Age 60 Back Again!!!!

[FutureTEDpilot]

Spooky,

A lot of people are tired of attitudes like yours. How do Ted's remarks dump on those who walked before him anymore than your remarks dump on those who walked before you? You benefited tremendously your entire career from pilots who retired at 60. You don't actually think that all those pilots you flew with for all those years who stepped out of the picture so you could move up actually think it would be great if ole Spooky could get a second helping of senior airline captain? You know the faces, many of the names, you remember when they left...I know these folks too. Let me channel a bit of their exact sentiments: "Spooky, have a nice hot cup of shut the fcuk up"!

They quit a 60, you quit at 60...I quit at 60.

WELL SAID SIR!

 

[Spooky 1]

WELL SAID SIR!

Flopgut........your pitiful, sir. Go back and crawl in your hole.........please.

 

[Peardc10]

Age 60

CHOICE!

Everyone here has an opionion one way or another on age 60 rule. 15 years ago I was against this change, however, TIMES HAVE CHANGED!!!

I work for a 121 carrier that does not have a defined benefit plan, and in a few years no one will.....We have a basic 401K plan and I have participated to the fullest. I have contributed the max amount every year and see a bleak future for my retirement. Not everyone here has squandered their money on women, toys, and other items. Some of us have had jobs that went away, or fourlough unexpectedly. 9-11 occurred, which sent the stock market downward and saw my 401k lose around 30%, my 401K is back to where it was pre 9-11. Who knows whats going to happen to this crazy industry.

Extending the age 60 rule will benefit everyone here! Those in their 20-30's, might wait awhile longer before upgrading, but in the long run, financially you will be better off. See the big picture................

My 2 cents worth.

Who would of thought that 4 out of the 7 legacy carriers would be in Bankrupt. 5 years ago, If you told me this, I would have said your smok'n crack. TIMES HAVE CHANGED!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Neubyfly]

Whether you are for keeping the age at 60 or against it, this is NOT the time to change it! Once all the furloughed pilots are recalled, then it can be reconsidered. Either way, I say keep it at 60.

 

[Flopgut]

CHOICE!

Everyone here has an opionion one way or another on age 60 rule. 15 years ago I was against this change, however, TIMES HAVE CHANGED!!!

Extending the age 60 rule will benefit everyone here! Those in their 20-30's, might wait awhile longer before upgrading, but in the long run, financially you will be better off. See the big picture................

My 2 cents worth.

Who would of thought that 4 out of the 7 legacy carriers would be in Bankrupt. 5 years ago, If you told me this, I would have said your smok'n crack. TIMES HAVE CHANGED!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please explain how five more years of being furloughed is going to be a good thing for those pilots who are?

How about when you turn 60 you get surplused to the bottom of the seniority list? Are you still able to see a silver lining for all in that scenario? You must agree that this follows your train of thought. Lets not make 20 year FOs, 25 year FOs, just so you can be a captain longer. You can go to the right seat at 60 for your last several years (behind the furloughs) is that equitable in your minds eye?

 

[freeflyer14]

Extending the age 60 rule will benefit everyone here! Those in their 20-30's, might wait awhile longer before upgrading, but in the long run, financially you will be better off. See the big picture................

please explain - in the long run, financially you will be better off? I am not trying to be a smartass or anything, just trying to be informed. I just don't see how anyone (other than the people getting set to retire, certainly not the 20-30 yr olds) would be financially better off by allowing more stagnation and continued furloughees in the seniority lists.

 

[Flopgut]

Flopgut........your pitiful, sir. Go back and crawl in your hole.........please.

