Age 60 informal poll

[Chest Rockwell]

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? I am not convinced that that is the case. Other than the ALPA vote, which some will dispute, I do not see the grass roots support working against the change. Nearly all that I fly with and interact with are opposed simply based upon principle. SWA pilots have voted twice and have been recently polled on the subject, all supporting the change. Monday a new vote will begin on the subject at SWA. Perhaps it will change, but I doubt it. If the vote dictates such, I fully expect our union to stop spending funds to enact the change.

Push a policy that stymies growth? I do not see the connection. To fire a proven capable employee so that he/she must be replaced and result in a new unknown being hired into the organization does not equal growth. If anything, the age 60 rule makes growth more expensive which reduces profit = reduced job security.

Push a policy that will hurt collective bargaining? I hear the cries that management will want to reduce retirement funding just because one is allowed to work longer. I do not see that happening. Admittedly the labor/management relationship is a little different where I work ( I haven't been with an ALPA carrier since the early 90's). Where have all the cries been for the last few decades to protect and dem,and equal benefits for those who choose to retire early?

Includes an unique burden of responsibility on one crewmember with zero additional compensation? Additional compensation exists in the opportunity to have a career that has five more years of earnings. No one seemed to worry about the burden of those Pt.135 pilots who " entered the game" with no mandatory retirement age only to 121 rules imposed upon them.

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.

I believe that it is smart management to stand against a rule that is fundamentally wrong. We can argue all day as to the number who benefit and the number who won't. We will never really know until the rule is changed. I personally doubt that a majority will hang around until 65. How many will have the rug pulled out from under them when in their late 40's or 50's and have to start over?

I go back to this question: If the rule did not exist today, could you justify enacting a mandatory retirement at age 60? NO! I know that you can make the same argument for age 65 but changing the rule will give pilots the opportunity to go out on their own terms over a greater period of time.

 

[Flopgut]

I go back to this question: If the rule did not exist today, could you justify enacting a mandatory retirement at age 60? NO! I know that you can make the same argument for age 65 but changing the rule will give pilots the opportunity to go out on their own terms over a greater period of time.

If there were no age limit now, and something happened that created the need for an age 60 limit (yike! let's avoid that), you can bet we would be dealing from a position of strength. We would have a solid arguement for solvent retirements (maybe like RRB I mentioned earlier), social security benefits at 60, enhanced medical coverage, pay raises and other monetary increases would be a foregone conclusion. Unfortunately, the equal opposite will be the case when we increase the retirement age. Money and benefits will be outright lost and otherwise remortgaged making this profession even more provisional than it is now. Redistribute the wealth of the profession without specifically fixing the retirement metrics, what happens? Age 70. Then 75, 80, 90....

The absence of a set retirement date is not good IMHO. There are too many FA employees who are "going out on there own terms" at age 80! Why support cradle to grave employment for the current group when that's more than can be granted other employees in a seniority system? Get rid of seniority, fix retirement dollars regardless of age, and you've got an OK idea. Retirement criteria should firstmost be in dollars and not age, but some people need a reason to retire.

 

[pilotyip]

How about age 70, it is taking too long for this age 65 thing.

 

[whymeworry?]

Nay Way

 

[big pimpn']

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/29/national/main2410945.shtml

We will know tomorrow.

 

[groggy]

How about age 70, it is taking too long for this age 65 thing.

I mean really. The issue stands that 60 is discriminatory. If everyone is treated fairly, and truly fairly, (which is what this country is all about today) then there should be no age limit whatsoever. Because someday, 65 will be too young. So rather than find a specific number/age to shoot for...abolish the entire thing altogether. As long as you are healthy, fly till the end.

Have faith in every single 1st class medical that is issued in this country. Or do we not trust that every one is a true representation of the individual's health and ability to continue a mission to its end...solo.

 

[airdog757]

we however live in reality not a fantasy world...........
Let's now push for age 55. something closer to the ATC controllers.

He** they even earn more than Airline pilots do these days..........Its seem that at least they have their eye on the ball............which is "the end game"

Go fly a piper if you really must.


Reino................out!

 

[pilotyip]

roger groggy, abolsih all age limits, just like 135 and 125

 

[Falconjet]

Just got tired of seeing yips hidden message at the end of this thread.

Sorry.

FJ

 

[pilotyip]

Falconet if you never expect anything you are never disappointed