Age 60 informal poll

[zonker]

All of your science and pleading to stop discrimination does not answer the moral question: Do you have the right to preclude another pilot the same seniority progression you enjoyed? Further to the point: As you are perched at the top making the best money and enjoying the best quality of life for 5 more years, the rest of the profession is going to struggle to make what you got by age 60. Is that right? It's not, and you have no compromise in mind.

Go fly for an overseas carrier! They have different rules. If you're that great they would love to hire you.

Great post!

 

[zonker]

It's ironic that one of the main proponents of this bill is also a representative of why it shouldn't happen.

Think this idiot will see any certificate action? Yea right.


=============


The senator says he realized there was a problem before he landed and spun out of control.


WASHINGTON -- The Federal Aviation Administration opened an investigation Friday into an incident in which an experimental plane flown by U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe spun out of control after landing at Tulsa's Jones Riverside Airport.
A veteran pilot with a commercial rating, the Oklahoma Republican said he realized there was a problem with the plane's rudder before he took off from Duncan for the flight to Tulsa on Thursday evening.
"When I landed at Duncan, I could tell it was not acting right," he said. "I couldn't see visibly what it was."
As his plane approached the Tulsa airport, Inhofe said he informed the tower of the rudder problem and that he needed to land on the airport's longer runway instead of the shorter one he normally uses.
He also warned his passenger, longtime aide Danny Finnerty, of a possible rough landing.
"I landed in what they call a wheel landing," Inhofe said, "which means I am going to keep my tail as high as I can as long as I can. When it comes down, if what I suspected was true and that the rudder line was broken, you are going to get an abrupt yank on this.
"I said, 'OK, Danny, it is coming down,' and it did. Wham."
Inhofe said the plane, an RV-8 tail dragger built by his son and a friend, suffered damage but can be repaired.
He said an inspection of the plane on Friday confirmed parts of the rudder assembly were missing.
"We are still scratching our heads as to why," Inhofe said.
FAA spokesman Roland Herwig of Oklahoma City said the investigation will cover various aspects of the incident, including the aircraft and the pilot, and could take up to several months to complete.
"It was an incident rather than an accident," Herwig said.
To be considered an accident, he said, loss of life or a major injury, major property damage or other factors such as a "near miss" of another airplane would have to be reported.
Both Inhofe and Finnerty escaped injury.
Frank McGill, an investigator with the National Transportation Safety Board in Dallas, said his agency would not open an investigation because the incident did not qualify as an accident.
Inhofe suggested the FAA might not have to do an official report.
"They said, 'Good job at landing it. Get it fixed,' " he said.
Inhofe, who flew one of his other planes to an event in Muskogee on Friday, said he enjoys using the RV-8 for stunts such as loops and barrel rolls.
"My grandkids call it the rocket," he said.
"I have owned a hundred airplanes, and this is the most fun to fly. It wasn't that much fun last night."
After the story of the incident broke, Finnerty said the senator received a number of calls from officials in Washington expressing concern for his safety.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who survived an airplane crash himself and whose family has suffered a number of tragedies involving planes, was the first to call, he said.
Other calls came from Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., and the office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Thursday's incident was not the first for the 71-year-old Inhofe, who also is certified as a flight instructor.
In 1999, he made an emergency landing in Claremore after his plane lost its propeller.
An NTSB investigation blamed an installation error.
"This is getting to be a habit. Every four years. Is that it?" Inhofe quipped Friday.
"It is always things that never happen again."

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

To AA767AV8TOR: All of what you say makes no sense what so ever and sounds like the usual scare tactic used by those with a defined benefit retirement pension such as you have. I would guess that you will have a military pension too.......

To AA767AV8TOR: All of what you say makes no sense what so ever and sounds like the usual scare tactic used by those with a defined benefit retirement pension such as you have. I would guess that you will have a military pension too.

You guessed wrong – as usual

You see pilots like you with a pension (plus an military pension for double dipping) that allows them to "retire" at age 60 with nearly full pay, such as your situation, have a distorted idea of reality and don't really understand how selfish they are, giving no consideration to all the others who only have what they can save, never knowing if it is enough. You, on the other hand have a pension that you will receive for the rest of your life (unless the airline part is terminated and or the government goes broke).