I'm pitiful? I'm not on here as a former DAL type (highest paid pilot group during the highest paying time in history) browbeating a pilot on furlough! I'm just trying to draw a little of your fire to keep you from looking even more ridiculous. I am very fortunate to have a lot of friends from early days of this business. And because I don't like to hear about who just died or bodily ailments I like to get them talikng about thier work. Age 60 was good enough for them, its good enough for you. You made WAY more money than they did and they worked harder. Specifically, your generation is the least deservant of the windfall of fortune it would be to be granted another 5 years as airline captains. Do you think they just wanted to hand the whole thing over to you? No. Did they b1tch about it as much as you are? NO. If you want me to tap my geezer buddies for any other opinion with regard to your thoughts feel free to ask.

I happen to also know this: They are all still p1ssed about your pilot group selling out the union on third man in the cockpit.

 

[Dan Roman]

Of all the points made here it seems like the weakest is "you knew it was age 60 when you started so it's unfair to change it" . This job has changed so much since I started it's mind boggling. In the last few years most of the airline pilots in the U.S. that had a retirement income and thought they could count on it, have lost it. You're telling me that some USAir/UAL/DAL/etc. pilot that has seen his retirement cut by 2/3's and doesn't even qualify for social security should get out of "your" seat because you want to upgrade quicker?

1) Working an extra couple years means huge savings. Even if you have a DB, inflation will eventually eat up a lot of it if you live to your late 80's or 90's. By working just till 63, you (at $160,000 per) earn an extra $480,000, you get 3 more years of savings if your funding an IRA or 401k and you delay tapping into your retirement saving by 3 years. That's a lot of money that could have a profound effect down the road when your 90.

2) If a 61 or 62 year old pilot is still passing checkrides and physicals, he's safe. Experience prevents more accidents than youthful reaction time. In fact, in an emergency reacting too fast is a much bigger problem than reacting too slow. A cocky young pilot can be a much more dangerous pilot than your average "old" guy who has years of experience. Yes there are unhealthy pilots that stuggle because of their health, but they exist in their 50's just as much as they would at 63.

3) You guys who have many years (and have the benefit of knowing that DB's are not safe no matter how old you are) to save and earn interest for the next 20 or 30 years will have plenty of time to save for retirement. The older guys who had their retirement jerked out from under them with no warning don't. So please don't say we knew what we were getting into when we started.

For the record, I'm a fairly junior Captain who is 51. My company has a DB and it's being funded. That said I don't believe anyone can predict the health of any airline 10/20/30 years from now, hence I'm saving as much as I can in my 401k and elsewhere.

 

[Dan Roman]

BTW, if the past 30 years are any indication, the next 30 will be even more full of surprises. My advice would be rather than looking at the here and now when making decisions, look to the long run. Flying till 63 could make a big diference in your retirement. Just as funding a 401k to the max as young as posssible will. Don't put it off! No matter what your opinion is on the age 60 rule or who you work for, MAX OUT YOUR 401k!!! The sooner the better.

 

[Spooky 1]

I'm pitiful? I'm not on here as a former DAL type (highest paid pilot group during the highest paying time in history) browbeating a pilot on furlough! I'm just trying to draw a little of your fire to keep you from looking even more ridiculous. I am very fortunate to have a lot of friends from early days of this business. And because I don't like to hear about who just died or bodily ailments I like to get them talikng about thier work. Age 60 was good enough for them, its good enough for you. You made WAY more money than they did and they worked harder. Specifically, your generation is the least deservant of the windfall of fortune it would be to be granted another 5 years as airline captains. Do you think they just wanted to hand the whole thing over to you? No. Did they b1tch about it as much as you are? NO. If you want me to tap my geezer buddies for any other opinion with regard to your thoughts feel free to ask.

I happen to also know this: They are all still p1ssed about your pilot group selling out the union on third man in the cockpit.

Okay Flopgut I will tone it down a bit for you and everyone else. For some reason This subject seems to bring out the worst in many of us and I am no exception.

