Age 60 informal poll

[vetrider]

I think there is a big difference between a pilot working for a foreign carrier flying into JFK from across the pond versus being employed at a United States airline flying within this country.

If a hypothetical 63 year old flying for a foreign carrier wanted to fly for a US based airline he would be out of luck as well. If Undaunted goes to work for a foreign carrier he will have the same rights to fly into JFK as the other pilots there. In other words, as long as Undaunted and the foreigner are working for the same airline at the same time, the same rights and priveleges apply. I see no discrimination.

I think apples are being mixed with oranges in this case. But then again, the pro change guys are not afraid to put a slant on things.

 

[vetrider]

As far as Captain Hinnenkamp, I don't begrudge him wanting to continue to fly, I can understand him wanting to. What bothered me personally was how he went about dramatizing it, all but directly saying that his departure would leave the system in the hands of those to inexperienced to handle things and keep our system safe.

 

[Andy]

About half the airline pilots who are reaching age 60 and are being forced to retire are Vietnam vets. I am not one of those, nor did I claim to be be one in any of my prior posts. I am a person who was lucky enough to avoid that nightmare. And that nightmare is all the more reason to give credit to those who had to put up with that war, especially when it was all for nothing.

Your post STRONGLY implied that you were a decorated Vietnam vet with a Purple Heart. You carefully worded it so that anyone who does not know your background would think that you were a Vietnam vet. Now that you're busted, you're going to claim innocence? Whatever.
And so glad to hear that you think that those who served in Vietnam did so for nothing. I suppose that you think the same of Pipe, Higsky and all others (including myself) who have spent a lot of time in Southwest Asia.

Now do you recall the Tribune article about Capt. Hinnenkamp. We know that he was one of those that served in Vietnam, but I do remember those, including Andy, who were disrespectful of him for wanting to continue flying. So to you smart a$$es you can not have it both ways. You want something for your service, but don't want to give anything to others who served.

I feel about Hinnenkamp the same way that I feel about you. You both disrespected and continue to disrespect your replacements. I'm your replacement. I'm 46 years old, fer chrissake. I've probably got more time in service than Hinnenkamp and I'd bet that I've got more time overseas in uniform than Hinnenkamp. For you and Hinnenkamp to call your replacements wet behind the ears kids is extremely disrespectful. Yet you get offended when we fire back at your blatent disrespect.


As for answering your veteran questions, those are appropriate ONLY from a fellow veteran. Don't try to wrap yourself in the flag in order to elicit sympathy. You haven't earned the right to wrap yourself in the flag and play the patriotism card.
I hope that WW2 vets didn't make a huge stink about their Vietnam vet replacements when the day came for them to leave. Of course, I haven't seen a post from any Vietnam vets on this board deriding Gulf War vets.
Besides the Gulf War, I've been involved in so many little skirmishes over the years that I haven't been able to keep track of them all. My first was providing refueling support for the Panama operation. I've flown a recce bird over Bosnia/Serbia/Croatia airspace when it was still hot. I've been involved in so many operations with the word Desert in them that I can't keep track of them anymore. I've flown off of the coast of Libya for hours with zero air cover. I've flown off the coast of Israel for hours with zero air cover. I've flown in Southeast Asia shortly before the EP-3 downed a Chinese MiG - I flew the same type of mission as the EP-3. I'm sure that there are plenty other places that I've placed myself and my crew in harm's way, but I just can't remember all of them. And now I, and others like myself, are apparantly unworthy to replace you and Capt Hinnenkamp.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Old Age effects the bottom line-- what is SWA doing?

The cost associated with increasing age 60 is going to be high for not just the pilots but also the companies. The contracts of every carrier reward increased productivity till the pay capped is reached at which point a pay cap captain is just a productive as a 30 year captain.

SWA is going to lose its cost advantage if this age change happens. SWA's cost advantage over Air Tran, Virgin USA, JBLU, and all the regionals with young pilots are going to rapidly evaporate. SWA is just like any other LCC, growth using new aircraft and junior pilots. And SWA hiring of 1000 pilots verse its highly paid 4000 is not enough of an offset compared to an airline without any pay capped captains.

