Age 60 Back Again!!!!

[SWA/FO]

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

A 401K is better then the PBG&C anyday...sadly, the folks at UAL couldn't part-take in a 401K because of their A & B funds, which now are lost..

 

[General Lee]

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

A 401K is better then the PBG&C anyday...sadly, the folks at UAL couldn't part-take in a 401K because of their A & B funds, which now are lost..

Just because guys are unprepared and believed they would have a pension in the future, doesn't excuse the fact that they did not act fiscally responsible. Man, I bet that huge boat they bought a few years ago sure does suk a lot of expensive gas now! Time to sell it. And, this will be a great lesson for all of the current younger guys to watch. Save up and never believe you will get a pension. If you do, then great, but otherwise save like you will not get one.

The Supreme Court ruled once that the Age 65 rule wouldn't work (they would have to change the rules for policemen and firemen too), and it won't likely pass in the future. Most of the members of ALPA will vote against it too. It's just not safe in the long run.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[comrcap]

Thanks For Your Support!

ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO RAISING THE AGE 60 RULE!!!!


These are the people that are going to decide if the unprepared senior guys should be allowed to sell us all down the river. Contact them and voice your opinion.

NO ON S.65!!!!!
The U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has initiated a surprise attempt to forward legislation to the full Senate affecting the age 60 mandatory airline pilot retirement age. Members of the committee have crafted legislation which would raise the U.S. pilot retirement age in order to match a proposed European standard airline pilot retirement age. This legislation will be addressed by the committee during a mark-up session on Nov. 17. The members of this Senate committee are:

Ted Stevens - Chairman - Alaska​

John McCain - Arizona
Conrad Burns - Montana
Trent Lott - Mississippi
Kay Bailey Hutchison - Texas
Olympia Snowe - Maine
Gordon Smith - Oregon
John Ensign - Nevada
George Allen - Virginia
John Sununu - New Hampshire
Jim DeMint - South CarolinaDavid Vitter - Louisiana
Daniel K. Inouye - Vice Chairman - Hawaii
John D. Rockefeller IV - West Virginia
John F. Kerry - Massachusetts
Byron L. Dorgan - North Dakota
Barbara Boxer - California
Bill Nelson - Florida
Maria Cantwell - Washington
Frank Lautenberg - New Jersey
E. Benjamin Nelson - Nebraska
Mark Pryor - Arkansas
All APA members should expect to receive a "legislative alert" via e-mail which will urge each of you to link to the APA Web site in order to send a faxed letter to any or all of these senators highlighting our safety concerns associated with any increase in the mandatory retirement age. This nationwide targeted lobbying effort is being coordinated with Air Line Pilots Association and other pilot groups.
The future of this legislation will be decided by these senators over the next two weeks. Your input has tremendous value -- use that influence and make a difference! As always, our legislative efforts are only as successful as the membership participation behind them.--Legislative Affairs Committee

Now we know who to call to SUPPORT S. 65!

 

[$$$4nothin]

I just called to let him know i was opposed, and his secretary sounded HOT. VERY VERY HOT.

 

[canyonblue]

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:

 

[General Lee]

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:

Be a man? Ok there chief. You need to acknowledge that by age 60 it is a vastly different ballgame compared to when you were a young wippersnapper like yourself. Think of how many landings and takeoffs your 60 year old WN captains have had? They are probably absolutely exhausted, worn out to the max, and have no hearing left. "What? What was that? Where are we? This is my 6th leg of the day and the 60000th leg this decade. Time to bring an EKG machine on every plane...." Most are not like that, but allowing a few is dangerous. You know I am right. Be a man about it.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[canyonblue]

Be a man? Ok there chief. You need to acknowledge that by age 60 it is a vastly different ballgame compared to when you were a young wippersnapper like yourself. Think of how many landings and takeoffs your 60 year old WN captains have had? They are probably absolutely exhausted, worn out to the max, and have no hearing left. "What? What was that? Where are we? This is my 6th leg of the day and the 60000th leg this decade. Time to bring an EKG machine on every plane...." Most are not like that, but allowing a few is dangerous. You know I am right. Be a man about it.


Bye Bye---General Lee

Typical General Lee comment.uke: Worn out Captains? You are a moron, lets celebrate 6000 posts. 6000 comments of crap. Thanks for swaying my decision, if only to wreck your miserable life..

 

[sf260pilot]

Who on this thread opposes Age 60 because of personal gain in your 30-40's, i.e. it will take longer to upgrade? Who opposes this because you really want to get fired for turning 60 in the height of your income earning years?
This whole issue has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that C.R, Smith used his son-in-law to help him bust a union rule. They just used the training stuff as an excuse. I beleive that most young guys who oppose age 60 now, will be pi$$ed off around their 60th birthday.

 

[Draginass]

AA has an A & B Fund and a 401k.

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

A 401K is better then the PBG&C anyday...sadly, the folks at UAL couldn't part-take in a 401K because of their A & B funds, which now are lost..

 

[General Lee]

Typical General Lee comment.uke: Worn out Captains? You are a moron, lets celebrate 6000 posts. 6000 comments of crap. Thanks for swaying my decision, if only to wreck your miserable life..

Ah hahahahahhaha. I have succeeded again in making you mad. Mission accomplished. I can die happy. Dork! 6000 more are coming your way.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[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...