Age 60 informal poll

[Whistlin' Dan]

Dan, You spin eloquently about unity and brotherhood, but do you ever consider that because the majority of your union brothers want you gone at 60, that maybe the best thing for the craft is for you to be gone at 60?

The best thing for the craft, or the best thing for you, personally? And are we talking about pilots here, or terrorists? Because from your tone, you sound less like a professional, and more like the Ku Klux Klan.

Maybe I oughtta fetch up de wife and chillun's and gets to gettin' outta 'dis ol' town. It sounds like dem brotha's is fixin' to ride on my a$$ tonight. Dey's plannin' to run ol' Dan off'n his farm, take his land and his mule fo' dey selves...

You are correct, I DO believe in unity and brotherhood among pilots. But I also believe that "rank has it's priviliges," and that the seniority system, in which "rank" is conferred largely by date-of-hire, is the best one for our profession. Therefore, I would NOT expect that anybody in your pilot group senior to you would forego a system bid, upgrade, or opportunity to work, simply to accelerate your advancement to the left seat. I would further expect that when you are a senior crewmember, you will not forego any of those things for junior crewmembers, either.

There are NO career expectations past 60 in this gig...

That might have been true at one time, but that is no longer the case. Many of us DO have career expectations that extend beyond 60. The proposal to change the rule has been bandied about for at least 15 years that I'm aware of. Weren't you paying attention? You knew (or should have known) that a change was in the works. If your argument is that I "took the job knowing that 60 was the mandatory retirement age," then I would counter by saying that you took the job knowing that it would likely be raised to 65 during the course of your career.

The argument is a wash, at best.

But since this discussion is about "expectations" (both yours and mine), allow me summarize what mine are. I expect them (as I have for the last 10 years) to raise the retirement age to 65. I expect most current flight crewmembers to stay in their seats for as many of those additional years as possible. I expect that will slow progression to the left seat for junior crewmembers somewhat, but I further expect that they will recoup that loss (and more) in the last 5 years of their career.

There! Now that you've been officially informed of what you can "expect," you have a decision to make. If you feel that the forthcoming changes to the retirement age are going to make this profession untenable for you, this would be an excellent time to leave it. You can cash in your 401K, and buy a Kinko's franchise. Spend your "Golden Years" nursing paper cuts, cleaning up ink spills, unjamming copy machines, unclogging toilets, and b*tching about life in general.

Or, you can fly and b*tch.

It's a "no-brainer," as far as I'm concerned...

 

[Klako]

Dan, You spin eloquently about unity and brotherhood, but do you ever consider that because the majority of your union brothers want you gone at 60, that maybe the best thing for the craft is for you to be gone at 60? you are not characterizing or observing this problem correctly at all, you ARE the problem. There are NO career expectations past age 60 in this gig, if you want to stay, it's the same difference as. you want to be a replacement worker. Best thing for this profession is for retirements to remain 60 years old.

The former ALPA president Henry Duffy said, "Pilots over age 55 comprise only 5–6 percent of the total membership. The other 95 percent selfishly view the forced retirement of older pilots as their guaranteed path and a God-given right to their own early promotion."

This is a political issue smelling of greed and selfishness. ALPA and APA have been milking the “Age 60 rule” for all it’s worth for much to long a time. It is high time that the Congress takes the upper hand and puts the FAA and junior ALPA pilots on the right track.

 

[Klako]

"Anyone who embarks upon a career path with the expectation of a 30 year uninterrupted career with good pay, good working conditions and a good retirement needs to check their expectations." Unfortunately, this logic only goes half the distance. If they see the pitfalls ahead, why do they intentionally burn the bridge that could facilitate a crossing? Is this another case of decision making without benefit of empirical data? Ladies and gentlemen, what ever you decide about the age 60 rule, you might want to reconsider the commitment of yourself to a course of action that reduces your credibility, depends upon the age 60 rule to save you from the incompetent, supports arbitrary restrictions upon your career options, burns a bridge ahead of you or sacrifices long term objectives for the tyranny of the urgent.--- From a letter published in the UAL MEC magazine "Leading Edge", SO John Houser (UAL) brings forth some compelling reasons why FAR 121.383c (age 60 rule) should be abolished.​

 

[Klako]

The following unions and pilot employee groups have gone on record that they support a change the Age 60 Rule:

