Age 60 informal poll

[Klako]

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.

There is now an “uneven playing field” that is unfair to United States air carrier pilots. This is because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) now gives an advantage to domestic FAR Part 135 (air Taxi), FAR Part 91 (General Aviation) and foreign air carriers. The FAA now permits pilots who are over the age of 60 to pilot the same types of large airplanes in FAR Parts 91 (general aviation) and 135 (air taxi) operations that it denies in United States FAR Part 121 (commercial air carrier) operations. Beginning on 23 November 2006, foreign air carriers will be allowed to operate large aircraft engaged in commercial air carrier operations within United States airspace and some of those aircraft will be the piloted by pilots that are over the age of 60. United States FAR Part 121 pilots, however, who are over age 60 will all still be grounded unless the Congress passes Senate Bill S.65 or House of Representatives Bill H.R.65. Both of these bills would amend the arbitrary but mandatory retirement age of FAR Part 121 commercial air carrier pilots from age 60 to 65.

 

[Patriot328]

There is now an “uneven playing field” that is unfair to United States air carrier pilots. This is because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) now gives an advantage to domestic FAR Part 135 (air Taxi), FAR Part 91 (General Aviation) and foreign air carriers. The FAA now permits pilots who are over the age of 60 to pilot the same types of large airplanes in FAR Parts 91 (general aviation) and 135 (air taxi) operations that it denies in United States FAR Part 121 (commercial air carrier) operations. Beginning on 23 November 2006, foreign air carriers will be allowed to operate large aircraft engaged in commercial air carrier operations within United States airspace and some of those aircraft will be the piloted by pilots that are over the age of 60. United States FAR Part 121 pilots, however, who are over age 60 will all still be grounded unless the Congress passes Senate Bill S.65 or House of Representatives Bill H.R.65. Both of these bills would amend the arbitrary but mandatory retirement age of FAR Part 121 commercial air carrier pilots from age 60 to 65.

How is that an unfair advangtage? Go work for a 135 carrier then. Emirates is hiring, as well.


Change the age 60 rule for new pilots. All current pilots are grandfathered under the old rule.

Fair is fair.

 

[Klako]

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.

That attitude is exactly why the “Age 60 Rule” is still around today. If junior pilots want to have the choice of working past age 60 someday, then the junior guys have got make a sacrifice today to help make that change happen NOW. The circumstances to make that change happen have never been better than they are today. If the bills currently in congress fail, we may never again see an opportunity to abolish the “Age 60 Rule”.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

This whole subject brings to mind a situation that's presently before the legislature in the state where I live. They have before them a bill that would raise the speed limit on the interstates from 65 to 70mph. Using the "why change it now?" argument I see so often when the "Age 60" rule is being discussed, a person who started driving when the speed limit was 65 should be limited to that speed forever. To raise it now would be "unfair" to all those who were limited to the lower speed in the past.

It's arguable whether a person who started driving between 1975 and 1980 or so (when the National limit was 55) could have foreseen that the limit would eventually be raised. Therefore, they would be limited to 55mph for as long as they hold a drivers license, or until further studies documenting their ability to operate a motor vehicle safely can be completed.

On the other hand, if you believe that "The rising tide floats all ships" and that people should be permitted to drive faster than 65 when it's safe for them to do so, then you will support the raising of the speed limit. It shouldn't bother you that the car in front of you will be able to accelerate to that speed before you will. After all, he's there because he was on the highway first. (If you had started your journey a little earlier, it would be you who was in front) Who's in front and who's in back matters little in the long run, as you'll both cover a lot more miles traveling at the new speed limit. The guy ahead of you will just have the opportunity to cover them first, that's all.

One thing I've noticed when discussing this with my fellow pilots, is that it seems that most of the guys who are not in favor of raising the retirement age tend to be the ex-military, "alpha-personality" fighter-type jocks. Clearly, raising the retirement age will slow seat progression for them. Maybe that's why they respond so "energetically" to this...they perceive it as a personal attack on their professional advancement. I hope that eventually they'll come to understand that this is not personal...we're not "challenging their manhood" or their right to earn a decent living, nor trying to keep them in junior positions indefinitely.