So your lack of success at the negotiation table to acquire an adequate pension – who need to take responsibility for that?? Should the junior pilots pay for your failed negotiations?

So I say, quit trying to get all that money for no work by retiring at age 60.

You are what you negotiate – Once management drops all their pensions – then the pilots should, but until that time we have earned that right.


Get real please. It’s time to let those people who have the experience and the skills continue working at their profession instead of making up all the BS such as you like to put forth as forecasts of doom and gloom.

So the junior pilots have no experience and skills to command an airliner?? Who needs to get real?

None of what you say is of substance for consideration for or against change.

So, is your greed of greater substance??


The only correct question is right verses wrong, and discrimination is wrong, whether it's age discrimination or discrimination against Americans.

No, there are many other unknown questions – if and only if, this rule changes, the seniority list need to change. Because of the economic harm this rule change will cause the junior pilots – all pilots over the age of 60 need to go to the end of the list.


Do you support age discrimination or discrimination against Americans over foreigners?

Yes, if you want to fly, go overseas. Age 65 is still age discrimination.

Just explain, if you will, why foreign pilots should be able to fly and earn his/her living flying into and out of the USA and not an American who may have served in the military and paid taxes for 40 years.

The Age 60 rule has served us all well for over the last 40 years both economically and safety wise. The wise pilot has planned for this well in advance. Moreover, the junior pilot should not be penalized for the senior pilot’s hardships, bad decisions, and failed negotiations.

I know one pilot (from AA) who will turn 60 in June and he flew combat in Vietnam and in the Gulf War. What have the foreigners like the Germans or the Japs or the Saudies done to get the privilege and not Americans?

Undaunted, the above is a pretty racist statement. Here at AA we had vets retired at age 60 that have participated in every conflict since World War II so what's your point?

Again the Age 60 rule has served us all well for many years.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

All of your science and pleading to stop discrimination does not answer the moral question: Do you have the right to preclude another pilot the same seniority progression you enjoyed? Further to the point: As you are perched at the top making the best money and enjoying the best quality of life for 5 more years, the rest of the profession is going to struggle to make what you got by age 60. Is that right? It's not, and you have no compromise in mind.

Go fly for an overseas carrier! They have different rules. If you're that great they would love to hire you.

Flopgut,

Great point and one these gluttonous pilots will never admit too. For this reason, if this rule is imposed, it will be vital for the majority of pilots that will be economically harmed to force these greedy pilots to the end of our seniority lists.

It is the only fair way. If they want to fly – they do it from the end of the seniority list. This seniority change will go a long way in minimizing the damages the senior pilots seek to impose on the junior pilots. It also will protect us in case of any class action lawsuit for the guys in the 60-65 age range that will be suing to come back on the property.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[Klako]

I have to disagree. I know lot's of pilot's who want out the minute they turn 60. They have saved, prepared, and want to enjoy the rest of their lives. My dad told me something when the age 60 issue started coming up again (he had recently retired). He said, with my luck I'd work to 65, drive home and die of a heart attack the next day. No cruises, no vacations, no time to enjoy the grandkids. Only work and death.

For thousands of pilots now days, being forced to retire means poverty. This is while junior pilots continuse to fly and enjoy a decent income, medical coverage and the satisfaction of flying for a living.

 

[Andy]

For thousands of pilots now days, being forced to retire means poverty. This is while junior pilots continuse to fly and enjoy a decent income, medical coverage and the satisfaction of flying for a living.

The only reason why this junior pilot enjoys a decent income is that I am no longer flying. I've been furloughed since Mar 2002; the major reason why United is recalling any pilots is due to the 250+ pilots retiring every year. If the retirement age gets changed, those recalls will come to a screeching halt. Not that any greedy seniors care.

ANY pilot who has not learned how to manage their money after watching so many airlines go out of business (Eastern, Pan Am, Frontier, Braniff, National, etc), will live in poverty whether they retire at 60 or 65. On top of that, any pilot who hasn't been socking away a ton of cash since 9/11 has no excuse for retiring in poverty.

The CAMI studies are quite clear that there are performance decrements that occur after the age of 55. This rule has been in effect for safety reasons. Now a greedy few ask to change the rules because they were not financially astute enough to prepare for retirement.
So let those thousands of pilots live in poverty. Extending the age to 65 would merely delay their poverty for five years. Or go fly overseas in some country less concerned about safety.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

For thousands of pilots now days, being forced to retire means poverty. This is while junior pilots continuse to fly and enjoy a decent income, medical coverage and the satisfaction of flying for a living.

