Age 60 informal poll

[§kyye Candy]

personal info? you're kidding...

skycandy I least I do not hide who I am with a cute profile with no real information about who you are.

I am a very upfront type of person. However, privacy laws (or lack thereof) being what they are, and with the amount of personal info. available on the internet alone about a particular individual, (not to mention the exceptional experience of having been stalked in the past) I have absolutely no desire to post personal information about myself in public.

This is not a secured or private job hunting or resume-posting site where members have their identity verified, it is a public message board - open to anyone who wants to view (or post, for that matter); management, media, pilots, FAs, pax, whomever. The idea is to have a somewhat intelligent discussion and debate, based on the merits of the ideas posted by each individual. Therefore, I see no compelling reason why I should feel obligated to post a bunch of superfluous crap about myself on my "profile."

That said, I will tell you this much about myself: I am a 30-something female with a family; I have been involved in this industry for almost 20 years altogether - I have experienced it "up-close-and-personal" from nearly every aspect; A/C mfg. & suppliers, FBOs, Flight Schools, pax 121, etc. and even from the military perspective. (I am not former mil., but I have lived on base and dated a few mil. pilots.)

So... if all of that doesn't qualify me to have an opinion in your view, then that is certainly your perrogative. There is this handy little "ignore" feature that I'm sure the board moderators will be happy to accquaint you with! I have no desire either to get into a pi$$ing contest online - I have better things to do with my time.

Of course, if anyone here has a legitimate job offer for me, do feel free to contact me and I will be more than happy to consider a professional interview. Of course, I reserve the right to refuse anything that isn't verifiable and over 100K!

BTW ~
For the record, I have had my share of disappointments like anyone else - but I don't dwell on opportunities missed and I place the blame for the demise of this industry squarely where it belongs - with the people who have torn this industry down as many of us have watched in horror and, quite frankly, great dismay and sadness. You speak of the guys who "built the industry" - would those be the same guys getting their 350K with stock options and full retirement? Or are we going back even further, when they made the equivalent of 700K in today's dollars over a 35 year career? Same guys who vote in lower standards in scope, work rules, salary and bennies for all the "junior" guys? "I've got mine.. pull up the rope." ?? Or maybe you are referring to the corporate raiders in mgt. Gee, thanks guys, all the way around. What a great "legacy."

 

[ivauir]

Yes. Let freedom reign.
What about freedom for those already retired?
It would be interesting to know the age of voters. I think that would clearly divide the answerers into the yea or nay camp... which leads to the conclusion that inevitably most of the young nay voters will become older yea voters...

And that today's "yea" voters were yesterday's "nay's".

 

[ivauir]

Capt Mark you seem to be on a roll yourself, Out of touch with the younger generation, I was here first, the younger generation is out of touch with the guys who built this business

The guys who built this business are long gone. You are not one of them, don't even try to take their credit.

 

[pilotyip]

Built this industry, maybe not me, but certainly some of my contemporaries fit the role. I am talking about, for instance, the initial FedEx pilots, some of which I served with. They went to work at a company with an unproved business concept flying DA-20's as F/O's for $400/mo in 1975

 

[pilotyip]

Where the heck did this come from?

 

[B6Driver]

Yes.....

 

[145FO]

Nay!!

 

[Skyrunner]

Last post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FA walks into flightdeck with 2 pieces of cake, one big and one small.

FA: Here's some cake. Take your pick.

Capt: (to FO) Go ahead and take your pick.

FO: No, no. I insist you take your pick.

Capt: OK. (takes the large piece)

FO shakes his head.

Capt: What's wrong?

FO: I'd have taken the small piece.

Capt: What are you cryin' about? That's what you got!!!!!

Enuf said. Last post. Ya'll take care and fly safe.
And remember.....HABU!!!!

CB

 

[vetrider]

Nay, leave it alone.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Yo digo....Si.

Tejas

 

[NoJoy]

I voted no and will continue to do so.