The ex-transport guys tend to be a lot mellower...they seem to understand why this makes sense, without all that "Top Gun," testosterone-driven, "gotta-shoot-down-everything-in-the-sky-or-die" cr*p going on in their heads.

Maybe ex-fighter pilots should retire at 60, and let the ex- box-haulers fly to 65. They seem much more tempermentally suited to do so.

 

[Patriot328]

That attitude is exactly why the “Age 60 Rule” is still around today. If junior pilots want to have the choice of working past age 60 someday, then the junior guys have got make a sacrifice today to help make that change happen NOW. The circumstances to make that change happen have never been better than they are today. If the bills currently in congress fail, we may never again see an opportunity to abolish the “Age 60 Rule”.

I think most junior (young) pilots do not want to see the age 60 rule changed because it will stagnate their careers for five years on the bottom of a seniority list (probably a tad less because not everyone will go to age 65 even if allowed). It's not 5 more years as a captain like the people that are pushing this. It's five more years as a junior FO. The increase in longterm pay is nil for someone on the bottom of a seniority list. Also, the unintended consequences of this will be much more stringent medical exams that will probably cause more people to medical out before 60, let alone 65.


On edit: Oh yeah... http://www.mydivadesigns.com/deadhorse.jpg

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

I think most junior (young) pilots do not want to see the age 60 rule changed because it will stagnate their careers for five years on the bottom of a seniority list (probably a tad less because not everyone will go to age 65 even if allowed). It's not 5 more years as a captain like the people that are pushing this. It's five more years as a junior FO. The increase in longterm pay is nil for someone on the bottom of a seniority list. Also, the unintended consequences of this will be much more stringent medical exams that will probably cause more people to medical out before 60, let alone 65.

DUDE, it's 5 more years at EVERY seat! Why is that so hard for people to understand?

In fact, the additional 5 years you spend in every seat will probably happen at a higher pay-rate than the 5 years I spent there. Where's the "fairness" in that?

The way I see it, we're all going to be working for somebody until we're 65. The question is, do we want to spend those last 5 years in the workplace flying for an air-carrier (at air-carrier pay rates) or do we want to be toting a pallet jack, fetching water heaters and cleaning up spills on aisle 3 of our local Home Improvement Center?

If you want to retire at 60, by all means do so. By the time I start working at Home Depot, you'll already have 5 years seniority there, and will have been promoted to Senior electric fork lift driver. Then I can be the one who sits arond and b*tch$ about how "unfair" everything is.

 

[Klako]

I think most junior (young) pilots do not want to see the age 60 rule changed because it will stagnate their careers for five years on the bottom of a seniority list (probably a tad less because not everyone will go to age 65 even if allowed). It's not 5 more years as a captain like the people that are pushing this. It's five more years as a junior FO. The increase in longterm pay is nil for someone on the bottom of a seniority list. Also, the unintended consequences of this will be much more stringent medical exams that will probably cause more people to medical out before 60, let alone 65.

To your fear that “much more stringent medical exams that will probably cause more people to medical out before 60”, then I say let that happen. We have all seen the 30 or 40 something age pilots who fail to take care of themselves physically by being over weight, high cholesterol, etc. So it is these same people who would claim the right to have my job just because I turn 60. I for one have always made sure that I would be able to pass the FAA Class I physical with flying colors at 65 or more. I eat right, exercise allot and I can still max score the Army Physical Fitness Test. I have paid my dues, flew combat missions in Vietnam, helped build the success that my airline company enjoys today and I should not have to start all over again at the bottom of some Part 135 outfit

 

[Patriot328]

DUDE, it's 5 more years at EVERY seat! Why is that so hard for people to understand?

In fact, the additional 5 years you spend in every seat will probably happen at a higher pay-rate than the 5 years I spent there. Where's the "fairness" in that?

Really?

Take a 30yr old newhire with a 10 year upgrade. Upgrades at 40 years old and has 20 years as a CA. Retires at 60.

