Age 60 informal poll

[Flybynite]

Yea, and it is not about greed for you is it. Its about discrimination. Right.

And you call me an idiot.

We will just have to agree that we disagree, meanwhile I will wait for somebody to defend the rationalization of an under 60 guy in the cockpit if its not a safety/health issue. I realize, Undaunted, that the law change will mimic the ICAO standard. What I would like is for one person to explain the logic and rationale behind the need for an under 60 guy, not try to impress me with a test they took from the JAA years ago.

Still nobody has even come close to explaining that rationale, and the reason is because you can't.

Keep trying though, I would love to hear it.

FJ

Logic There is no logic. It's a rule proposed by the same people who kept the age 60 rule in place for 40 years. There was no reason for, that no reason for this. You want logic, look away from the federal government.

And of course you are all about safety. As soon as one turns 60 they are incompetent. 59 and a half - ok, 60 - danger danger. explain that one

 

[Flybynite]

Wow! You really revealed yourself there. Good job!

Maybe I should turn on the sarcasm meter. I was turning around the only argument against age 60, "you knew the rules coming in". Possibly the dumbest defense of an argument. I hope you guys are using that argument with your politicians, it is a good one.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

RE: B plans, what I'm saying is: If you had the money, you wouldn't have to work. It is too defeatest for you to say AA is not going to hold on to theirs. (I think they will) If they can keep one, then that is what we all need to shoot for in the coming years. Not a DB per say, but something of equal value for sure. I would hope the APAAD crowd and pilots like yourself can immediately turn and focus on broad based improvements in the future and not go back to the thinking: how can we help ourselves? Example: I want the money back and I want to retire at 60.

There will never be any DB retirement plans started at any airline for the rank and file pilots or any employees for that matter. Regarding AA: I do believe they will be able to hold on to their DB program as it generally is but only when the age 65 change happens and the pilots themselves want to keep their plan. Otherwise, with no age change to 65, AA will convert to a DC plan. There will be a freeze point with a buyout of the plan that will probably satisfy very few. Then after that happens the age will change to 65 anyway because we all know this will eventually happen. So bottom line: Better to have the age 65 change occur now rather than later.

In your scheme, I lose money permantently and if you need more your coming back to me. In my scheme, I want to see pilots senior AND junior to me get their money back. What's not to like about my plan?

Sorry but I really do not understand what you are asking here? If the age 65 rule changes and everyone chooses to work to that age no one loses money. Everyone makes more money. And of course if a person wants to retire early they can without penalty.

 

[Flopgut]

Maybe I should turn on the sarcasm meter. I was turning around the only argument against age 60, "you knew the rules coming in". Possibly the dumbest defense of an argument. I hope you guys are using that argument with your politicians, it is a good one.

Yes. Please diferentiate your sarcasm from the stuff you think makes sense. It's not an easy distiction with your comments.

 

[Flybynite]

Yes. Please diferentiate your sarcasm from the stuff you think makes sense. It's not an easy distiction with your comments.

Sorry gut I'll try harder. I'll stop using common sense since you don't get that either. (sarcasm) Hows that? Now return to your mantra: Not fair to me, not fair to me.

 

[zonker]

Sorry gut I'll try harder. I'll stop using common sense since you don't get that either. (sarcasm) Hows that? Now return to your mantra: Not fair to me, not fair to me.

Why don't you throw out the "Entitlement Generation" line again?

It's a real hum-dinger!

 

[Flopgut]

Sorry gut I'll try harder. I'll stop using common sense since you don't get that either. (sarcasm) Hows that? Now return to your mantra: Not fair to me, not fair to me.

Hang in there! You're bound to learn something.

 

[Flopgut]

There will never be any DB retirement plans started at any airline for the rank and file pilots or any employees for that matter. Regarding AA: I do believe they will be able to hold on to their DB program as it generally is but only when the age 65 change happens and the pilots themselves want to keep their plan. Otherwise, with no age change to 65, AA will convert to a DC plan. There will be a freeze point with a buyout of the plan that will probably satisfy very few. Then after that happens the age will change to 65 anyway because we all know this will eventually happen. So bottom line: Better to have the age 65 change occur now rather than later.



Sorry but I really do not understand what you are asking here? If the age 65 rule changes and everyone chooses to work to that age no one loses money. Everyone makes more money. And of course if a person wants to retire early they can without penalty.

Here's the deal: You want to work til 65, I want to work until 60. I'm going to lose money, and I'm somewhat less than enthused about that. There is a very profound penalty for leaving at 60. And may I remind you: that's what the majority of pilots want. I'd like to help you, but I want to know you're going to help me.

This age change only works once. (It works brilliantly for you so that's why you like it so much) AND, Instead of getting money out of our employers, it takes the money from me. B plans, A plans or whatever...what I want is the money.

I also believe GT/UAL will seek to end your B plan contributions. So before you even get a chance to help augment the B plan, this age change is going to dictate you try to protect it first. It's bad policy.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Here's the deal: You want to work til 65, I want to work until 60. I'm going to lose money, and I'm somewhat less than enthused about that. There is a very profound penalty for leaving at 60.

Please explain how there is as penalty for leaving at age 60, other than your not have saved as much money by then, and if that's the case by working longer you will just have to work until you have what you need. Isn't age 65 a win-win for everyone in the long term?

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

I also believe GT/UAL will seek to end your B plan contributions.

As I have said before, if this were to be the case and I seriously doubt that there will be any attempts to decrease the Company's portion of the contribution, such an attempt will occure whether or not the age changes. Whether it's age 60 or 65 that will make no difference with regard to the Company's plans and toward the B or C fund.