 

[Klako]

There appears to be growing support within the pilot unions to change the “Age 60 Rule".Even though ALPA's official position is that they are still against it, there are growing sentiments within the rank and file of ALPA for changing the "Age 60 Rule”. Pension troubles at the legacy airlines have been steadily eroding support for the age-60 retirement rule. There is an obvious groundswell of discontent within ALPA’s rank and file that the union’s national officers have failed to comprehend or acknowledge. The Teamsters Airline Division is now supporting a change to the “Age 60 Rule”. The "Teamsters Airline Journal-News from the Airline Division", published this statement on page 12 of it's Spring 2006 edition:

"The Airline Division is working to repeal the requirement that commercial pilots must retire when they turn 60 years old. See 'Legislative Action' on page 9 to learn how you can help increase this threshold."


Understandably, some junior pilots are still worried that changing the age 60 rule would cause promotional stagnation. What junior pilots need to understand is that, if they haven't realized it yet, promotions today---yesterday---and forever are related to growth--not attrition. Most pilots remember the late 80’s to mid 90's when a hiring frenzy produced six-month upgrades to Captains. That wasn't because a lot of older pilots were leaving the property. ALPA and APA have been milking the “Age 60 rule” for all it’s worth for much to long a time at the eventual expense to everyone. Theshort-sighted “me now’ attitude of a few junior pilots ignores the consequences awaiting those pilots at the end of their own careers. Unfortunately, those pilots eventually wake up one day with the eventual hangover after their “me now binge” and realize all too late that they have screwed not only their own lives, but those of future pilots as well. The predecessors of today’s airline pilots have all tried to warn the junior pilots of the error in their ways.This may be the last chance that an obvious wrong can be corrected. Professional airline pilots are fighting for their careers, their future and their ability to earn a living in a chosen profession. At the very least, pilots should be able to work up to age 65 when coverage by Medicare and Social Security begins. The rule now is age discrimination, pure and simple. If the record shows that more experienced pilots have a better safety record than do younger less experienced pilots (and it does), why should they be treated differently than other Americans?

 

[The Prussian]

Couldn't have put it better!...Ditto!...

 

[pilotyip]

65 too young

"At the very least, pilots should be able to work up to age 65 when coverage by Medicare and Social Security begins. The rule now is age discrimination, pure and simple. If the record shows that more experienced pilots have a better safety record than do younger less experienced pilots (and it does), why should they be treated differently than other Americans?"
Full SS benes' do not start until 66 now for anyone born after 1943, which is everyone under 60 right now. It starts going up again toward 67 for full benefits for 1953 b'days. Lets make the bill make airline retirment age the same as the full SS age. What a great idea.

 

[Deadbug]

...Understandably, some junior pilots are still worried that changing the age 60 rule would cause promotional stagnation. What junior pilots need to understand is that, if they haven't realized it yet, promotions today---yesterday---and forever are related to growth--not attrition. ...

Don't ya love opinions stated as fact .

Not every airline is fortunate enough to have growth (I'm talking internal growth here). As a matter of fact, at my airline--the only movement in recent memory that hasn't been backward...has been through attrition...period...end of story.

Also, I'm sure there are many others like me who remember working with folks who with righteous conviction said: "we gotta protect the (insert appropriate senior/top 20% concern here) because you too will be there someday" or words to that effect. Well, guess what we have now??

I am not a newbie and I have nearly two decades in the major airline business...but I'd be willing to bet one of my "half-of-what-they used-to-be" paychecks that all the folks that are crying the blues about the age 60 rule--benefited greatly from it during their careers, and wouldn't have wanted it changed while they were on the wrong end of the seniority list...particularly if they spent most of it as an f/o due to the lack of growth/reductions at their carriers.

Believe me, I understand where the folks who are pushing for a change are coming from...let's just see it for what it is (not that that's a bad thing ) Please know that those who support a change are NOT in the majority. I will admit it is a divisive issue.

Deadbug

 

[Klako]

Don't ya love opinions stated as fact .

...but I'd be willing to bet one of my "half-of-what-they used-to-be" paychecks that all the folks that are crying the blues about the age 60 rule--benefited greatly from it during their careers, and wouldn't have wanted it changed while they were on the wrong end of the seniority list...particularly if they spent most of it as an f/o due to the lack of growth/reductions at their carriers.