Take the same 30yr old with new retirement rules. It's now a 15yr upgrade due to lack of attrition for five years. That's five more years at FO pay before the 20 years as a CA. If he wants to retire at 60 ("go ahead and retire at 60" like y'all keep saying), he'll get 15 years as a CA instead of 20. He now has a choice to make, stay and work til 65 or get shafted out of 5 more years of CA pay that he would have had. He'll have to work to 65 (just a tad less, really, if you keep in mind he was flying as an FO for five years and is bringing home money) to make up lost income because of his inability to upgrade because of the retirement age.

If they change the rule today, everyone that is a captain right now gets five more years in their seat. Everyone that's an FO gets five more years as an FO before they upgrade due to attrition. Granted, I know not everyone would stay to 65 and it isn't a flat 5 year increase, but there's no way around the fact that FOs will stay FOs longer. People looking to get hired by a carrier will have to wait up to 5 years longer.

As far as my higher pay rate than yours as a CA when I retire. I don't see current trends backing that up. How many pay scales keep up even with inflation, nevermind the concessionary contracts as of late?

 

[Deadbug]

It's all about me...erhem...one's perspective

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 am sorry your timing was not good as was your choice of company...unfortunately that happens to a lot of people in this business. In hindsight, I'm not thrilled about the choice I made either--but we are where we are and we all knew the rules when we entered the game. The rules help you sometime, and sometimes they don't--just depends on your situation...ask some of those who've been furloughed how much they've lost.

I'm glad you were able to get hired at your company at age 42; not that long ago, if you were over 30, you could just about forget working for a part 121 carrier; so in some ways you are very lucky.

I know I'm probably wasting my breath, you will see things from your viewpoint and how they affect you right now. Anything any of us who oppose the change say on this topic will not change your outlook. Saying something repeatedly and forcefully enough doesn't make it any truer and more valid than what I've stated in this and my previous post.

Deadbug

 

[Patriot328]

To your fear that “much more stringent medical exams that will probably cause more people to medical out before 60”, then I say let that happen. We have all seen the 30 or 40 something age pilots who fail to take care of themselves physically by being over weight, high cholesterol, etc. So it is these same people who would claim the right to have my job just because I turn 60. I for one have always made sure that I would be able to pass the FAA Class I physical with flying colors at 65 or more. I eat right, exercise allot and I can still max score the Army Physical Fitness Test. I have paid my dues, flew combat missions in Vietnam, helped build the success that my airline company enjoys today and I should not have to start all over again at the bottom of some Part 135 outfit

I commend you for taking care of yourself, and I agree with you, taking care of yourself is part of the rules for this "game". We all know if a pilot doesn't take care of himself, then there's a good chance they could be sidelined before the clock runs out.

 

[Deadbug]

...It's not 5 more years as a captain like the people that are pushing this. It's five more years as a junior FO. The increase in longterm pay is nil for someone on the bottom of a seniority list...

BINGO!

 

[Klako]

I think most junior (young) pilots do not want to see the age 60 rule changed because it will stagnate their careers for five years on the bottom of a seniority list (probably a tad less because not everyone will go to age 65 even if allowed). It's not 5 more years as a captain like the people that are pushing this. It's five more years as a junior FO. The increase in longterm pay is nil for someone on the bottom of a seniority list. Also, the unintended consequences of this will be much more stringent medical exams that will probably cause more people to medical out before 60, let alone 65.

I am here to warn you that unless you are independently wealthy, the only viable retirement plan you can count on is planning to work past 60. Do not count on Social Security and your defined benefit plans will likely be a thing of the past. Even the taxpayer supported Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is on a course to failure. A stroke of the pen, however, (Passage of the legislation to increase the age 60 rule to 65) would relieve the pressure that under funded pension plans of bankrupt carriers being dumped on the PBGC creates. Even at reduced pension payments, the burden is awesome. Now that more and more carriers could be facing bankruptcy, the problem is increasing rapidly. US Air, United Airlines and now Delta Airlines have all terminated their pilot pension plans and the list will likely grow. The remaining airline companies are struggling with the financial burden of continuing to operate while still funding their own pension plans. This creates an uneven playing field with their competitors who have lesser operating costs, having been relieved of their pension burdens. The remaining companies then will be unable to compete with their competitor’s lower operating costs thus increasing pressures for the otherwise healthy companies to terminate their own pension plans as well. This ugly scenario could soon likely be played-out in other industries as well. Delaying their own retirement may be the only solution for individuals caught up in this. Big business is the only winner in all of this. Both tax payers and individuals will be the losers if the age 60 retirement age for airline pilots is not increased.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