I retired way before I turned 60, so as to do something else that interested me. However, the suggestion that turning 60 somehow eliminates you from being and airline pilot is simply ridiculous in today’s environment. That’s my opinion, nothing more and if don’t agree with it, that’s okay to. But if it is overturned someday, don’t look shocked as it will be done by Congress someday, in the not to distant future. The General invokes the name of the Supreme Court as his evidence that this rule as currently written is safe. Congress makes the rules, the Supreme courts enforces them, (sometimes at least). Given enough time the weight of all the pilots without pensions will cause this to happen, which is interesting as this should not be an economic issue but rather an ability/health issue as that was the original reason this daffy legislation was drafted behind close doors with the then FAA administrator and the head of AA. If anything like this was done today, the perpetrators would be run out of town after being tarred and feathered.


As for my airline (Delta) committing all of those sins that you speak of, well I was not even working there when most of that happened. The suggestion that somehow people like me are responsible for the 3rd man being removed from the B737/DC9 is ludicrous at best. FYI, I have flown the B737 with the 3rd man, have you? A total waste of human resources that good ole ALPA tried to cram down the throats of any number of airlines. Maybe you recall when ALPA demanded 3 pilots on all jets, a precursor to the 3rd pilot on the B737. What did you have the? Three pilots, plus a flight engineer, for a total of four pilots in the cockpit! In some cases five, if your flight also included a navigator. This period of ALPA activism is a sorry footnote in the history of what was once a fine organization. Ask the poor unfortunate pilots at Wein. They (ALPA) destroyed this once proud company over this ridiculous B737 featherbedding issue. Don’t get me started regarding this as I was there, and was at the ALPA national convention and foolishly supported this facade in a lock step fashion along with others. Something that I am certainly not proud of today.

I suggest that you support the “choice” to fly past age 60 and up to and including, say 63 or 65. Those pilots who will be retiring over the next 25 years may well need every dime they can muster. SS is pretty much broken and with administration like the one we have today, anything is possible. For those pilots who have just lost everything in their defined and undefined pensions, I think that is the least one could do.

 

[furloughed dude]

Of course the guys at Jetblue and SWA want to repeal age 60. They don't have, and have never had a retirement.

So you made bad career choices or couldn't manage your money. That is your problem... Get a life losers!!

I don't see age 60 changing anytime soon. It probably will some day, but I don't see it changing for years.

 

[ferlo]

Senetor Inhoff (sp?) is also pushing this thing forward. His D.C. Office number is:

202-224-4721


Remember, oppose s.65.

 

[Flopgut]

Of all the points made here it seems like the weakest is "you knew it was age 60 when you started so it's unfair to change it" . This job has changed so much since I started it's mind boggling. In the last few years most of the airline pilots in the U.S. that had a retirement income and thought they could count on it, have lost it. You're telling me that some USAir/UAL/DAL/etc. pilot that has seen his retirement cut by 2/3's and doesn't even qualify for social security should get out of "your" seat because you want to upgrade quicker?

1) Working an extra couple years means huge savings. Even if you have a DB, inflation will eventually eat up a lot of it if you live to your late 80's or 90's. By working just till 63, you (at $160,000 per) earn an extra $480,000, you get 3 more years of savings if your funding an IRA or 401k and you delay tapping into your retirement saving by 3 years. That's a lot of money that could have a profound effect down the road when your 90.

2) If a 61 or 62 year old pilot is still passing checkrides and physicals, he's safe. Experience prevents more accidents than youthful reaction time. In fact, in an emergency reacting too fast is a much bigger problem than reacting too slow. A cocky young pilot can be a much more dangerous pilot than your average "old" guy who has years of experience. Yes there are unhealthy pilots that stuggle because of their health, but they exist in their 50's just as much as they would at 63.

3) You guys who have many years (and have the benefit of knowing that DB's are not safe no matter how old you are) to save and earn interest for the next 20 or 30 years will have plenty of time to save for retirement. The older guys who had their retirement jerked out from under them with no warning don't. So please don't say we knew what we were getting into when we started.

