Age 60 informal poll

[Falconjet]

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.

All the under 60 guys have to do is have a national sick out if this passes. That is something we can do, and there is nothing the old farts or the courts can do about that.

Ground the entire fleet because we refuse to babysit for the old geezer that won't get on with his life and let us get on with ours.

FJ

 

[727gm]

It's pretty clear that the "greed" involved is on the part of those in the right seat (or engineer seat). Those in the right seat should be concerned with protecting their current jobs (from the ravages of furloughs, "B"-scales, scope, & its effects), rather than messing with another man's (and fellow employee's) work and livelyhood.

When someone chooses to retire is no one else's business. The left seat belongs only to the current holders of same, and not to anyone else.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

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!

Flopgut: For some reason you just don't understand how the B fund, defined contribution (401k), plan works.

Please understand that there is no greater expense to the airline regarding retirement at age 60 verses age 65 when there is a DC plan in place. The total payroll pretty much the same because there are still the same number of pilots. Nothing changes there. Since a DC plan contributes a fixed percentage of that pilot's pay, the same amount in total dollars is deposited each month into the DC plan.

Therefore, your position of putting everyone’s B fund in jeopardy just has no merit.

Undaunted Flyer,
37-year ALPA member in good standing with earned "Battle Star"

 

[Flopgut]

Please listen carefully! B plans came into being because pilots retired at 60. When that changes, GT/UAL will want to end B plan contributions for pilots! Bet on it! It DOES NOT MATTER what the cost is at any retirement age...UAL will seek to end it, for everyone! You will suceed in changing the age, and simultaneously end retirement plans, of any sort, for pilots. That exact thing, or some very similiar version thereof, is exactly what will happen. Are you just acting like you don't understand this because you don't care?

Listen up, if you're on that committee what you need to be talking about is how UAL can have 4 bil in cash, and you no pension, within the same 2 year period. Elections are underway, things could start to move labor's way. Abandon your old, failed coping mechanism of ripping off your co-workers and union brothers and push some tough issues. If you had a pension you wouldn't have to work, and the rest of us could have the same opportunities that were afforded you. Get busy acting like the 37 year, battlestar wearing ALPA member that you are and improve this profession for all of us.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

A U.S. government panel probably won't recommend raising the airline pilot retirement age to 65 from 60 because too many members oppose a change, said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.

"It's unlikely" a Federal Aviation Administration advisory panel would support lifting the age, said Inhofe, 71, a private pilot who has sponsored a bill to let airline pilots fly until 65. "That's wrong, and I've told the administrator I thought it was wrong."

FAA Administrator Marion Blakey, pressured by some pilots and lawmakers, is deciding whether to change the agency's 47-year practice of forcing commercial pilots to retire at age 60. She named a panel Sept. 27 to advise her by late November, when airline pilots over 60 from other countries can begin flying in the U.S.

Eight of the panel's 14 voting members are affiliated with unions that oppose a higher retirement age or carriers for which those unions fly, said Bill Siegert, 58, a Southwest Airlines pilot who favors a higher retirement age.

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said no one can anticipate the panel's recommendation based on its members' backgrounds.

Southwest, JetBlue Airways Corp. and pilots at some other carriers, including those that have terminated pension plans, want to lift the retirement age. Pilot unions at larger carriers, including AMR Corp.'s American Airlines and Delta Air Lines, want to keep the age at 60.

The FAA has resisted changing the rule for years, citing safety reasons. One proposal would allow a crew member to fly until 65 as long as the co-pilot is under 60.

That's the standard adopted in March by the International Civil Aviation Organization. Pilots from other nations may begin flying in the U.S. under that standard Nov. 23. The standard also requires pilots past age 60 to get medical exams every six months.

Inhofe said that if the FAA panel opposes raising the age and Blakey goes along, Congress would overrule her by mandating the global standard. "We have the votes to do it," he said.

 

[FoxHunter]

All the under 60 guys have to do is have a national sick out if this passes. That is something we can do, and there is nothing the old farts or the courts can do about that.

Ground the entire fleet because we refuse to babysit for the old geezer that won't get on with his life and let us get on with ours.

FJ

Make my day!:laugh: With your experience my guess is that you're the one that needs a hand held and a good experienced babysitter.

 

[Falconjet]

Fox: That is the best you can come up with? You are obviously so much wiser and experienced than me because you are a widebody Captain at FedEx and I am but a lowly S/O. Ok, that is fine, you are superior. You have obviously picked up more knowledge than I could ever hope to with all those years of part 121 flying (yawn).

Now that I have made your day, please tell me why you think for one minute that I would fly as your FO after you turn 60. I'd like to have some of that geritol that you are sniffing. Come on dispute somehow please the logic in trying to make an under 60 guy fly the right seat for some geezer who should be retired, knowing that I could be in the left seat myself if you did retire like everyone before you.

We are all waiting. Please explain that one to me. Go ahead and call your buddy and mentor old Bob L and come up with something please. Maybe you can call me a scabbie some more to make your point.

Crickets chirping.

Yeah, thats what I thought.

FJ

 

[Booster]

Falcon you'll run out of sick time quick enough. Then what? If 65 becomes the law then YOU are in the wrong and job action can/will be against YOU.
Think it thru a bit more and find a better way to voice your opinion.

 

[Falconjet]

Well I've got more than enough sick time to stay on the ground for several weeks. How long do you think it would take the airlines to go under if the majority of their workforce simply couldn't get out of their sick bed to go to work for a week or two?

Me, I'm thinking a couple of weeks would be plenty of time to make the point perfectly clear that it is ludicrous to force an under 60 guy to babysit an over 60 guy, who, if he wasn't babysitting him, wouldn't be able to fly. Yeah, you can't upgrade because the old guy won't retire, but you have to be there in order for him to fly. Hmmmmmm.

So why would I be getting in that jet again?

Still waiting for anybody to explain the logic of that to me.

How about thinking that through and getting back to me.

FJ

 

[FoxHunter]

Now that I have made your day, please tell me why you think for one minute that I would fly as your FO after you turn 60. I'd like to have some of that geritol that you are sniffing. Come on dispute somehow please the logic in trying to make an under 60 guy fly the right seat for some geezer who should be retired, knowing that I could be in the left seat myself if you did retire like everyone before you.
FJ

Why in the world would you think I would want you as a F/O? What makes you think you have near the qualifications to get to that left seat? In about ten years you may have it, but then I'll be long retired? Let me see, you flew Falcons in the CG, WOW,WOW. I've been told that in CG aviation the sharp guys go to Helos! Now you'r hanging out in the back seat of the 727, WOW!! Do I see a trend?

No Falcon, I would prefer not to have such an inexperienced pilot in the right seat, or the RFO seat.