If they change the rule today, everyone that is a captain right now gets five more years in their seat.

Not exactly.

Everyone that is on the seniority list gets 5 more years in their seat. ALL seats...including Captain. Yes, it's "5 more years as a junior F/O" with sucky schedules, etc. It's also 5 more years as a senior F/O, with sweet layovers and holidays off. It's 5 more years as a junior Captain, (back to the sucky schedules) and 5 more years at the top of the heap, flying easy schedules with lots of credit hours, and plowing half your income back into your retirement...a retirement that can no longer be guaranteed by either your company OR the government.

It's true that increasing the retirement age will reduce the need for pilots. However, people not on a seniority list don't concern me that much.

The bottom line is simply this...Do you want to spend (assuming you're hired at 30) 30 years as an airline pilot and 5 years working at Home Depot, or 35 years as an airline pilot? That's it. Thirty years in this profession, or thirty-five? That's the only question you have to ask yourself. All this cr*pola about what the rules used to be, and what our "expectations" were when we started, are specious at best. What do you want to be doing between the ages of 60 and 65? Driving a jet, or driving a forklift?

If you tell me you're looking forward to driving the forklift, I'll understand. Not everybody is cut-out to be a pilot.

This is so simple, my kids understand it. My neighbors understand it. Judging by the way he wags his tail, even my dog understands it. I don't understand why people that are supposed to be intelligent, deductive thinkers don't understand it.

The only substantive reason I've yet to hear for not rescinding the "Age 60 " rule is to accelerate upgrades throughout the ranks. The junior guys would like to legislate the senior guys out of their jobs. If safety really were the issue, and they wanted to do some "selective thinning of the herd" in order to get me out of my seat, there are ways they could do it that wouldn't penalize me for having the foresight to be born before them, and in a manner that would enhance safety.

Simply tighten up on standards.

Think about it. We could encourage our employers to task us with multiple, compounded emergencies during upgrades and recurrent checks. Ask our line-check airmen to fail a certain number of crewmembers each quarter. Have pro-standards adopt certain height/weight/fitness standards for all crewmembers, with discipline "up to and including termination" for any crewmember not in compliance. We could stop worrying about how old a guy is, and start worrying about how to get the dead meats and weak-sticks off the property. You'd get the enhanced safety that management and the public wants, along with the quicker upgrades that you want.

That's assuming you're still around.

I have a feeling that when it's your a$$ that's facing the chopper, you're going to become a whole lot kinder and gentler to your brothers in the profession.

 

[Patriot328]

Not exactly.

Everyone that is on the seniority list gets 5 more years in their seat. ALL seats...including Captain. Yes, it's "5 more years as a junior F/O" with sucky schedules, etc. It's also 5 more years as a senior F/O, with sweet layovers and holidays off. It's 5 more years as a junior Captain, (back to the sucky schedules) and 5 more years at the top of the heap, flying easy schedules with lots of credit hours, and plowing half your income back into your retirement...a retirement that can no longer be guaranteed by either your company OR the government.

No, not exactly...

If one is 4999 out of 5000 on a seniority list and it's going to take them 10 years to upgrade then spend 20 years as a captain and they change the rule to 65, it will now take them 5 more years to upgrade because no one is retiring for five more years, putting their upgrade at 15 years. After their 15 year upgrade (now at age 45 instead of 40), they still have 20 years as a captain.

If number 1 at the company is about to turn sixty after spending 10 years as an FO and 20 years as a CA and they change the rule, he is about to spend another five years as a CA; getting 25 years as a CA and 10 years as an FO.