Deadbug

Deadbug,

Actually, when I hired on with the company that I now work for, I was 42 and was older than about 95% of the pilots senior to me. We do not have a defined benefit pension, only a 401K. In 6 months I will be forced out of my profession with only a small 401K, without medical coverage and it is becoming painfully obvious that nobody wants to hire a 60 year old. I can look forward to possibly losing everything if the rule dose not change soon.
I have the perfect solution for all the pilots out there who say that a change to the age 60 rule would be unfair by slowing upgrades and causing seniority list stagnation. I say then, make it mandatory for ALL airline pilots to retire after serving no more than 20 years with a company or age 65 whichever comes first. If you hire on with a company at age 25, then you are kicked out of the cockpit when you turn age 45 or if you hire on at 45, you retire at 65. That would be equally fair to all by giving everyone just enough time to build their 401K with enough to survive on in retirement.
Of course, my solution should never fly and only suggests the real motive behind the militant junior pilots at ALPA and APA opposing a change to the age 60 rule and that is age discrimination, nothing more and nothing less. The left seat is not a birthright but when one earns that position it should not be taken away unfairly.

 

[n89l]

Nay No

 

[Patriot328]

Deadbug,

Actually, when I hired on with the company that I now work for, I was 42 and was older than about 95% of the pilots senior to me. We do not have a defined benefit pension, only a 401K. In 6 months I will be forced out of my profession with only a small 401K, without medical coverage and it is becoming painfully obvious that nobody wants to hire a 60 year old. I can look forward to possibly losing everything if the rule dose not change soon.

Not to belittle your position, but did you not realize that when you were hired? I'm pretty sure you knew you weren't going to be working there for more than 18 years. Since we've all known the game was over at sixty, did you plan on that or have you just been patiently waiting for the age 60 rule to magically increase to 65 or something before you retire?

Even the guys with the DB plans, it's not like this is the first time the airlines have come crashing down and their pilots (and other employees) have lost it all... Pan Am, Braniff, Eastern, etc... Just because it hasn't happened to your airline yet doesn't mean it will. Anyone who puts all their eggs in their airline's basket through DB plans is crazy.

 

[Klako]

Not to belittle your position, but did you not realize that when you were hired? I'm pretty sure you knew you weren't going to be working there for more than 18 years. Since we've all known the game was over at sixty, did you plan on that or have you just been patiently waiting for the age 60 rule to magically increase to 65 or something before you retire?

The point is that this must not be viewed, as you call it, "the game". Legitimate games have rules that are fair to all the players.
I have always believed the "Age 60 Rule" to be very wrong and would be changed eventually. Thirty-five years ago, when I first got my private pilot’s certificate, an old Western Airlines captain assured me that the age 60 rule would eventually be abolished before it could affect me. He was then very active in trying to change the “Age 60 Rule”. I would have never guessed that it could still be around in 2006.

As of 26 June 2006, this is the status of Bills S.65 and H.R.65, legislation in Congress that would increase the "Age 60 Rule" to 65:

Senate Bill S.65, which was first, introduced on 24 January 2005 currently, has 24 Cosponsors.
The Latest Major Action for S.65 was on 30 March 2006 when it was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders, Calendar No. 382. We are very close to the 60 Yea VOTES required for Senator Bill Frist, the Senate Leader, to put S.65 up for a stand-alone vote. We may even have that number now. When Senator Frist believes that possibility exists, he will poll the entire Senate. If he gets 60 or more positive replies, the bill gets put on the agenda. However, if S.65 is not voted upon in the Senate before the summer recess, it could then be delayed until next year after the elections. If the Republicans should lose the majority in either the Senate or the House, both S.65 and H.R. 65 could then die and never be considered again.

House Bill H.R.65, has 65 cosponsors. The Latest Major Action on H.R.65 was on 5 January 2005 when it was referred to House subcommittee on Aviation. H.R.65 is still stuck in Committee without any sign of action.

 

[Patriot328]

The point is that this must not be viewed, as you call it, "the game". Legitimate games have rules that are fair to all the players.

In any game, rules have to be consistant to be "fair". Changing the rules in the middle of the "game" makes such game unfair. Even more so since the group getting the windfall of the new rule also received the benefit of the old rule.

I will wholeheartedly support changing the age 60 rule for pilots. It will be effective for anyone who is 18 or younger on the day the rule is signed into law. The current players finish the game under the old rules. The new players (that haven't started flying yet) follow the new "fair" rules.