Age 60 informal poll

[Whistlin' Dan]

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.

Then the rules can never be changed, because no matter when you change them, it's going to be "mid-stream" for everybody on the seniority list.

Don't forget that this set of "rules" that we all live by, and which you seem so reluctant to change, cover far more than just the age at which we must retire. Your CBA is one set of "rules." So is your Employee Handbook, GOM, FAR's, and even the city, state, and federal ordinances under which we operate. ALL come under constant scrutiny, ALL are changed on a daily basis, and ALL have some bearing on our income and QOL. Those changes do not always favor each and every individual, but generally, they act towards the betterment of the system, and to those who work under it, as a whole.

When the current retirement age was adopted, it forced a lot of guys out of the cockpit at 60 who had counted on working to the age of 65..."mid-stream," as you put it. They got gyped out of 5 years of productivity then, and we're just asking for it back now. Think of it as a "corrective action." And if the first batch of guys to benefit from this change owe anything to anybody, it's not to you junior guys...it's to the ones who retired ahead of us, thus providing us an opportunity to move up.

Keeping a "bad policy" in effect so as not to offend a certain demographic is never "good policy." Who knows...once this "age 60" thing is gone, maybe "affirmative action" will be next on the list of rules we could all live without...

 

[Flopgut]

Dan:

You missed the "equally" part.

You attach your arguement to that of a larger issue attempting to give your arguement more credibility. This is nothing like affirmative action. This IS an issue which happens to affect our working reality and is polarizing. Many who stand to benefit the most get excited and nothing else matters but themselves. Look at Klako: His "plan B" of working 20 years then quitting appeals to him because it helps him. He'll take anything so long as it benefits his own interests. As a union, as individual union members, we cannot feed that sort of greed imperative. We have to let the majority speak for us. We react to whatever is dealt us, but as a union we must strive for consistency and evennes. Normal, and predictable retirement progression is no less important than DOH in this business, to artificially adjust either requires careful consideration.

I would like to see some sort of compromise at this time. But I'm genuinely concerned about what the age change contingent will want next. If we let you guys work to 65 and forgo seniority progression wholsale, it's a bad thing. Plus, in less than 3 years after the change, the whole argument will start up again! You all will want 66, then 68, then till you get too sick; It'll be the same old arguement, Klako wont be ready and you will be equating your retirement to all forms of discrimination. You have to retire someday.

*Look, let's keep our discussion civil OK? Your post #311 was dispicable. I'm not nearly as angered about this discussion as you might think so keep it mellow.

 

[Klako]

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.

Talking about “changing the rules in mid stream”. When I first chose to work at my present airline job in 1989, we were at that time a very stable Part 153 carrier and I felt very secure that I could continue flying in that job until retiring at age 65. Then in 1995 the FAA forced us to convert to Part 121, destroying my plans of flying to 65.
We all need a rule that poses the least harm to all across the board. There are just too many of us out there who worked for Braniff, Pan Am, Eastern Frontier, or other carriers gone bankrupt, merged or otherwise forced you to seek employment elsewhere, starting on probation wages....again. Many pilots have four or five different uniforms in their closet, gaining seniority only in age, and need to work beyond age 60 to enjoy a decent retirement. Only the largest majors have the big pensions, and therefore are against any change, however, with the demise of the younger hiring age, many of their newer pilots are realizing the possibility of inadequate pensions at age 60. Most, if not all, smaller or newer carriers do not have a fixed benefit retirement. For those pilots, retiring at age 60 could be their worst nightmare. Realization of this fact may come for the non-forward thinking as they get nearer to the guillotine of the Age 60 Rule.
We all need to have a rule that best assures our future not one that just placates our situation early in our careers.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

If we let you guys work to 65 and forgo seniority progression wholsale, it's a bad thing. Plus, in less than 3 years after the change, the whole argument will start up again! You all will want 66, then 68, then till you get too sick; It'll be the same old arguement, Klako wont be ready and you will be equating your retirement to all forms of discrimination. You have to retire someday.

Nobody's proposing to "forgo seniority wholesale" just raise the retirement age. Change ONE digit, among the hundreds of thousands, in the FAR's. Does changing that one digit create ripples throughout the industry? Of course. But the ripples that inconvenience you now, may be what allows your own vessel to become unstuck from the mud flats later on. I don't care how carefully you plan for your own future, you won't know what your financial situation is going to be at retirement until you get there.

As for extending the retirement age to 68 and beyond, unfortunately, you're probably right. Some guys would fly forever, or "Until [their] beard gets tangled in the propeller" as Ernie Gann used to say. But I think you'll find that support for raising it any further will wane quickly once you get past 65.

 

[Draginass]

Leave the retirement age alone. I want what meager retirement I get at 60 and not wait till later. Just because some people haven't planned their finances when they had the chance doesn't mean I should have to work 5 years longer for what's mine.

 

[skiandsurf]

Age 60 rule...

