Age 60 informal poll

[Flybynite]

Hold on, your saying that it is "greed personified" if a pilot advocates, for themselves and for those who come after them, adhearance to a rule that's been in place for most who came before them? Conversely, you asert it's the "complete absence" of greed for a small group to make a claim on extra seniority for themselves in a way that has not occured before, and will never occur again?

Why don't you admit you are morbidly confused about what greed is.

I'll admit I'm morbidly confused by your arguement. Rules change. Happens everyday in the real world. Do you live in the real world? Do things change in your world or has it been status quo since birth? I say again things change, some changes you like, some you don't. Everyones greedy and looking out for thier own interests whether they want the change or don't want the change.

I don't know where your quotes came from but they are not mine. If you are going to qoute me at least get the right words.

 

[Flopgut]

Flybynite: The quotation marks were superfulous, I beg your pardon, but they were no less your exact sentiments.

I don't mind changes, I simply want to see positive changes. Not one of us needs to work longer, so much as we all need to work smarter. If we do not display sufficient inflexibility to the whim of senior types they will be right back to steal from the bottom of the lists again. (This needs to be viewed less like a change and more like a work action) And they have GOT to get smarter. Klako, bless his heart, is probably going to mess this up again. He is still REELING from the change to "one level of safety" a DECADE ago. Even that change had some built in relief for some pilots most adversely affected, which is more than he has in mind for anyone else. Pilots like him probably benefited from more jets around c/o fundamental changes, but I guess that money is all gone now.

 

[Flybynite]

Positive changes are all based on one's personal perspective. Kinda of a stretch to label it a work action don't you think?

From your arguments I gather you see it as greed of the senior pilots. I see it as greed of the junior pilots, the entitlement mentality of get out of MY seat. So which greed is justified? It's not your seat til you are in it.

Here is my common thread: Change happens, get used to it.

 

[Flopgut]

Look at yourself in the mirror and see a true boggot and the truely greedy one.

I'm afraid to ask what a boggot is, but I'm guessing your not too happy with me.

I don't wish you any ill will. But the truth of the matter is you should NOT have been spending all your time since 1965 fighting this, you're going to have to retire someday! You SHOULD have been grooming yourself for retired life or your next career. You have skills, you just have to want to use them. I know it's easier to look to a windfall type, legislative change but that's not fair to anyone. Do you know how many thousands of oldsters have been chucked out of other industries that are crying in the media about fairness? The fact is they weren't cutting the gig, they had a lot of years and they were just putting in time, and it bit them. Well, that doesn't happen here. We have seniority to spare you that, do NOT confuse that with actually earning something.

 

[Flopgut]

Positive changes are all based on one's personal perspective. Kinda of a stretch to label it a work action don't you think?

From your arguments I gather you see it as greed of the senior pilots. I see it as greed of the junior pilots, the entitlement mentality of get out of MY seat. So which greed is justified? It's not your seat til you are in it.

Here is my common thread: Change happens, get used to it.

Not like a work action? Let's see, a minority group of pilots want to sieze extra seniority outside collective bargaining to everyone else's detriment. What do you call that?

Personal perspective? In this case it is the personal perspective to change retirement age of a very small minority of labor as a whole. That means I'm right in towing the line.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Pilot pensions sacrificed by ALPA's choice to save failed airlines

British Airways union is not afraid to protect its pilots pensions while ALPA National allowed and offered the termination of its pilots pensions.

ALPA did not protected it members. ALPA protected failed airlines without business plans and overpaid management and ALPA dues collection.

And now these employees that should have collected their pensions at age 60 and been looking for work today, who destroyed the standards of this profession are again acting in the most destructive manner possible towards the profession forcing everyone to fly till they die because of their poor planning or greed.

American professional pilots have repeatly made the wrong choices since 911. US Air, UAL, DAL, and NWA need to pay the piper not rape the young as they have done.

Look at BA as the example of what to do because the legacy American pilots and ALPA sure don't know how this industry was built or what it needs. Todays generation of senior pilots undercutting the profession is far worse than the scabs of yesterday.