Age-adjusted earnings will force the U.S. to get real about the high cost of healthcare in one easy step, says Fortune's Matt Miller.
By Matt Miller, Fortune columnist
December 1 2006: 6:51 AM EST

(Fortune Magazine) -- In 2003, back when Continental Airlines (Charts) was losing its shirt, Gordon Bethune, its salty CEO, got sick of hearing that upstarts like JetBlue (Charts) had created a new business model that would bury the industry's dinosaurs. So he had his CFO recompute Continental's earnings assuming the company had (like JetBlue) a much younger workforce - and thus much lower health, pension and related costs.
Presto: Earnings went from a reported $388 million loss to a $420 million profit, a swing of $800 million. "It was all bull," Bethune says now of the idea that the economic laws of air travel had been repealed. "If we could fire all our workers every five years, we'd look good too."
Though Bethune cooked up what I call "age-adjusted earnings" simply to fend off attacks on Continental, the mammoth profit swing his analysis unearthed has big policy implications.
To most of us, the idea that a firm's success could depend so greatly on the youth of its employees feels crazy. Yes, GM (Charts) and its ilk may have gotten themselves into trouble with generous giveaways when the good times rolled. But a sane nation would assess business performance separately from some socially determined sense of what makes for decent health and pension coverage for citizens. Which brings us to the new Democratic majority in Washington.
50 Ways to Cut Your Health-Care Costs
While Democrats will probably be able to get the minimum wage hiked in the next two years, there's no way they'll be able to move on broader health and pension security with President Bush in the White House. If America's social contract is to be updated for the realities of a global age, it will only be after the 2008 presidential campaign nudges us toward consensus on the need for change.
A small but surprisingly powerful way to enlist business in this conversation would be for the Dems to turn Bethune's creative bookkeeping into a new rule for public companies: In addition to the usual earnings reports, require firms to issue an "age-adjusted" income statement that shows what earnings would be if the company had, say, average-aged workers.
Lighting a fire under business and government
Why would this break through the clutter? Unlike (sensible) new accounting rules that will force firms to put health and pension liabilities on their balance sheets, age-adjusted earnings would create a media hook that becomes part of every quarterly release.
Imagine if TV anchors were saying things like "Today search giant Google reported fourth-quarter earnings of $600 million - though on an age-adjusted basis it was $150 million less."
The idea isn't to create some metric for companies to manage but rather a drumbeat people would hear - a way of making every earnings report a reminder of the inanity of tying things like health care to employment in ways that warp business, suppress wages and crimp global competitiveness.
When I floated the idea to union and seniors' advocates, they fretted that it might push "good" employers to trim health care or accelerate their retreat from defined-benefit retirement plans. Well, earth to liberals: Those horses have already left the barn. The trick now is to get business to support the new forms of security that should take their place.
Age-adjusted earnings raise constructively subversive questions. If big-company health plans today are really just socialized health republics, for example - in which the young subsidize the old while everyone pays identical premiums - why shouldn't this principle of risk pooling apply economy-wide?
Constant reminders of such anomalies may even lead business to see the wisdom of that ancient union article of faith: that businesses shouldn't be competing based on differences in benefits, but on differences in quality, efficiency, customer service - you know, actual performance.
300 million - and older and older
To be sure, not everyone will cheer the bigger role for government benefit financing that prolonged exposure to age-adjusted earnings will invariably promote. Including Gordon Bethune.
"I understand the concept you're talking about," Bethune told me, "but in fairness, nobody cares." Besides, he growls, "I don't like government at all."
Sorry, Gordon. That knee-jerk loathing on the part of CEOs will need to go the way of the defined-benefit plan if we're to provide the security workers deserve while getting unsustainable costs off of business. Who else is going to pick up the tab?
Charles Kolb, president of the Committee for Economic Development, the business-led think tank, says, "The notion of age-adjusted earnings could help spark that overdue conversation." Over to you, Nancy Pelosi.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Andy: There you go again; talking about how you have done so much for this country and therefore it is you who are so deserving, but not the Vietnam vets. No matter what, they are entitled to employment over foreigners but you just will not respond to that because you know it is so true. All you want to do is slam those heroes while you applaud yourself. That is most hypocritical.

However, vet or non vets, it makes no difference, its really just Americans verses foreigners and who should have a right to earn a living in this country. My vote is for Americans, but it seems that you are in favor of the foreigners, except of course you, I would expect.

Regarding my previous comments about replacements, I have only commented that when my replacement at the bottom of the whole food chain (the new-hire RJ FO at the Regionals) comes on board and a senior captain leaves, that that does not improve safety, it degrades it. When a fully qualified and capable captain with 40 years of aviation experience leaves the industry to work at Wal-Mart or where ever, that does not serve the public interest. It only serves the interest of you, again.

Now lets talk more about rights, again.

If you will, please consider that I am just like most any other American: I want to work and provide for my family. I do not want to become a burden on the PBGC, Social Security or any other government assistance program. I just want to work in my profession and pay taxes, as I have done all my life. My family includes my wife of 37-years, my 15-year old son and my wife’s 83-year old mother who all need my support. I also have two adult children.

When a man is denied his occupation he is thus being denied his ability to provide for his family. This is a denial of a basic human need and what should be a right in this country. This is a fate worse than death but you just can not understand that. To you it is just "get out of my seat" as was recently written by one of your like minded colleagues in USA Today.


