Age 60 informal poll

[Klako]

Don't ya love opinions stated as fact .

...but I'd be willing to bet one of my "half-of-what-they used-to-be" paychecks that all the folks that are crying the blues about the age 60 rule--benefited greatly from it during their careers, and wouldn't have wanted it changed while they were on the wrong end of the seniority list...particularly if they spent most of it as an f/o due to the lack of growth/reductions at their carriers.


Deadbug

Deadbug,

Actually, when I hired on with the company that I now work for, I was 42 and was older than about 95% of the pilots senior to me. We do not have a defined benefit pension, only a 401K. In 6 months I will be forced out of my profession with only a small 401K, without medical coverage and it is becoming painfully obvious that nobody wants to hire a 60 year old. I can look forward to possibly losing everything if the rule dose not change soon.
I have the perfect solution for all the pilots out there who say that a change to the age 60 rule would be unfair by slowing upgrades and causing seniority list stagnation. I say then, make it mandatory for ALL airline pilots to retire after serving no more than 20 years with a company or age 65 whichever comes first. If you hire on with a company at age 25, then you are kicked out of the cockpit when you turn age 45 or if you hire on at 45, you retire at 65. That would be equally fair to all by giving everyone just enough time to build their 401K with enough to survive on in retirement.
Of course, my solution should never fly and only suggests the real motive behind the militant junior pilots at ALPA and APA opposing a change to the age 60 rule and that is age discrimination, nothing more and nothing less. The left seat is not a birthright but when one earns that position it should not be taken away unfairly.

 

[n89l]

Nay No

 

[Patriot328]

Deadbug,

Actually, when I hired on with the company that I now work for, I was 42 and was older than about 95% of the pilots senior to me. We do not have a defined benefit pension, only a 401K. In 6 months I will be forced out of my profession with only a small 401K, without medical coverage and it is becoming painfully obvious that nobody wants to hire a 60 year old. I can look forward to possibly losing everything if the rule dose not change soon.

Not to belittle your position, but did you not realize that when you were hired? I'm pretty sure you knew you weren't going to be working there for more than 18 years. Since we've all known the game was over at sixty, did you plan on that or have you just been patiently waiting for the age 60 rule to magically increase to 65 or something before you retire?

Even the guys with the DB plans, it's not like this is the first time the airlines have come crashing down and their pilots (and other employees) have lost it all... Pan Am, Braniff, Eastern, etc... Just because it hasn't happened to your airline yet doesn't mean it will. Anyone who puts all their eggs in their airline's basket through DB plans is crazy.

 

[Klako]

Not to belittle your position, but did you not realize that when you were hired? I'm pretty sure you knew you weren't going to be working there for more than 18 years. Since we've all known the game was over at sixty, did you plan on that or have you just been patiently waiting for the age 60 rule to magically increase to 65 or something before you retire?

The point is that this must not be viewed, as you call it, "the game". Legitimate games have rules that are fair to all the players.
I have always believed the "Age 60 Rule" to be very wrong and would be changed eventually. Thirty-five years ago, when I first got my private pilot’s certificate, an old Western Airlines captain assured me that the age 60 rule would eventually be abolished before it could affect me. He was then very active in trying to change the “Age 60 Rule”. I would have never guessed that it could still be around in 2006.

As of 26 June 2006, this is the status of Bills S.65 and H.R.65, legislation in Congress that would increase the "Age 60 Rule" to 65:

Senate Bill S.65, which was first, introduced on 24 January 2005 currently, has 24 Cosponsors.
The Latest Major Action for S.65 was on 30 March 2006 when it was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders, Calendar No. 382. We are very close to the 60 Yea VOTES required for Senator Bill Frist, the Senate Leader, to put S.65 up for a stand-alone vote. We may even have that number now. When Senator Frist believes that possibility exists, he will poll the entire Senate. If he gets 60 or more positive replies, the bill gets put on the agenda. However, if S.65 is not voted upon in the Senate before the summer recess, it could then be delayed until next year after the elections. If the Republicans should lose the majority in either the Senate or the House, both S.65 and H.R. 65 could then die and never be considered again.