We have all planned our careers with the thought of the "old guys" moving out at age 60. Well the times are changing. Interesting that this week was the 60th birthdays for Clinton and Bush. I really wouldnt want Clinton flying me around, but would feel OK with Bush in the flightdeck.

Here is a possible "fair" solution. When a pilot turns 60, they can continue to fly as a First Officer. Yeah, that would suck, but unemployment sucks more. This would keep the Captain Upgrades coming.

 

[The Prussian]

Optional Insurance Policy

Leave the retirement age alone. I want what meager retirement I get at 60 and not wait till later. Just because some people haven't planned their finances when they had the chance doesn't mean I should have to work 5 years longer for what's mine.

Drag....just suppose you lose your medical for 5 years :erm: (Yes, it does happen!). Not something you necessarily planned on, but then you didn't ask the Feds for their untimely decision affecting your well-planned financial scenario. Life doesn't always go the way we'd like it to go... but the option of being able to go an extra five years can suddenly look real smart. Just view it as an optional insurance policy that we all could use.

Prussian

 

[Klako]

It is high time for the United States to follow the lead of forward thinking
nations around the world who have broken through the arbitrary age 60
barrier. The Age 60 Rule is going to be repealed. Repeal is long overdue, and this time - more than ever before - the FAA knows it, pilots know it, passengers know it, and our senators and congressmen - whose offices acknowledge that the majority of the calls and letters and faxes they receive favor repeal (despite ALPA's best and costliest efforts) - know it.
Shame on those of you who are still in “lock step” with ALPA and APA as traitors to your own senior union members. Institutionalized age discrimination through ALPA’s APA’s accelerated advancement scheme for junior pilots is nothing but shameful. Look over what you are being asked to support, look inside yourself. If the circumstances of your career were different, through no fault of your own, would you be so anxious to dictate to others when they must end their careers? Now is the time to stand on the side of reasonableness and fairness and support a change to the Age 60 rule.

 

[Flopgut]

Klako: Now your just trying to be silly, right? I do empathize with the change you were dealt going to FAR121. That vastly improved safety (something you might not want to push since age 60 was a part of) and weren't there some considerations made at that time for pilots most directly affected by the immediate change? (was that for BE1900 only?) I know XJET had a 65+ year old CA until somewhat recently. I don't care what the details were per say, some compromise was made in that case for oldsters; the change you want has no compromise for me and my contemporaies.

I fly with a lot of pilots very close to retirement, especially Braniff. My own experience is that many of these pilots are still equipped to retire despite what they endured there and FAL. They made a plan to retire at 60, had faith in it and made it work. MOST of them did that; they are the ones I want to emulate. Then there are the others. Pilots who could have had every break in the world and still not be ready. They squandered away their whole carrers and they aren't ever going to be ready. About 1 in 5 are not ready and EXTREMELY vocal about it. This is my interpretation.

What were you doing before age 42 if you don't mind me asking? Do you stay apprised of what you could do with the helecopter credentials? We had a guy leave CAL early and go fly helos in the oil patch for a great paycheck.

 

[Flopgut]

We should all look at this:

[SIZE=+4]See Ya' Down The Road[/SIZE]
Why retire young? Below is a very interesting study comparing age at retirement vs. age at death. The average person who works until age 65 dies 18 months after retiring while the person retiring at age 50 lives to be 86 years old. For those contemplating working another few years before retiring, realize you are losing two years of your life for each year you work beyond age 55.
I have received information that Dr. Sing Lin used old data for his research so the facts below are not entirely correct. Due to interest in his research I will leave this page on my website for several more months.
[SIZE=+2]Optimum Strategies for Creativity and Longevity[/SIZE]
By Sing Lin, Ph.D.
Member of National Council of Chinese Institute of Engineers – USA/Greater New York Chapter, and Member of Board of Director of National Taiwan University Alumni Association – Greater New York (March 2002)