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES PILOTS ASSOCIATION (Independent)
JET BLUE (Independent)
AMERICAN TRANS AIR/ATA (ALPA Master Executive Council)
AMERICA WEST MEC (ALPA Master Executive Council)
SPIRIT (ALPA Master Executive Council)
CONTINENTAL (ALPA Local Executive Councils of Houston and Newark)
US AIRWAYS (ALPA Local Executive Council of Philadelphia)
IBT Teamsters Airline Division


In 1968 this was ALPA’s official stance on the Age 60 Rule:

“ALPA CONTNUES OPPOSITION TO AGE 60 RETIREMENT RULE . The Air Line Pilots Association strongly advocates that the Federal Air Regulation in its arbitrary age 60 retirement provision is unreasonably discriminating against all of the air line pilots. Shortening a pilots career with no realistic justification is cheating the public as well as the industry. ALPA has expended and continues to expend its utmost efforts in attempting to overcome this highly dissatisfying and unfair federal regulation.”


Sadly, ALPA turned traitor to it’s senior members after supporting a change in the rule for over twenty years. ALPA has now institutionalized age discrimination through an accelerated job advancement scheme for its junior pilots.
One would have to beg answers these questions:
When did younger pilots became more valuable than experienced pilots?
Why would ALPA, a labor union, actively support a rule that discriminates against its own members, forces them to leave their workplaces and leaves them with reduced benefits?

 

[Flopgut]

deleted

 

[Flopgut]

deleted

 

[§kyye Candy]

you might want to reconsider the commitment of yourself to a course of action that reduces your credibility, depends upon the age 60 rule to save you from the incompetent, supports arbitrary restrictions upon your career options, burns a bridge ahead of you or sacrifices long term objectives for the tyranny of the urgent.--- From a letter published in the UAL MEC magazine "Leading Edge", SO John Houser (UAL) brings forth some compelling reasons why FAR 121.383c (age 60 rule) should be abolished.​

So let me get this straight... not only do the contracts negotiated in recent years (at most carriers) no longer support an even mediocre lifestyle that is better than that of the regulatory minimums imposed on employers by each state for benefits and work rules, but airline industry management teams are working to basically abolish legacy carriers as we have known them (pssst - that's you guys out there who want to work longer) and replace them with the "new and improved" variety airlines that push the envelope of work rules to the FAR mins AND have basically zero scope limitations... and then replace the pilot group - the "You're lucky to have a job, jr - shut up and fly!" mentality - and the argument we want to hand them as the economy spools up (eventually) in the next phase of negotiations is, "But... you guys now have 5 more years to make up the difference! That's why we increased your retirement rule!"

So now we can work MORE HOURS, MORE days away from home, 5 MORE YEARS of our lives working instead of living (finally) - because we can't afford to retire at 60 anymore, EARN LESS per year on average due to lack of seat progression, take HUGE cuts in compensation/benefits, have ZERO RETIREMENT (except what we provide for on our own) AND give them a reason to justify it all in the name of doing us all some sort of so-called favor? Fantastic.

 

[Klako]

So let me get you straight, then you favor institutionalized age discrimination through an accelerated job advancement scheme for junior pilots.

 

[§kyye Candy]

um, no...

So let me get you straight, then you favor institutionalized age discrimination through an accelerated job advancement scheme for junior pilots.

I favor a system that offers an opportunity for success to EVERYONE equally and one that doesn't change the rules mid-stream to favor a particular age group that has already had their shot. No offense.

Considering the recent and current economic environment and lack of available jobs for many QUALIFIED candidates, it takes some serious balls to use the term "escalated job advancement scheme." Wouldn't some of those "junior pilots" be people who lost out on living the dream in the first place and got spanked out of their "Leading Industry Contracts?"

That's not even a logical argument.

What I am arguing for is MORE instead of LESS - all the way around - period. For everyone. If you could earn the same amount of money (or more) flying for 30 years instead of 35, wouldn't you rather do that? And then, hey - look at that - there's still an option out there for those who want to continue flying, whatever the reason - Corporate flying. Seems to me that to extend the time of service while decreasing lifestyle, benefits and TOTAL compensation package in all is more of a management style solution. Power to the shareholders, I guess. I am more interested in living a good quality life - and in having a real one post-career!

Oh, and by the way - is it just me, or doesn't anyone get that the true "greed" factor here would be in extending the retirement age for the select group who is currently senior? After all, if you are talking about fairness and equity, let's be realistic about who got the better end of the industry spoils. Seems like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Klako]

I have the perfect solution for junior airline pilots out there who say that a change to the age 60 rule would be unfair to them 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 both Greybeard and Whippersnapper by giving everyone just enough time to build their 401K with enough to survive on in retirement. Of course, my solution would 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.