British Airways planning to increase retirement age LONDON: British Airways confirmed expectations of a large blowout in its pensions fund deficit yesterday and angered unions by calling for an increase in the retirement age to help plug the £2.1 billion ($3.9bn) hole.
British Airways said the shortfall had widened from the £928 million it calculated a year ago despite the airline doubling its contributions and a recovery in the stock market. The carrier proposed several changes to reduce the deficit, including raising the retirement age to 65 and capping pay rises at the rate of inflation - measures that were criticised by union leaders.
"We have always acknowledged that there is a funding problem but the news does not change our view that BA's pension cuts are unfair, unacceptable and do not represent a starting point for negotiations," said Brendan Gold, national secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union.
"The company is profitable, has been reducing debt and is not in crisis," Gold added.
"It must be remembered the pensions are deferred earnings."
BA's current compulsory retirement age for pilots and cabin crew is 55. It plans to raise the cabin crew retirement age to 60 for the first five years to reduce the impact of the change, before lifting it to 65.
The retirement age for pilots will be capped at 60, in line with restrictions imposed on the age of pilots by countries including France and the United States. If those restrictions are removed in the future, the airline said it would then also raise the retirement age for pilots to 65.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Check out NBC Nightly News on Saturday evening. There will be a segment on the age 60 rule change.

The rule will change on November 23 for foreign crews flying in this country and for Americans too.

The procedure for Americans over age 60 to fly on that date has not been finalized as of yet.

The American public nor the US Congress will allow American's to be discriminated against. Why shouldn't an American who has paid taxes for 40 years and served in possibly two wars have the same privileges as a foreign airline crewmember who has done nothing for this country.

"If it's OK for foreigners, it darn well out to be OK for Americans." This is now the discussion.

ALPA has lost all credibility by their flip-flops on the subject. ALPA and APA's position is all about promotions, not about safety, that is clear. Very few people on Capital Hill really believe anything these two pilot groups have to say any longer. That's really too bad because ALPA/APA used to be listened to when they were really interested in safety instead of just promotions and attacking their senior members. That type of conduct is now backfiring. It's just like requireing a "fireman" on a diesel locomotive and calling it a safety requirement. Did anyone believe that?

And by the way, when ALPA/APA attack seniors I wonder if they ever considered the average age of a Senator or a Representative? Apparently not.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

SUBJ: Age 60 change :
FROM: Capt. Ted Schott, USAirways, former MEC /BOD member 8 years
TO: Whom It May Concern, age 60 communications

ALPA's stance on the age 60 issue is preposterous in an extremely unprincipled way.

Those in charge have brought ALPA to a new low in the field of myopic self centered decision making. The prior surveys were obviously biased and simply stated the results were inaccurate, as was the information on this issue that was presented to our members.

Duane Woerth's recent remarks that "this is about safety" are ludicrous and directly contradict remarks made under oath by two former ALPA presidents during Congressional testimony. The only good thing that can be said about Mr. Woerth's remarks is:

He has put his foot so far down his throat that his credibility is being destroyed as he speaks.
With his loss of credibility I sincerely hope his political future ends, as abruptly, in the very near future.

We need principled, visionary leadership at ALPA, not the stuff that we have seen in recent years.

Sincerely,

Ted Schott

Captain USAirways
Member in Good Standing 29 years

 

[vetrider]

I'll watch it. I have a feeling though that some of these same folks who slam ALPA and APA for "attacking seniors" will be featured on this program dramatizing how planes are gonna fall outa the sky because of the inexperience of the "kids" who will be "replacing" them. Pot, meet kettle, he's black too.

One pilot on my company's ALPA web board stated that he liked to stay out of the age 60 debate because he thought it brought out the worst in people no matter which way they were arguing. I think he was right on the money.