For the record, I'm a fairly junior Captain who is 51. My company has a DB and it's being funded. That said I don't believe anyone can predict the health of any airline 10/20/30 years from now, hence I'm saving as much as I can in my 401k and elsewhere.

So a safety issue should be decided based on financial considerations?

The point is not: "you knew it was age 60 when you started so it's unfair to change it". The point is: You benefited from age 60 since the day you started so it's unfair to everyone else to change it now. Going forward, this job is forever different. Pilots who are now near retirement got a chance to participate in the heyday of this business. If you didn't make enough money to take care of yourself up to this point what is supposed to make us all believe you can get yourselves together is just 2-3 years? Are we going to have to next endure you folks wanting to work until you are 70 or 75?

I WILL tell you that you should have known what you were getting into when you started. There are a lot of pilots in this business who have lost everything at an inopportune time in their lives and have had to recover without some sweeping policy change that was a unique detriment to everyone in the business except themselves. That exact thing has transpired in this business often enough that I can't believe I have to point it out to you. Strongly suggests to me that you will be no better off with 2-5 years more earnings than you are now, EVEN with the extra benefit of being able to freeze your earnings at the top of this game!

 

[Dan Roman]

It looks to me the arguement against raising the age 60 rule is mostly young pilots that want to gain a number by kicking someone out the door with no retirement and no retirement plan (through no fault of their own). Short term gain long term pain?

 

[Spooky 1]

Dan.........looks to me as though Flopgut has alraedy retired? Or did I read soemething into his previous posts mistakenly. Maybe he can share his investment philosphy with some of us.

I think making this issue a financial one is misleading. The rule was not stated as a finacial manipulation but rather a concern that if you were over 60 you were not capable of flying that big scary jet. The fact that a lot of these younger guys want the older guys off the list is driven by their desire to earn more money, or in some cases, just get back on the line. All understandable, but flawed reasoning when you look at the long tern effects it will have on ones career earnings.

Not going win this fight on this forum thats for sure.

 

[Dan Roman]

Flopgut, we posted at the same time, the above isn't my answer to your post. Your comment that you think I need to have you point out how volitile this business is off. I've been very well aware of that fact and have been saving to the point that if my DB goes away I'll still be ok. That said retirement is a long time(hopefully) and even the best DB's really aren't enough by themselves. As I pointed out, a half a million extra going into retirement would help anyone no matter how well you saved. With what's happened to our industry, a lot of good people that thought they would have their EARNED retirement now know they won't have it and will have to work to survive, it's not their fault. No one could have forseen what has happened to all pilot retirements.

 

[General Lee]

It looks to me the arguement against raising the age 60 rule is mostly young pilots that want to gain a number by kicking someone out the door with no retirement and no retirement plan (through no fault of their own). Short term gain long term pain?

Come on Dan. I respect that you have attained the role of Captain at your company, but don't think we(young folks--I am 40) can't do your job too. If you did not prepare yourself financially in case of major problems (airline problems always run in cycles) or had a divorce or two, that isn't our fault. This will be a good lesson for all of us----make sure you prepare for the future. I don't want to remain in the right seat or a smaller plane in the left seat any longer than I have to. And, above all, it is safer to have pilots retire at 60. No doubt about that. No disrespect to you, and you are still a young Captain (on the Widebody) at 51.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Dan Roman]

Your right spooky. We agree that financial reasons alone don't justify changing the rule. Safety connot be comprimised for money, but as you say, a guy who is 62 is just as safe as a guy who is 59. Al Haynes is a good example, but everyone seems to forget the guy flying the UAL 747 out of HNL to SYD who lost a cargo door. He was 59 also. (And yes I forgot his name!)
Your also right that no ones mind is going to changed here.

 

[Flopgut]

Okay Flopgut I will tone it down a bit for you and everyone else. For some reason This subject seems to bring out the worst in many of us and I am no exception.