This does not only apply to just CA upgrade, but vacations, bidding, getting off reserve, everything. EVERYONE on a seniority list stagnates for five years.


I wouldn't really care so much about it (and to be honest I don't.. change it.. most people at my airline are so burned out I don't think they'll stick around much past 60 anyway), but it just find it so hypocritical that the very people that benefitted from the rule now want it changed when it's not working out so well for them.

 

[Klako]

Not exactly.

Everyone that is on the seniority list gets 5 more years in their seat. ALL seats...including Captain. Yes, it's "5 more years as a junior F/O" with sucky schedules, etc. It's also 5 more years as a senior F/O, with sweet layovers and holidays off. It's 5 more years as a junior Captain, (back to the sucky schedules) and 5 more years at the top of the heap, flying easy schedules with lots of credit hours, and plowing half your income back into your retirement...a retirement that can no longer be guaranteed by either your company OR the government.

It's true that increasing the retirement age will reduce the need for pilots. However, people not on a seniority list don't concern me that much.

The bottom line is simply this...Do you want to spend (assuming you're hired at 30) 30 years as an airline pilot and 5 years working at Home Depot, or 35 years as an airline pilot? That's it. Thirty years in this profession, or thirty-five? That's the only question you have to ask yourself. All this cr*pola about what the rules used to be, and what our "expectations" were when we started, are specious at best. What do you want to be doing between the ages of 60 and 65? Driving a jet, or driving a forklift?

If you tell me you're looking forward to driving the forklift, I'll understand. Not everybody is cut-out to be a pilot.

This is so simple, my kids understand it. My neighbors understand it. Judging by the way he wags his tail, even my dog understands it. I don't understand why people that are supposed to be intelligent, deductive thinkers don't understand it.

The only substantive reason I've yet to hear for not rescinding the "Age 60 " rule is to accelerate upgrades throughout the ranks. The junior guys would like to legislate the senior guys out of their jobs. If safety really were the issue, and they wanted to do some "selective thinning of the herd" in order to get me out of my seat, there are ways they could do it that wouldn't penalize me for having the foresight to be born before them, and in a manner that would enhance safety.

Simply tighten up on standards.

Think about it. We could encourage our employers to task us with multiple, compounded emergencies during upgrades and recurrent checks. Ask our line-check airmen to fail a certain number of crewmembers each quarter. Have pro-standards adopt certain height/weight/fitness standards for all crewmembers, with discipline "up to and including termination" for any crewmember not in compliance. We could stop worrying about how old a guy is, and start worrying about how to get the dead meats and weak-sticks off the property. You'd get the enhanced safety that management and the public wants, along with the quicker upgrades that you want.

That's assuming you're still around.

I have a feeling that when it's your a$$ that's facing the chopper, you're going to become a whole lot kinder and gentler to your brothers in the profession.

DITO! Whistlin' Dan

Tell that dog of yours, GOOD BOY!

 

[Sluggo_63]

...opposing a change to the age 60 rule and that is age discrimination, nothing more and nothing less.

So... forcing retirement at age 65 isn't?

Why don't you become an air traffic controller? Oh, that's right, you have to be younger than 31 to start, with a mandatory retirement age of 56. Crap! Hope you're going to change that one, too.

How about serving your community as a policeman or fireman? Retirement at 55 there too?

You know, if I were you, I'd stop flying now, because you have a whole lot of lobbying to get done on behalf of yourself and these other groups who are 'discriminated' against. Or is it only about you?

 

[Sluggo_63]

DUDE, it's 5 more years at EVERY seat! Why is that so hard for people to understand?

NO IT IS NOT! Why is that so hard for you to understand? YOU are not spending 5 more years in EVERY seat. YOU are spending five more years in YOUR seat. The junior pilot is spending five more years in EVERY SEAT.

If, at age sixty, you want to spend five more years as a second officer... go ahead... you can spend five more years there, then upgrade and spend five more years as a first officer, then after your five extra years as a first officer are up, you can go back to your Captain's seat, have at it. NOW it's even.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

You know, if I were you, I'd stop flying now, because you have a whole lot of lobbying to get done on behalf of yourself and these other groups who are 'discriminated' against. Or is it only about you?

