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.

 

[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

 

[redbook]

I am with Falconjet. Yip that is just too defeatist.

 

[n89l]

Nay!!!

 

[pilotyip]

define defeatist?

 

[Phaedrus]

de·feat·ist

/dɪˈfi

tɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-fee-tist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.a person who surrenders easily or is subject to defeatism. 2.an advocate or follower of defeatism as a public policy. –adjective 3.marked by defeatism.
[Origin: 1915–20; defeat + -ist, modeled on F défaitiste

]


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4.html <div id="sidebar" class="column">

 

[trijetter]

No!!!!

 

[Freight Dog]

define defeatist?

Defeatist - another word to describe the French.

 

[Phaedrus]

Except it would be spelled: defayetteist.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

Age 60: APA President Meets with FAA Administrator in Washington, D.C.

APA President Captain Ralph Hunter, Legislative Affairs Committee Chairman First Officer Keith Champion and APA's Washington, D.C. consultants Susan Williams and Linda Dorfee-Flaherty met with FAA Administrator Marion Blakey and Deputy Administrator Nick Sabatini this past Monday. The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss the FAA's recently announced intention to issue a Notice for Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to raise the airline pilot retirement to age 65 to match a newly issued ICAO standard.

During the hour-long meeting, Captain Hunter pressed Ms. Blakey on APA's safety concerns associated with any increase in the retirement age. Ms. Blakey stated her belief that no valid safety argument exists for maintaining the current retirement age and indicated that no additional safety analysis or studies are planned as part of the NPRM process. Ms. Blakey and Mr. Sabatini indicated the NPRM will be issued by the end of the year and that the entire process will likely take 18-24 months to complete.

Neither Ms. Blakey nor Mr. Sabatini ruled out preemptive legislative action by Congress to change the mandatory retirement age, although they clearly indicated their desire for the NPRM process to run its course. In addition to the "everybody is living longer" argument, Ms. Blakey said the desire for the FAA to harmonize with the ICAO standard was driving the rule change at this time.

Ms. Blakey expressed some sympathy for those pilots who would be forced to retire while the NPRM worked its way through the process. When asked about the FAA's position on granting individual pilot waivers in the meantime, Ms. Blakey said that any waivers would have to be supported by compelling reasons from the respective airlines in order to receive consideration. She did not rule out granting waivers supported by the respective carrier and further volunteered that one airline had already filed a supporting application for waivers on behalf of its pilots.

APA's position on the age 60 rule remains unchanged. It is a time-tested safety rule, and the Association particularly objects to the FAA's uncharacteristic dismissal of any safety implications related to a change to the mandatory retirement age. Given that the ICAO guidelines call for at least one pilot on the flight deck to be under age 60, it is apparent that there is still some question in the regulators' minds as to how old is too old. Both APA and ALPA are currently performing their own in-house analyses on the increased mortality rates for pilots over 60. These figures -- along with data from other existing studies -- will be used to support APA's position that maintaining an equivalent level of aviation safety demands positive supporting data and not just wishful thinking. Otherwise, the FAA will simply be conducting a massive safety experiment on the traveling public.

The news APA received from its meeting with the administrator is obviously troubling, and it appears that the Association will face an increased challenge to maintain the level of safety inherent in the current mandatory retirement standards. The APA Board of Directors will have an opportunity to discuss the Association's next step in its effort to defend the age 60 rule at the strategy meeting beginning on Sunday, March 4.

 

[pilotyip]

It was never about safety, it was about geting rid of high paid pilots in 1958

 

[zonker]

I applaud the APA for their efforts.