1. Most Creative Years in the Life
The Nobel Laureate, Dr. Leo Esaki, delivered the distinguished lecture entitled "Innovation and Evolution: Reflections on a Life in Research" in the University of Texas at Dallas in the afternoon of Feb. 23, 2002 during the 2002 US National Engineering Week. In this lecture, Dr. Esaki indicated that most of the great discoveries and innovations by the Nobel Laureates occurred at the average age of 32 even though the Nobel prizes were awarded 10 or 20 years afterwards. Furthermore, Dr. Esaki indicated that the peak creativity of most scientists occurred around the age range of 20 to 30 years. As one gets older, the experience increases but the creativity decreases steadily with the age.
It is, therefore, very important to stimulate, encourage and cultivate many young people to get interested in science and engineering at their young age and to provide the optimal R&D environment for these very powerful young scientists and engineers to unleash their very strong creativities during their most precious and creative years around the age of 32.
2. Longevity Vs. Retirement Age
The pension funds in many large corporations (e.g., Boeing, Lockheed Martin, AT&T, Lucent Technologies, etc.) have been “Over Funded” because many “late retirees” who keep-on working into their old age and retire late after the age of 65 tend to die within two years after their retirements. In other words, many of these late retirees do not live long enough to collect all their fair shares of pension money such that they leave a lot of extra-unused money in the pension funds resulting in the over-funded pension funds.
Dr. Ephrem (Siao Chung) Cheng provided the important results in the following Table 1 from an actuarial study of life span vs. age at retirement. The study was based on the number of pension checks sent to retirees of Boeing Aerospace.
Table 1 – Actuarial Study of life span vs. age at retirement
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Age at[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Retirement[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Average Age[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]At Death[/FONT]49.986.051.285.352.584.653.883.955.183.256.482.557.281.458.380.059.278.560.176.861.074.562.171.863.169.364.167.965.266.8
Table 1 indicates that for people retired at the age of 50, their average life span is 86; whereas for people retired at the age of 65, their average life span is only 66.8. An important conclusion from this study is that for every year one works beyond age 55, one loses 2 years of life span on average.
The Boeing experience is that employees retiring at age of 65 receive pension checks for only 18 months, on average, prior to death. Similarly, the Lockheed experience is that employees retiring at age of 65 receive pension checks for only 17 months, on average, prior to death. Dr. David T. Chai indicated that the Bell Labs experience is similar to those of Boeing and Lockheed based on the casual observation from the Newsletters of Bell Lab retirees. A retiree from Ford Motor told Dr. Paul Tien-Lin Ho that the experience from Ford Motor is also similar to those in Boeing and Lockheed.
The statistics shown in the Pre-Retirement Seminar in Telcordia (Bellcore) indicates that the average age that Telcordia (Bellcore) employees start retirement is 57. Therefore, people who retire at the age of 65 or older are minority as compared to the number of early retirees.
The hard-working late retirees probably put too much stress on their aging body-and-mind such that they are so stressed out to develop various serious health problems that forced them to quit and retire. With such long-term stress-induced serious health problems, they die within two years after they quit and retire.
On the other hand, people who take early retirements at the age of 55 tend to live long and well into their 80s and beyond. These earlier retirees probably are either wealthier or more able to plan and manage their various aspects of their life, health and career well such that they can afford to retire early and comfortably.
These early retirees are not really idling after their early retirements to get old. They still continue doing some work. But they do the work on the part-time basis at a more leisure pace so that they do not get too stressed out. Furthermore, they have the luxury to pick and chose the types of part-time work of real interest to them so that they can enjoy and love doing that “fun” work at a more leisure pace.
The late retirees are small in number, tend to die quickly after retirement and disappear from the population of old people beyond the age of 70. Late retirees, therefore, have very little weight on the statistical average life expectancy of the population of “old people” dominated by the early retirees.
Several years ago, a Japanese friend of mine told me that most Japanese people retire at the age of 60 or earlier. This may be one of the factors contributing to the long average life span of Japanese people.
3. Changing Trend of US Pension Plans
The traditional pension plans of many major US companies used to place a lot of value on the experience of long-term older employees by increasing the pension money rapidly and nonlinearly for long-term employees as their age + service year increases beyond the threshold of the rule of 75. Most long-term employees cross this critical threshold at about the age of 55. On the other hand, the early retirees incur very heavy penalty in pension and in other associated retiree benefits (e.g., employer paid medical insurance, employer paid life insurance, death benefits for family, etc.) when they retire before they meet the rule of 75.
However, in recent few years, many large US corporations are switching from their traditional retirement pension plans to the new portable Cash Balance Plans. The new portable cash balance plans are much more favorable to the younger employees but are very unfavorable to the long-term older employees. Some older long-term employees found that when their employers switched from the traditional pension plans to the cash balance plan, their pensions were reduced by 30% to 50%.
One of the implications of this trend towards the new cash balance plan is that the US corporations are now placing more value on the higher creativity and adaptability of younger employees and less value on the experience of the older employees. This is consistent with the accelerating pace of innovations and technology advances. The creative and dynamic younger employees are better positioned, than the older employees do, to keep up with the faster pace of technology advances.
4. Conclusion and Recommendations
The most precious, creative and innovative period in your life is the 10-year period around the age of 32. Plan your career path to use this precious 10-year period wisely and effectively to produce your greatest achievements in your life.
The pace of innovations and technology advances is getting faster and faster and is forcing everybody to compete fiercely at the Internet speed on the information super-highways. The highly productive and highly efficient workplace in USA is a pressure-cooker and a high-speed battleground for highly creative and dynamic young people to compete and to flourish.
However, when you get older, you should plan your career path and financial matter so that you can retire comfortably at the age of 55 or earlier to enjoy your long, happy and leisure retirement life into your golden age of 80s and beyond. In retirement, you can still enjoy some fun work of great interest to you and of great values to the society and the community, but at a part-time leisure pace on your own term. On the other hand, if you are not able to get out of the pressure-cooker or the high-speed battleground at the age of 55 and “have” to keep on working very hard until the age of 65 or older before your retirement, then you probably will die within 18 months of retirement. By working very hard in the pressure cooker for 10 more years beyond the age of 55, you give up at least 20 years of your life span on average.