Klako,

You are delusional – unless you work for Fed Ex, UPS or SWA – this entire profession is a shell of its former self.

Current wages are at best 50% of what pilots were earning in the early 80’s when inflation is factored in. Age 65 will keep many pilots either in their lower paying seat or furloughed another 3-5 years. How fair is that??

The fairest integration, if this thing passes, is to place all pilots over the Age of 60 behind everyone else that was hired under the current retirement age. Klako, under that proposal you will still get to fly and you still collect a paycheck.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[Flopgut]

Flopgut,

Great point and one these gluttonous pilots will never admit too. For this reason, if this rule is imposed, it will be vital for the majority of pilots that will be economically harmed to force these greedy pilots to the end of our seniority lists.

It is the only fair way. If they want to fly – they do it from the end of the seniority list. This seniority change will go a long way in minimizing the damages the senior pilots seek to impose on the junior pilots. It also will protect us in case of any class action lawsuit for the guys in the 60-65 age range that will be suing to come back on the property.

AA767AV8TOR

Agreed! They should go to the bottom of the list below furloughs. Great point you make too: Let's be ready to deal with the intergration, should it change. Additionally, I think we should work to immediately secure ourselves from any further change. They get this fluke and they'll be right back for 67 or 68 before the ink dries.

I'm fascinated at the active lack of challenge to big picture issues these senior pilots display. These are supposed to be our "aged leaders" [Tom Peters-esque] and they don't care about anyone but themselves! If the rule changes, anyone who subsequently retires at age 60 loses money, they'll have to work at least one year (maybe two) just to make up the LOSS. Yet somehow Undaunted can allege we'll all be "happier and better off"?! What color is the sky in this guy's world? Pretty tacky for him to make that claim right next to a furlough's post. (100 ci needs to catch a break)

 

[Flopgut]

For thousands of pilots now days, being forced to retire means poverty. This is while junior pilots continuse to fly and enjoy a decent income, medical coverage and the satisfaction of flying for a living.

Have you been furloughed? Have you lost a pension?

You're making a mockery of some pilot's very unfortunate position, you realize this, right?

 

[jbDC9]

For thousands of pilots now days, being forced to retire means poverty. This is while junior pilots continuse to fly and enjoy a decent income, medical coverage and the satisfaction of flying for a living.

Lamest. Post. Ever.

Klako, you're nuts.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

When the law changes all of these things many of you think you would like to see happen will just not happen. When the law changes it will be business as usual except the over age 60 guys will keep flying with no interution to their seniority. That is the law, pure and simple. Give up your dreams of being mean to senior pilots. Your ideas are a joke.

 

[Jonny Sacko]

Whatever idiot. I really hope it doesn't pass, so someone with your attitude of SUPERB BRILLIANCE gets smacked in the ass by the door. The most selfish all about me, I'm all that matters, You don't know the truth, I DESERVE, Screw you, I'm NEEDED, attitudes will NOT be missed!

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

When the law changes all of these things many of you think you would like to see happen will just not happen. When the law changes it will be business as usual except the over age 60 guys will keep flying with no interution to their seniority. That is the law, pure and simple. Give up your dreams of being mean to senior pilots. Your ideas are a joke.

Undaunted,

I’m not absolutely sure if you were in the military….but -- what’s particularly ironic about your space shuttle icon, if you were still in the military, no way would the top brass let you fly that thing at your age.

Do you wonder why that is??

Or do you have dreams of the Clint Eastwood movie – Space Cowboys … If so, you’re dreaming.

The law may allow you to continue flying to age 65, but nothing – I mean nothing allows for you to keep your seniority number. That will have to be determined by either the unions, the company, or in the courts. If you think this is just a slam dunk for you Undaunted – you are greatly mistaken.


AA767AV8TOR

 

[pilotyip]

again AA767 hits it right on the head, let the law be changed and then let the union airlines decide how they want to handle it.

 

[Jonny Sacko]

Hey, who keeps running into the stores or shopping malls with their cars? It must be the new inexperienced 16 year olds. I really haven't seen the study, hmm. Oh ya, and what about the fella in the left land with the signal on? He's probably 16 also.