House Bill H.R.65, has 65 cosponsors. The Latest Major Action on H.R.65 was on 5 January 2005 when it was referred to House subcommittee on Aviation. H.R.65 is still stuck in Committee without any sign of action.

 

[Patriot328]

The point is that this must not be viewed, as you call it, "the game". Legitimate games have rules that are fair to all the players.

In any game, rules have to be consistant to be "fair". Changing the rules in the middle of the "game" makes such game unfair. Even more so since the group getting the windfall of the new rule also received the benefit of the old rule.

I will wholeheartedly support changing the age 60 rule for pilots. It will be effective for anyone who is 18 or younger on the day the rule is signed into law. The current players finish the game under the old rules. The new players (that haven't started flying yet) follow the new "fair" rules.

 

[Klako]

In any game, rules have to be consistant to be "fair". Changing the rules in the middle of the "game" makes such game unfair. Even more so since the group getting the windfall of the new rule also received the benefit of the old rule.

There is now an “uneven playing field” that is unfair to United States air carrier pilots. This is because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) now gives an advantage to domestic FAR Part 135 (air Taxi), FAR Part 91 (General Aviation) and foreign air carriers. The FAA now permits pilots who are over the age of 60 to pilot the same types of large airplanes in FAR Parts 91 (general aviation) and 135 (air taxi) operations that it denies in United States FAR Part 121 (commercial air carrier) operations. Beginning on 23 November 2006, foreign air carriers will be allowed to operate large aircraft engaged in commercial air carrier operations within United States airspace and some of those aircraft will be the piloted by pilots that are over the age of 60. United States FAR Part 121 pilots, however, who are over age 60 will all still be grounded unless the Congress passes Senate Bill S.65 or House of Representatives Bill H.R.65. Both of these bills would amend the arbitrary but mandatory retirement age of FAR Part 121 commercial air carrier pilots from age 60 to 65.

 

[Patriot328]

There is now an “uneven playing field” that is unfair to United States air carrier pilots. This is because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) now gives an advantage to domestic FAR Part 135 (air Taxi), FAR Part 91 (General Aviation) and foreign air carriers. The FAA now permits pilots who are over the age of 60 to pilot the same types of large airplanes in FAR Parts 91 (general aviation) and 135 (air taxi) operations that it denies in United States FAR Part 121 (commercial air carrier) operations. Beginning on 23 November 2006, foreign air carriers will be allowed to operate large aircraft engaged in commercial air carrier operations within United States airspace and some of those aircraft will be the piloted by pilots that are over the age of 60. United States FAR Part 121 pilots, however, who are over age 60 will all still be grounded unless the Congress passes Senate Bill S.65 or House of Representatives Bill H.R.65. Both of these bills would amend the arbitrary but mandatory retirement age of FAR Part 121 commercial air carrier pilots from age 60 to 65.

How is that an unfair advangtage? Go work for a 135 carrier then. Emirates is hiring, as well.


Change the age 60 rule for new pilots. All current pilots are grandfathered under the old rule.

Fair is fair.

 

[Klako]

In any game, rules have to be consistant to be "fair". Changing the rules in the middle of the "game" makes such game unfair. Even more so since the group getting the windfall of the new rule also received the benefit of the old rule.

I will wholeheartedly support changing the age 60 rule for pilots. It will be effective for anyone who is 18 or younger on the day the rule is signed into law. The current players finish the game under the old rules. The new players (that haven't started flying yet) follow the new "fair" rules.

That attitude is exactly why the “Age 60 Rule” is still around today. If junior pilots want to have the choice of working past age 60 someday, then the junior guys have got make a sacrifice today to help make that change happen NOW. The circumstances to make that change happen have never been better than they are today. If the bills currently in congress fail, we may never again see an opportunity to abolish the “Age 60 Rule”.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

This whole subject brings to mind a situation that's presently before the legislature in the state where I live. They have before them a bill that would raise the speed limit on the interstates from 65 to 70mph. Using the "why change it now?" argument I see so often when the "Age 60" rule is being discussed, a person who started driving when the speed limit was 65 should be limited to that speed forever. To raise it now would be "unfair" to all those who were limited to the lower speed in the past.