I retired way before I turned 60, so as to do something else that interested me. However, the suggestion that turning 60 somehow eliminates you from being and airline pilot is simply ridiculous in today’s environment. That’s my opinion, nothing more and if don’t agree with it, that’s okay to. But if it is overturned someday, don’t look shocked as it will be done by Congress someday, in the not to distant future. The General invokes the name of the Supreme Court as his evidence that this rule as currently written is safe. Congress makes the rules, the Supreme courts enforces them, (sometimes at least). Given enough time the weight of all the pilots without pensions will cause this to happen, which is interesting as this should not be an economic issue but rather an ability/health issue as that was the original reason this daffy legislation was drafted behind close doors with the then FAA administrator and the head of AA. If anything like this was done today, the perpetrators would be run out of town after being tarred and feathered.


As for my airline (Delta) committing all of those sins that you speak of, well I was not even working there when most of that happened. The suggestion that somehow people like me are responsible for the 3rd man being removed from the B737/DC9 is ludicrous at best. FYI, I have flown the B737 with the 3rd man, have you? A total waste of human resources that good ole ALPA tried to cram down the throats of any number of airlines. Maybe you recall when ALPA demanded 3 pilots on all jets, a precursor to the 3rd pilot on the B737. What did you have the? Three pilots, plus a flight engineer, for a total of four pilots in the cockpit! In some cases five, if your flight also included a navigator. This period of ALPA activism is a sorry footnote in the history of what was once a fine organization. Ask the poor unfortunate pilots at Wein. They (ALPA) destroyed this once proud company over this ridiculous B737 featherbedding issue. Don’t get me started regarding this as I was there, and was at the ALPA national convention and foolishly supported this facade in a lock step fashion along with others. Something that I am certainly not proud of today.

I suggest that you support the “choice” to fly past age 60 and up to and including, say 63 or 65. Those pilots who will be retiring over the next 25 years may well need every dime they can muster. SS is pretty much broken and with administration like the one we have today, anything is possible. For those pilots who have just lost everything in their defined and undefined pensions, I think that is the least one could do.

Fair post. I actually can envision this changing in my career. I don't want it to, but I am mentally prepared to get jipped out of a fair career progression. I want to also acknowledge the fact that the only way to do it fair is to, once it has changed, let those people who are still of age come back. Its only right. Now, if and when those pilots come back, they better bring any and all retirement monies they took off with back to the company, with interest. We are going to need that money. I just can't imagine being a captain right now, as bad as things are for everyone, and have the position that I should get more time at the top of this biz. More than anyone else got, more than I deserve. I just want a fair share. Is "fair" too passe a term? No place for "fair" in this biz? Fine. If you want to fly past 60 like in other countries, then maybe we could do some other things like them. How about we go to rostering and equipment assignments? Lets abandon seniority! That might solve a lot of our problems with this issue. We have a very large number of captains where I work who would not make it in that environment. Conversely, we also have a lot of FOs (working and furloughed) who would make great captains, right now. Sound good?

With regard to the third man in the cockpit: My base of friends are all Dallas types. Braniff, Central, Continental and Frontier. What they remember is that the Super 80 was initially certified with three pilots, the 737 with two. The logical thing was that DAL hold the line on the issue since they had the plane that was certified with three pilots. Instead it went to FAL who faltered and their MEC went into ALPA trusteeship, and then went to Wein and they got wasted. Their opinion was that DAL pilots were ALPA primadonnas and wouldn't do any dirty work.

 

[Dan Roman]

Gee I keep posting at the same time.
I'll give you this General, I fly between Hawaii and the mainland. If I was back flying up and down the eastern seaboard like I use to I might be changing my tune! My reasoning is that we all will probably need more than we realize. My Dad is 86 and retired from UAL and still going strong. Had he not invested in Real Estate and just depended on his UAL he would be hurting (and no he didn't lose it like the younger guys, at his age it is seperate from the BK)

If your General Lee moniker is a tip of the hat to the Dukes of Hazard tv show are you aware that John Schnieder's half brother is a Delta Pilot?