If anyone happend to catch the stats on those incidents, maybe it'll clear up the situation. Since we NEED the experienced drivers on the street (keeping the calm and all) as well as the VERY EXPERIENCED pilots,whew!!

Wonder what the retiree's think?? How about that guy that retired TODAY?

Oh well, what's good for me. Got a go. Ta Ta

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

At one of the ALPA councils a resolution was introduced to restrict over age 60 pilots, should the law be changed, to a "cruise pilot" position on international flights. This was laughed out by even the ALPA leadership and by the legal advisors as age discrimination. Such contractual changes simply can not be created regarding age. Has anything like that happened in any other country? No. Do the F/A's make other flight attendants over age 60 go to the bottom or be restriced to a galley position? No.

So my question is: Where do you people get these impossible ideas that can never happen?

As I have said, when the law changes it will be business as usual except for the single restriction that one pilot in the other seat must be under 60.

If the law changes, I plan to fly on my birthday.

 

[Flopgut]

At one of the ALPA councils a resolution was introduced to restrict over age 60 pilots, should the law be changed, to a "cruise pilot" position on international flights. This was laughed out by even the ALPA leadership and by the legal advisors as age discrimination. Such contractual changes simply can not be created regarding age. Has anything like that happened in any other country? No. Do the F/A's make other flight attendants over age 60 go to the bottom or be restriced to a galley position? No.

So my question is: Where do you people get these impossible ideas that can never happen?

As I have said, when the law changes it will be business as usual except for the single restriction that one pilot in the other seat must be under 60.

If the law changes, I plan to fly on my birthday.

How about the way age 60+ FEs are used? Seems to have worked pretty well. You turn age 60 and you go to a second class physical. That would do a good job of making sure one pilot is <60.

If you think it's going to be "business as usual" you're nuts! From a collective bargaining standpoint, do you think we are going to let you haul out another million and leave the rest of the groups out? No way! There is a certain total dollar amount that pilot labor gets at any airline and we are NOT going to hand a full third to the top ten percent. Remember, you are not in the majority, expect a harsh reminder on that. At UAL, GT is going to assert you no longer need a B fund since you work to full retirement age. Bank on it.

Are you really on that committee?


Of lesser importance, but worth asking: Do you think you're going to be very popular? Well thought of, at all? Too many that want this change are already not well thought of, so it may not matter to you. Some who are, will be surprised to find out there is little regard for them.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

No age discriminaion, that's the law!

Flopgut: With all due respect to you and others of your same opinion, if the law changes so that the United States is in harmony with the ICAO change there can not be any contractual discrimination against any pilot over age 60. There could be changes in medical standards but no one in any group, ALPA, APA or even the FAA want such changes.

Regarding defined contribution funds like the B fund, as you mentioned, again their can not be changes in this area either that will be any different for those over any age such as age 60. That would also be age discrimination.

I am really surprised at the comments by many apparently experienced pilots who are FI members as to what they think will happen when the law is changed and what they think their pilot union's can do. Please understand, your pilot union can not discriminate against any member by age.

Now if you really feel that you must do something to make a statement against these senior pilots, about the only thing you can do is not go out and have dinner with your over age 60 captain. But really that will just amount to your having dinner by yourself. Last night I had dinner with my entire crew, 2 F/O's and 9 F/A's. If one F/O or even both F/O's wanted to eat by themselves that is really not a problem that I can't deal with.

 

[Flopgut]

I'm not saying a possible change to the UAL B plan would be directed at the age 60+ pilots, I'm saying you could be putting it in jeoprady for EVERYONE! (don't flatter yourself, I'm worried about all of us) It's an example of how ignorance, born of shortsighted greed, will be an enabler to mgt's further wrecking of this profession. B plans came about because pilots retired at a somewhat early age. Do you think GT/UAL won't try to argue the B plan is no longer warranted after an age change? Bet on it!

I'm surprised that an experienced pilot like yourself can no more get your mind trained in on big picture issues than my 5 year old! With all due respect, I'm afraid you're an embarrassement.

Keep up that attitude, you'll be eating alone soon enough.

 

[Flopgut]

Seriously Undaunted, elections are underway. If you are near the policy level in any way, can't you get some more broadbased solutions/improvements batted around a bit?