If I'm not mistaken, the "Age 60" rule that you are so against changing goes back to about 1958 or so. If you want to keep the rules as they were then, fine. But let's keep ALL the rules, OK? For example...

• With few exceptions, passenger service will be operated by aircraft of 25-60 seat capacity, at rates that max out at roughly the equivalent to the Regional/LCC carriers of today.

• Air cargo will be the bastard stepchild of aviation, operated largely with obsolete or cast-off mainline equipment. It will be flown by crews who are paid at rates that are about half that of the Legacy carriers, and their accident rates will be appalling.

• Medical waivers will be virtually unheard of. One heart attack, one occurance of high blood pressure, diabetes, or substance abuse, will permanently disqualify an airline pilot from further service. Likewise, many major surgical procedures. No bypasses, no teflon knees or hips, no nuthin...

• Legacy carriers will rarely hire pilots over 30 years of age. Once past 30, the best job most pilots can hope for will be non-sked cargo or aircraft sales. (Unfortunately, that will keep ex-military pilots out of contention for Legacy-carrier jobs, but "they knew the rules going in," right?)

Yea, I like "the rules" we had in 1958. I like them so much, I think we ought to go back to them. If we could just do that, I think this "problem" some guys are apparently having with "upgrades not happening quickly enough" will remedy itself...

 

[GuppyWN]

I'm sure someone has done the math but I'm gonna have another go at it. I'm 37. I'm an FO. Captains at my airline make roughly 80k/yr more than me. I am "guessing" that the length of stay in my seat could be another 3 years. That's 240k lost cash. Compound that 3 times (money doubles every 7 years at 7%) and you're at a cool million bucks. Plus the loss of profit sharing, 401k match and you can see that it will cost me well over a $1,000,000 to sit another 3 years in the right seat.

If I stay from 60 to 65 I COULD earn another $1,000,000 THEN. I'd rather have it now cause there is no promise that I'll be healthy when I'm 61 and beyond.

This is all demographics. The older you are the more you care about this issue. I'll ask all of you one question.

Were you riding the "this is discrimination" horse 20 years ago? 10 years ago? I doubt it. ALPA is still against Age 60 repeal. Guys have lost thousands or millions in pensions. 5 years ago they were fine but now they don't have the money to retire it's "discrimination."

ICAO will go to 65 for ONE pilot in the cockpit in November. What if I'm a 61 year old FO and my Captain is also 61. I don't get to fly that trip. THAT IS DICRIMINATION!

Let's all just be honest with one another and tell it like it is. It's not about age discrimination, it's about $$$.

Gup

 

[KCPilot]

I'm sure someone has done the math but I'm gonna have another go at it. I'm 37. I'm an FO. Captains at my airline make roughly 80k/yr more than me. I am "guessing" that the length of stay in my seat could be another 3 years. That's 240k lost cash. Compound that 3 times (money doubles every 7 years at 7%) and you're at a cool million bucks. Plus the loss of profit sharing, 401k match and you can see that it will cost me well over a $1,000,000 to sit another 3 years in the right seat.

If I stay from 60 to 65 I COULD earn another $1,000,000 THEN. I'd rather have it now cause there is no promise that I'll be healthy when I'm 61 and beyond.

This is all demographics. The older you are the more you care about this issue. I'll ask all of you one question.

Were you riding the "this is discrimination" horse 20 years ago? 10 years ago? I doubt it. ALPA is still against Age 60 repeal. Guys have lost thousands or millions in pensions. 5 years ago they were fine but now they don't have the money to retire it's "discrimination."

ICAO will go to 65 for ONE pilot in the cockpit in November. What if I'm a 61 year old FO and my Captain is also 61. I don't get to fly that trip. THAT IS DICRIMINATION!

Let's all just be honest with one another and tell it like it is. It's not about age discrimination, it's about $$$.

Gup

I agree with that and more and would like to thank them for the delay in my career!