Age 60 informal poll

[Deadbug]

...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...

BINGO!

 

[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.

I am here to warn you that unless you are independently wealthy, the only viable retirement plan you can count on is planning to work past 60. Do not count on Social Security and your defined benefit plans will likely be a thing of the past. Even the taxpayer supported Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is on a course to failure. A stroke of the pen, however, (Passage of the legislation to increase the age 60 rule to 65) would relieve the pressure that under funded pension plans of bankrupt carriers being dumped on the PBGC creates. Even at reduced pension payments, the burden is awesome. Now that more and more carriers could be facing bankruptcy, the problem is increasing rapidly. US Air, United Airlines and now Delta Airlines have all terminated their pilot pension plans and the list will likely grow. The remaining airline companies are struggling with the financial burden of continuing to operate while still funding their own pension plans. This creates an uneven playing field with their competitors who have lesser operating costs, having been relieved of their pension burdens. The remaining companies then will be unable to compete with their competitor’s lower operating costs thus increasing pressures for the otherwise healthy companies to terminate their own pension plans as well. This ugly scenario could soon likely be played-out in other industries as well. Delaying their own retirement may be the only solution for individuals caught up in this. Big business is the only winner in all of this. Both tax payers and individuals will be the losers if the age 60 retirement age for airline pilots is not increased.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

If they change the rule today, everyone that is a captain right now gets five more years in their seat.

Not exactly.

Everyone that is on the seniority list gets 5 more years in their seat. ALL seats...including Captain. Yes, it's "5 more years as a junior F/O" with sucky schedules, etc. It's also 5 more years as a senior F/O, with sweet layovers and holidays off. It's 5 more years as a junior Captain, (back to the sucky schedules) and 5 more years at the top of the heap, flying easy schedules with lots of credit hours, and plowing half your income back into your retirement...a retirement that can no longer be guaranteed by either your company OR the government.

It's true that increasing the retirement age will reduce the need for pilots. However, people not on a seniority list don't concern me that much.

The bottom line is simply this...Do you want to spend (assuming you're hired at 30) 30 years as an airline pilot and 5 years working at Home Depot, or 35 years as an airline pilot? That's it. Thirty years in this profession, or thirty-five? That's the only question you have to ask yourself. All this cr*pola about what the rules used to be, and what our "expectations" were when we started, are specious at best. What do you want to be doing between the ages of 60 and 65? Driving a jet, or driving a forklift?

If you tell me you're looking forward to driving the forklift, I'll understand. Not everybody is cut-out to be a pilot.

This is so simple, my kids understand it. My neighbors understand it. Judging by the way he wags his tail, even my dog understands it. I don't understand why people that are supposed to be intelligent, deductive thinkers don't understand it.

The only substantive reason I've yet to hear for not rescinding the "Age 60 " rule is to accelerate upgrades throughout the ranks. The junior guys would like to legislate the senior guys out of their jobs. If safety really were the issue, and they wanted to do some "selective thinning of the herd" in order to get me out of my seat, there are ways they could do it that wouldn't penalize me for having the foresight to be born before them, and in a manner that would enhance safety.

Simply tighten up on standards.

Think about it. We could encourage our employers to task us with multiple, compounded emergencies during upgrades and recurrent checks. Ask our line-check airmen to fail a certain number of crewmembers each quarter. Have pro-standards adopt certain height/weight/fitness standards for all crewmembers, with discipline "up to and including termination" for any crewmember not in compliance. We could stop worrying about how old a guy is, and start worrying about how to get the dead meats and weak-sticks off the property. You'd get the enhanced safety that management and the public wants, along with the quicker upgrades that you want.

That's assuming you're still around.

I have a feeling that when it's your a$$ that's facing the chopper, you're going to become a whole lot kinder and gentler to your brothers in the profession.

 

[Patriot328]

Not exactly.

Everyone that is on the seniority list gets 5 more years in their seat. ALL seats...including Captain. Yes, it's "5 more years as a junior F/O" with sucky schedules, etc. It's also 5 more years as a senior F/O, with sweet layovers and holidays off. It's 5 more years as a junior Captain, (back to the sucky schedules) and 5 more years at the top of the heap, flying easy schedules with lots of credit hours, and plowing half your income back into your retirement...a retirement that can no longer be guaranteed by either your company OR the government.

No, not exactly...

If one is 4999 out of 5000 on a seniority list and it's going to take them 10 years to upgrade then spend 20 years as a captain and they change the rule to 65, it will now take them 5 more years to upgrade because no one is retiring for five more years, putting their upgrade at 15 years. After their 15 year upgrade (now at age 45 instead of 40), they still have 20 years as a captain.

If number 1 at the company is about to turn sixty after spending 10 years as an FO and 20 years as a CA and they change the rule, he is about to spend another five years as a CA; getting 25 years as a CA and 10 years as an FO.

This does not only apply to just CA upgrade, but vacations, bidding, getting off reserve, everything. EVERYONE on a seniority list stagnates for five years.


I wouldn't really care so much about it (and to be honest I don't.. change it.. most people at my airline are so burned out I don't think they'll stick around much past 60 anyway), but it just find it so hypocritical that the very people that benefitted from the rule now want it changed when it's not working out so well for them.

 

[Klako]

Not exactly.

Everyone that is on the seniority list gets 5 more years in their seat. ALL seats...including Captain. Yes, it's "5 more years as a junior F/O" with sucky schedules, etc. It's also 5 more years as a senior F/O, with sweet layovers and holidays off. It's 5 more years as a junior Captain, (back to the sucky schedules) and 5 more years at the top of the heap, flying easy schedules with lots of credit hours, and plowing half your income back into your retirement...a retirement that can no longer be guaranteed by either your company OR the government.