It's arguable whether a person who started driving between 1975 and 1980 or so (when the National limit was 55) could have foreseen that the limit would eventually be raised. Therefore, they would be limited to 55mph for as long as they hold a drivers license, or until further studies documenting their ability to operate a motor vehicle safely can be completed.

On the other hand, if you believe that "The rising tide floats all ships" and that people should be permitted to drive faster than 65 when it's safe for them to do so, then you will support the raising of the speed limit. It shouldn't bother you that the car in front of you will be able to accelerate to that speed before you will. After all, he's there because he was on the highway first. (If you had started your journey a little earlier, it would be you who was in front) Who's in front and who's in back matters little in the long run, as you'll both cover a lot more miles traveling at the new speed limit. The guy ahead of you will just have the opportunity to cover them first, that's all.

One thing I've noticed when discussing this with my fellow pilots, is that it seems that most of the guys who are not in favor of raising the retirement age tend to be the ex-military, "alpha-personality" fighter-type jocks. Clearly, raising the retirement age will slow seat progression for them. Maybe that's why they respond so "energetically" to this...they perceive it as a personal attack on their professional advancement. I hope that eventually they'll come to understand that this is not personal...we're not "challenging their manhood" or their right to earn a decent living, nor trying to keep them in junior positions indefinitely.

The ex-transport guys tend to be a lot mellower...they seem to understand why this makes sense, without all that "Top Gun," testosterone-driven, "gotta-shoot-down-everything-in-the-sky-or-die" cr*p going on in their heads.

Maybe ex-fighter pilots should retire at 60, and let the ex- box-haulers fly to 65. They seem much more tempermentally suited to do so.

 

[Patriot328]

That attitude is exactly why the “Age 60 Rule” is still around today. If junior pilots want to have the choice of working past age 60 someday, then the junior guys have got make a sacrifice today to help make that change happen NOW. The circumstances to make that change happen have never been better than they are today. If the bills currently in congress fail, we may never again see an opportunity to abolish the “Age 60 Rule”.

I think most junior (young) pilots do not want to see the age 60 rule changed because it will stagnate their careers for five years on the bottom of a seniority list (probably a tad less because not everyone will go to age 65 even if allowed). It's not 5 more years as a captain like the people that are pushing this. It's five more years as a junior FO. The increase in longterm pay is nil for someone on the bottom of a seniority list. Also, the unintended consequences of this will be much more stringent medical exams that will probably cause more people to medical out before 60, let alone 65.


On edit: Oh yeah... http://www.mydivadesigns.com/deadhorse.jpg

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

I think most junior (young) pilots do not want to see the age 60 rule changed because it will stagnate their careers for five years on the bottom of a seniority list (probably a tad less because not everyone will go to age 65 even if allowed). It's not 5 more years as a captain like the people that are pushing this. It's five more years as a junior FO. The increase in longterm pay is nil for someone on the bottom of a seniority list. Also, the unintended consequences of this will be much more stringent medical exams that will probably cause more people to medical out before 60, let alone 65.

DUDE, it's 5 more years at EVERY seat! Why is that so hard for people to understand?

In fact, the additional 5 years you spend in every seat will probably happen at a higher pay-rate than the 5 years I spent there. Where's the "fairness" in that?

The way I see it, we're all going to be working for somebody until we're 65. The question is, do we want to spend those last 5 years in the workplace flying for an air-carrier (at air-carrier pay rates) or do we want to be toting a pallet jack, fetching water heaters and cleaning up spills on aisle 3 of our local Home Improvement Center?

If you want to retire at 60, by all means do so. By the time I start working at Home Depot, you'll already have 5 years seniority there, and will have been promoted to Senior electric fork lift driver. Then I can be the one who sits arond and b*tch$ about how "unfair" everything is.

 

[Klako]

I think most junior (young) pilots do not want to see the age 60 rule changed because it will stagnate their careers for five years on the bottom of a seniority list (probably a tad less because not everyone will go to age 65 even if allowed). It's not 5 more years as a captain like the people that are pushing this. It's five more years as a junior FO. The increase in longterm pay is nil for someone on the bottom of a seniority list. Also, the unintended consequences of this will be much more stringent medical exams that will probably cause more people to medical out before 60, let alone 65.

