Age 60 informal poll

[humuakalaka]

NAY! NAY!! NAY!!!

I WOULD be in favor of it, however, if it included a provision so that the hypocritical older pilots of today who would most benefit from age-65 would not be able to stay until 65. Where were their voices 10, 15, 20, and 25 years ago? They are nothing more than hyprocrites.

I would support a rule that phased in age 65 in some way. For example, if the limit is raised by one year each year beginning five to ten years from now, I would supprt that. I would even support a rule that says no current ATP holder is able to work until age 65. In other words, all pilots of today at almost every airline must retire at age 60.

 

[pilotyip]

humua, plenty of ATPs are now working beyond age 60 in Part 135 ops requiring an ATP, why should a ruling deprive them of their livelyhoods?

 

[pipe]

humua, plenty of ATPs are now working beyond age 60 in Part 135 ops requiring an ATP, why should a ruling deprive them of their livelyhoods?

I agree. There is no need for a ruling. An effective rule has been in place for quite some time.

PIPE

 

[Flopgut]

Don't be concerned about me sticking around. I have been fortunate and I hope to go a little early but one never knows what life has in store.
quote]

Congrats on being able to retire early, that's a good thing. That's what we all need to be working on. Our position should be working more toward: work to 60, and retire early if you want. Not, retire at 60, work longer if you want. We need to change our mentality. We have a more labor friendly environment on the horizon. For instance, (among other things) we need a retirement vehicle like the railroads have. Put in 10 years FAR 121 flying and you get some type of pension benefit. We change the age, we can kiss anything like that goodbye. We'll fight an uphill battle for any raises and all other improvements. Changing the age handicaps ALL collective bargaining going forward.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

I do not believe that a pension vehicle after 10 or 15 years will be attainable, regardless of the economic or political environment. I doubt that you would be suceesful in changing the mentality of pilots, at least by much. If it was a job that you did not enjoy, love, or need, there would be little or no resistance to maintaining the status quo.

The result of the change taking place probably won't be as bad as the anti-change people predict, nor as beneficial for the group as a whole anticipates.

 

[General Lee]

I do not believe that a pension vehicle after 10 or 15 years will be attainable, regardless of the economic or political environment. I doubt that you would be suceesful in changing the mentality of pilots, at least by much. If it was a job that you did not enjoy, love, or need, there would be little or no resistance to maintaining the status quo.

The result of the change taking place probably won't be as bad as the anti-change people predict, nor as beneficial for the group as a whole anticipates.

Let's all take a vote and get over with it. I predict it will NOT pass. And I don't care if Afganistan or whoever allows their pilots to fly until 65. They also stone people to death in public executions. I guess we should too....


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Flopgut]

I do not believe that a pension vehicle after 10 or 15 years will be attainable, regardless of the economic or political environment. I doubt that you would be suceesful in changing the mentality of pilots, at least by much. If it was a job that you did not enjoy, love, or need, there would be little or no resistance to maintaining the status quo.

The result of the change taking place probably won't be as bad as the anti-change people predict, nor as beneficial for the group as a whole anticipates.

Check out www.rrb.gov. Rail has a pretty good deal. Considering they still have these benefits, and why they got them in the first place, I think we're selling ourselves short. We don't need to offer to work to 65, and it's not asking for a handout, airline workers have bought and paid for this sort of thing. In the coming years things could get very labor friendly. Perfect timing for comprehensive retirement benefits for all FAR 121 pilots.

I agree this won't be as good as the change crowd hopes. But I disagree with it not being as bad as pilots like me believe. There are too many unemployed and underemployed pilots out there. Five more years being furloughed is five more years of being furloughed. We have to factor that in.

 

[Flopgut]

I agree this won't be as good as the change crowd hopes. But I disagree with it not being as bad as pilots like me believe. There are too many unemployed and underemployed pilots out there. Five more years being furloughed is five more years of being furloughed. We have to factor that in.

Interesting. Mention concern for the underemployed and unemplyed and a 97 page thread comes to a screeching halt.

I guess you APAAD guys don't like to thyink about them.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Interesting. Mention concern for the underemployed and unemplyed and a 97 page thread comes to a screeching halt.

I guess you APAAD guys don't like to thyink about them.

Hardly a week passes that I don't talk with someone who has been furloughed or slid backwards in this business. I cannot think of one who is against changing the rule , at least philosophically. Yes, many would honestly prefer to see it change the day after they get hired or upgrade to the seat/position that the current environment has kept from them.

The age 60/65 rule had nothing to do with causing someone to be furloughed or underemployed abd it should remain an independent argument. If we want to factor in those that are un/underemployed, we should go all the way and limit flight time to say 70 hours a month, no extra fly/overtime, etc.

The best thing that can be done for those on the outside looking in is to return our companies to prosperity through smart and efficient management. Unfortunately, we have very little input on the direction and priorities of management, in most cases.

One should be hired because of growth and opportunity, not because as a replacement qualified person who suffers a federally mandated firing.

 

[Flopgut]

Let's overlay the concept of smart and efficient management onto our activities as airline pilots. Pilot Inc. OK?

Would smart management:

Include enacting a policy that is predominately opposed?

Push a policy that stymies growth?

Push a policy that will hurt collective bargaining?

Includes an unique burden of responsibility on one crewmember with zero additional compensation?

The list goes on and on. Consider the previously mentioned numbers of pilots thought to benefit from this (seems small), this rule will be a huge detrimant to many and help a very few. That's not smart management.