 

[vetrider]

I just watched it, I'll eat my words. It was not a bad piece at all. Obviously the folks that want to change it have been hard at work. If it changes, more power to em. Although I still think 60 works, changing it to 65 won't bother me much. The usual suspects will still medical out, and the healthy, fit ones will be able to go on. It seems fair enough to me.

 

[pipe]

Yeah- and everybody's grandparents and parents admit it when they need to stop driving too.

PIPE

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Link to NBC Video on Age 60 - Aired Saturday Night

Click the link:

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=3C9EA4BD-875C-4E9A-B85F-443DBC991C80&f=00&fg=email

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Medical Standards will raise as a result

I especially liked the part in the video link above that quotes the Senator saying that he thinks retirement should be based on not age but medical standards and that STRINGENT MEDICAL STANDARDS NEED TO BE IN EFFECT. What the Senator is saying is that he does not believe that the current standards meet the test of extending the age limit.

Extending this age limit is going to change the standards of medicals. If foreign standards are applied because everyone wants foreign age limits, it will mean a large improvement in the criteria and standards in the Class I medical.

The foreign standards are not only higher than the FAA standards regarding medicals but the first medical taken by the applicant establishes the baseline for that applicant. And each subsequent medical performed on that applicant is compared to the baseline medical and the current medical must not only exceed the national standard but also the baseline medical so as to not indicate a rapid progression of decline.

And whether or not the medical standards are raised with the age extension legislation, the day a pilot dies in the cockpit over 60, is the day the medical standards issue will be started if not already in the legislation. Soon it will take an astrounaut physical performed by NASA to fly an Airbus or Boeing.

Raising the age limit is only half the issue. The other half is the medical issue. And I am now confident that if the age limit is raised my career excpectation will not be effected as those booted with medical issues will far exceed those staying as a result.

And if you don't understand what I am talking about watch the video again and listen to what the Senator is saying. HE IS GOING TO RAISE MEDICAL STANDARDS.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Extending this age limit is going to change the standards of medicals. ing to keep.

And if you don't understand what I am talking about watch the video again and listen to what the Senator is saying.

The FAA's Chief Medical Surgeon, Dr. Fred Tilton, has said over and over and he has even written to ALPA to say that there are no changes planned or being considered in FAA medical standards if the pilot retirement age were to be changed. He has said that the USA's current medical standards are compatible with ICAO standards.

As far as Sen. Inhofe's comment, he is a politician speaking in support of his legislation. The legislation on age 60 does not address medical standards at all.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

The FAA's Chief Medical Surgeon, Dr. Fred Tilton, has said over and over and he has even written to ALPA to say that there are no changes planned or being considered in FAA medical standards if the pilot retirement age were to be changed. He has said that the USA's current medical standards are compatible with ICAO standards.

As far as Sen. Inhofe's comment, he is a politician speaking in support of his legislation. The legislation on age 60 does not address medical standards at all.

UndauntedFlyer,

I believe you are the one that says, “Rules change every day.” If S.65 changes our retirement age to 65 (still age discrimination), you can take it to the bank the medical standards will be changed especially will the first accident happens with someone over the age of 60 in the cockpit. We all know the current Class I is a joke. They couldn’t tell if you were going to drop dead of cancer the next day.

There will be many pilots caught in the web of not being able to pass their physicals and will be forced to take an early medical retirement causing a hit in their retirements by an early out penalty.

Undaunted, you are trying to sell this crap as if pilots will still have an option of retiring at age 60 – do not count on it. Just as now, the retirement plans will be modified to make anyone leaving early (i.e.: before reaching the new retirement age of 65) will have to take an early out penalty.

If S.65 does indeed does pass, both ALPA and APA need to take strong actions and keep those age 60 + pilots junior to all those that were hired under AGE 60 retirement. This serves two purposes – 1) one group of pilots does not receive an underserved “windfall” at the expense of all those junior, 2) all those “over age 60 and broke” will still be able to collect a paycheck.

Age 65 is nothing but an abrogation of seniority and an attempt of the senior pilots to sell out the junior pilots.

AA767AV8TOR