To your fear that “much more stringent medical exams that will probably cause more people to medical out before 60”, then I say let that happen. We have all seen the 30 or 40 something age pilots who fail to take care of themselves physically by being over weight, high cholesterol, etc. So it is these same people who would claim the right to have my job just because I turn 60. I for one have always made sure that I would be able to pass the FAA Class I physical with flying colors at 65 or more. I eat right, exercise allot and I can still max score the Army Physical Fitness Test. I have paid my dues, flew combat missions in Vietnam, helped build the success that my airline company enjoys today and I should not have to start all over again at the bottom of some Part 135 outfit

 

[Patriot328]

DUDE, it's 5 more years at EVERY seat! Why is that so hard for people to understand?

In fact, the additional 5 years you spend in every seat will probably happen at a higher pay-rate than the 5 years I spent there. Where's the "fairness" in that?

Really?

Take a 30yr old newhire with a 10 year upgrade. Upgrades at 40 years old and has 20 years as a CA. Retires at 60.

Take the same 30yr old with new retirement rules. It's now a 15yr upgrade due to lack of attrition for five years. That's five more years at FO pay before the 20 years as a CA. If he wants to retire at 60 ("go ahead and retire at 60" like y'all keep saying), he'll get 15 years as a CA instead of 20. He now has a choice to make, stay and work til 65 or get shafted out of 5 more years of CA pay that he would have had. He'll have to work to 65 (just a tad less, really, if you keep in mind he was flying as an FO for five years and is bringing home money) to make up lost income because of his inability to upgrade because of the retirement age.

If they change the rule today, everyone that is a captain right now gets five more years in their seat. Everyone that's an FO gets five more years as an FO before they upgrade due to attrition. Granted, I know not everyone would stay to 65 and it isn't a flat 5 year increase, but there's no way around the fact that FOs will stay FOs longer. People looking to get hired by a carrier will have to wait up to 5 years longer.

As far as my higher pay rate than yours as a CA when I retire. I don't see current trends backing that up. How many pay scales keep up even with inflation, nevermind the concessionary contracts as of late?

 

[Deadbug]

It's all about me...erhem...one's perspective

Deadbug,

Actually, when I hired on with the company that I now work for, I was 42 and was older than about 95% of the pilots senior to me. We do not have a defined benefit pension, only a 401K. In 6 months I will be forced out of my profession with only a small 401K, without medical coverage and it is becoming painfully obvious that nobody wants to hire a 60 year old. I can look forward to possibly losing everything if the rule dose not change soon.

I am sorry your timing was not good as was your choice of company...unfortunately that happens to a lot of people in this business. In hindsight, I'm not thrilled about the choice I made either--but we are where we are and we all knew the rules when we entered the game. The rules help you sometime, and sometimes they don't--just depends on your situation...ask some of those who've been furloughed how much they've lost.

I'm glad you were able to get hired at your company at age 42; not that long ago, if you were over 30, you could just about forget working for a part 121 carrier; so in some ways you are very lucky.

I know I'm probably wasting my breath, you will see things from your viewpoint and how they affect you right now. Anything any of us who oppose the change say on this topic will not change your outlook. Saying something repeatedly and forcefully enough doesn't make it any truer and more valid than what I've stated in this and my previous post.

Deadbug

 

[Patriot328]

To your fear that “much more stringent medical exams that will probably cause more people to medical out before 60”, then I say let that happen. We have all seen the 30 or 40 something age pilots who fail to take care of themselves physically by being over weight, high cholesterol, etc. So it is these same people who would claim the right to have my job just because I turn 60. I for one have always made sure that I would be able to pass the FAA Class I physical with flying colors at 65 or more. I eat right, exercise allot and I can still max score the Army Physical Fitness Test. I have paid my dues, flew combat missions in Vietnam, helped build the success that my airline company enjoys today and I should not have to start all over again at the bottom of some Part 135 outfit

I commend you for taking care of yourself, and I agree with you, taking care of yourself is part of the rules for this "game". We all know if a pilot doesn't take care of himself, then there's a good chance they could be sidelined before the clock runs out.