to see the company gravitate toward a SWA like culture and brand success? (key here is SWA-like, we would like our brands to evolve) We can't get any sort of real change through with these people. The same pitfall exists at the union. Even more sinister, these people are pretty dangerous. They have little unity and almost zero concern for those junior. They would sell us out in a instant! We can not even advocate that a long standing rule like age 60, that has benefited them their entire careers, remain without having the attack turned on us. That ideal has now somehow been perverted into our desire take something from them. Huh?

 

[canyonblue]

Personally, I want to upgrade. I want my furloughed contemporaies to get back to work. I don't want to see my recently retired friends get burned by seeing pilots, a scant bit junior to them, get a windfall by continuing to work. I don't want to see those captains get a freebie on five extra years at the top of the game!

Well at least you're honest. I wonder though if an independent panel came out and said that 65 was safe would some others do a 180 and say "I guess I was wrong, jets change it". If it does change it will affect me, I won't lie but my viewpoint has always been, If you have lived your life planning age 60 would go away you're a fool, If you have lived your life planning age 60 would stay you're a fool.

 

[furloughed dude]

Canyon,

I admit I primarily want guys to retire at 60 for the sake of recalls and movement. They had their chance, if they didn't take care of their retirement, too bad. This country is littered with these people, but most made much less in their careers than these guys.

But you don't think safety is an issue? Where do you make the cut off? 60, 65, 70, 90? You and I know both it doesn't take much to pass a class one physical. And we all know the docs that are not too thorough. So they pass their physical, they are 80 years old, do you think they are ready to fly 6 legs a day? Or stay awake for most of an international flight? Age deteriorates skills, no doubt about it. Can you at least agree with that statement. But where do you draw the line? Age 60 has been acceptable of years, why change it just for some old timers that didn't take care of their check book. And why will 5 more years be the saving grace for folks that couldn't save enough after 25 or more years of work.

Age 60 works.

 

[lostplnetairman]

Here's an interesting article--not everyone at the FAA is so certain about the rule:

http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/fasmb/Editorials/age60/index.cfm

Also, just to clarify, General, the Supreme Court didn't RULE on it. They declined to review the appeals court case. It was denied over a small issue. That doesn't mean another case can't come about and that they would decline to take it.

I'm just an HR person and we don't like age discrimination!

HR Diva

 

[General Lee]

Here's an interesting article--not everyone at the FAA is so certain about the rule:

http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/fasmb/Editorials/age60/index.cfm

Also, just to clarify, General, the Supreme Court didn't RULE on it. They declined to review the appeals court case. It was denied over a small issue. That doesn't mean another case can't come about and that they would decline to take it.

I'm just an HR person and we don't like age discrimination!

HR Diva

Thanks HR lady. I wonder why they declined to rule on it? Possibly because they would set a precedent if they ruled in favor of their case, and there would be a flood of lawsuits claiming more discrimination. Old Policemen would then try to pull you out of a robbery, or old firemen would have to try to carry you out of your burning house. That is what you obviously want. You need to realize that some age discrimination is GOOD for society. The people that really benefit from age discrimination lawsuits are the lawyers. Are you married to one by chance?


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Cyclone]

age 60

i don't know if age discrimination is "good" for society but it may be the only way to have an air transport system...you do need to draw the line somewhere.

for those who are making the argument that the rule should go away because it is "arbitrary and age discrmination." ok you're right about that ladies and gents. so what is your solution...tie it to social security or age 65 (the current s.r. 65 proposal in front of the commerce committee)? by doing so your solution will have exactly the same "flaw" (the one you are crying about) as the current rule...except it changes the number. it would still be arbitrary and age discrimination...just a different number...so the folks that think this is a good solution are hypocrites.

be careful what you ask for...the lawmakers do cite safety as a reason to keep the rule...so if you change the rule to a different age...it stands to reason they will add safeguards to cover their bee-hinds. that could mean someone stuffing a microscope up your rear on all future physicals...just to keep flying. the consequence here could be a lot of pilots having to retire well before age 60. be careful what you ask for. the guys born in the 40s have nothing to lose...they're about to be put out to pasture anyway...plus rumor has it that most of them like having stuff crammed up...nevermind

as far as who is against and who is for age 60...let me guess...the 58 year old captain without a defined benefit plan who likes his job wants to keep torturing his f.o.s with his silly nuances another 7 years...and the 43 year old f.o. probably wants to put rat poison in that very same captain's boeing brew even if the law doesn't change. change the law...add more more rat poison than before. go figure. it's all about greed...that's why most of us are in the industry in the first place.

so should it change? your opinion is probably based on where you sit in the cockpit. the real question should be (but it isn't because now it is a politically charged issue) is would it affect safety? i don't think anyone is really looking at this scientifically. i know that ted stevens is almost 82 years old...he's in charge of the senate commerce committee...and guess what he thinks about mandatory retirement age? nevertheless i sure as hell would not want that old arrogant coot driving my kid's school bus. yikes.

hopefully reason will prevail.

if you're an f.o. call your senators and tell them the age 60 rule makes sense

if you're a captain go eat some prunes or get your bifocals adjusted or something...or go to walmart and buy some metamucil...you can probably save 69 cents and amortized over the next 22 months that could be a bundle...