Now, even though you and your like mined friends are what I call smart a$$es as I have commented before, that doesn't mean I don't like you. My comments are all just for this discussion and you are all still invited to fly with me to HNL for my little party at Chucks on January 26th. I want you all to know that I understand your feelings, I'm just trying to explain mine, if any of you want to listen.

 

[scarface]

Well, I am a Vietnam vet, without a purple heart(or North Vietnamese marksmanship award as the USMC called them) and I don 't think my military
service has anything to do with whether or not I should fly past 60. Talk about meandering thought streams.

 

[Andy]

Andy: There you go again; talking about how you have done so much for this country and therefore it is you who are so deserving, but not the Vietnam vets. No matter what, they are entitled to employment over foreigners but you just will not respond to that because you know it is so true. All you want to do is slam those heroes while you applaud yourself. That is most hypocritical.

I never said that Vietnam vets aren't deserving, but they are not in force debating this issue. How did you feel about the WW2 vets that you and the Vietnam vets replaced? Were they less deserving than you and the Vietnam vets?

Regarding my previous comments about replacements, I have only commented that when my replacement at the bottom of the whole food chain (the new-hire RJ FO at the Regionals) comes on board and a senior captain leaves, that that does not improve safety, it degrades it. When a fully qualified and capable captain with 40 years of aviation experience leaves the industry to work at Wal-Mart or where ever, that does not serve the public interest. It only serves the interest of you, again.

And a senior WW2 vet retired when you were hired at United at the highly experienced age of 22. Cue up the Lion King 'Cycle of Life' song. Are you saying that you were more safe at age 22 than a WW2 vet who reached age 60, whom you replaced?

If you will, please consider that I am just like most any other American: I want to work and provide for my family.

I do not want to become a burden on the PBGC, Social Security or any other government assistance program. I just want to work in my profession and pay taxes, as I have done all my life. My family includes my wife of 37-years, my 15-year old son and my wife’s 83-year old mother who all need my support. I also have two adult children.

Let's go through the list here:
PBGC - our (both yours and mine) pension funds were turned over to the PBGC. Those payments that you receive are your funds being returned to you. Likely less than the amount contributed to the fund on your behalf, so you've effectively shifted some of your pension over to some steelworker whose pension fund was taken over by the PBGC. There's no burden that you are placing on the PBGC; you are merely receiving benefits that you have earned.
Social Security - were you not planning on receiving Social Security? Again, an entitlement that you've funded for many years and will soon be eligible to receive.
Other government assistance - No worries; you won't be eligible for any other assistance.
I also have a family to support. I have a daughter who is a freshman in college - wants to be a doctor - and a 14 year old son. I've saved for their college out of a salary much lower than yours. Did you not prepare this eventual cost?
My wife supports her 60 year old mother who is not yet eligible for Social Security - your wife's mother is eligible; I'd bet that it's at a much higher level than my mother-in-law will ever receive.
Personal issues aside, this about safety.

When a man is denied his occupation he is thus being denied his ability to provide for his family.

This is a denial of a basic human need and what should be a right in this country. This is a fate worse than death but you just can not understand that. To you it is just "get out of my seat" as was recently written by one of your like minded colleagues in USA Today.

I was denied my occupation after 9/11 due to a cutback in block hours. I was further denied returning to my occupation for even longer due to my 'brothers' on property who chose to vote on a contract that allowed the company to fly the same block hours with 20+% less pilots. Know what? I picked myself up, dusted myself off, and made alternate plans. I survived, as will you.
This is not about 'get out of my seat,' as much as you would like to portray it that way. It is about safety. As much as you would like to argue otherwise, the statistical evidence indicates that, per 100,000 block hours, pilot safety decreases after age 55. That is the point where physiological aging outweighs any benefits of increased experience.

I want you all to know that I understand your feelings, I'm just trying to explain mine, if any of you want to listen.

I understand your feelings; I also understand that you refuse to push for an acceptable compromise solution. Why do none of you that wish to remain employed push for a gradual age change and moving to SIC after age 60? My compromise would solve all of the above cited by you. It would also have a chance of getting implemented, unlike the current proposal of remaining PIC until 65.

 

[Andy]

Well, I am a Vietnam vet, without a purple heart(or North Vietnamese marksmanship award as the USMC called them) and I don 't think my military
service has anything to do with whether or not I should fly past 60. Talk about meandering thought streams.

Thank you for your service. I enlisted in 1980; anti-military sentiment was on the wane, but I was still on the receiving end of some rants from those that we have served. My apologies for any negative treatment that you received from ungrateful citizens.
And I agree that military service is not germaine to this topic.

 

[GoodTimes]

UF,

How about a little volunteer work to ring in the new year. You know, help out those who have been a little less fortunate? Maybe it's time to focus the energy somewhere else. Don't sell yourself short. I'm sure you've got more to offer than just piloting experience.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

cost

How about some discussion on the cost associated by the companies relating to extending the age?

How about the complications keeping age 60 would solve relating to merging?