It's true that increasing the retirement age will reduce the need for pilots. However, people not on a seniority list don't concern me that much.

The bottom line is simply this...Do you want to spend (assuming you're hired at 30) 30 years as an airline pilot and 5 years working at Home Depot, or 35 years as an airline pilot? That's it. Thirty years in this profession, or thirty-five? That's the only question you have to ask yourself. All this cr*pola about what the rules used to be, and what our "expectations" were when we started, are specious at best. What do you want to be doing between the ages of 60 and 65? Driving a jet, or driving a forklift?

If you tell me you're looking forward to driving the forklift, I'll understand. Not everybody is cut-out to be a pilot.

This is so simple, my kids understand it. My neighbors understand it. Judging by the way he wags his tail, even my dog understands it. I don't understand why people that are supposed to be intelligent, deductive thinkers don't understand it.

The only substantive reason I've yet to hear for not rescinding the "Age 60 " rule is to accelerate upgrades throughout the ranks. The junior guys would like to legislate the senior guys out of their jobs. If safety really were the issue, and they wanted to do some "selective thinning of the herd" in order to get me out of my seat, there are ways they could do it that wouldn't penalize me for having the foresight to be born before them, and in a manner that would enhance safety.

Simply tighten up on standards.

Think about it. We could encourage our employers to task us with multiple, compounded emergencies during upgrades and recurrent checks. Ask our line-check airmen to fail a certain number of crewmembers each quarter. Have pro-standards adopt certain height/weight/fitness standards for all crewmembers, with discipline "up to and including termination" for any crewmember not in compliance. We could stop worrying about how old a guy is, and start worrying about how to get the dead meats and weak-sticks off the property. You'd get the enhanced safety that management and the public wants, along with the quicker upgrades that you want.

That's assuming you're still around.

I have a feeling that when it's your a$$ that's facing the chopper, you're going to become a whole lot kinder and gentler to your brothers in the profession.

DITO! Whistlin' Dan

Tell that dog of yours, GOOD BOY!

 

[Sluggo_63]

...opposing a change to the age 60 rule and that is age discrimination, nothing more and nothing less.

So... forcing retirement at age 65 isn't?

Why don't you become an air traffic controller? Oh, that's right, you have to be younger than 31 to start, with a mandatory retirement age of 56. Crap! Hope you're going to change that one, too.

How about serving your community as a policeman or fireman? Retirement at 55 there too?

You know, if I were you, I'd stop flying now, because you have a whole lot of lobbying to get done on behalf of yourself and these other groups who are 'discriminated' against. Or is it only about you?

 

[Sluggo_63]

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

NO IT IS NOT! Why is that so hard for you to understand? YOU are not spending 5 more years in EVERY seat. YOU are spending five more years in YOUR seat. The junior pilot is spending five more years in EVERY SEAT.

If, at age sixty, you want to spend five more years as a second officer... go ahead... you can spend five more years there, then upgrade and spend five more years as a first officer, then after your five extra years as a first officer are up, you can go back to your Captain's seat, have at it. NOW it's even.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

You know, if I were you, I'd stop flying now, because you have a whole lot of lobbying to get done on behalf of yourself and these other groups who are 'discriminated' against. Or is it only about you?

If I'm not mistaken, the "Age 60" rule that you are so against changing goes back to about 1958 or so. If you want to keep the rules as they were then, fine. But let's keep ALL the rules, OK? For example...

• With few exceptions, passenger service will be operated by aircraft of 25-60 seat capacity, at rates that max out at roughly the equivalent to the Regional/LCC carriers of today.

• Air cargo will be the bastard stepchild of aviation, operated largely with obsolete or cast-off mainline equipment. It will be flown by crews who are paid at rates that are about half that of the Legacy carriers, and their accident rates will be appalling.

• Medical waivers will be virtually unheard of. One heart attack, one occurance of high blood pressure, diabetes, or substance abuse, will permanently disqualify an airline pilot from further service. Likewise, many major surgical procedures. No bypasses, no teflon knees or hips, no nuthin...

• Legacy carriers will rarely hire pilots over 30 years of age. Once past 30, the best job most pilots can hope for will be non-sked cargo or aircraft sales. (Unfortunately, that will keep ex-military pilots out of contention for Legacy-carrier jobs, but "they knew the rules going in," right?)

Yea, I like "the rules" we had in 1958. I like them so much, I think we ought to go back to them. If we could just do that, I think this "problem" some guys are apparently having with "upgrades not happening quickly enough" will remedy itself...

 

[GuppyWN]

I'm sure someone has done the math but I'm gonna have another go at it. I'm 37. I'm an FO. Captains at my airline make roughly 80k/yr more than me. I am "guessing" that the length of stay in my seat could be another 3 years. That's 240k lost cash. Compound that 3 times (money doubles every 7 years at 7%) and you're at a cool million bucks. Plus the loss of profit sharing, 401k match and you can see that it will cost me well over a $1,000,000 to sit another 3 years in the right seat.

If I stay from 60 to 65 I COULD earn another $1,000,000 THEN. I'd rather have it now cause there is no promise that I'll be healthy when I'm 61 and beyond.

This is all demographics. The older you are the more you care about this issue. I'll ask all of you one question.

Were you riding the "this is discrimination" horse 20 years ago? 10 years ago? I doubt it. ALPA is still against Age 60 repeal. Guys have lost thousands or millions in pensions. 5 years ago they were fine but now they don't have the money to retire it's "discrimination."

ICAO will go to 65 for ONE pilot in the cockpit in November. What if I'm a 61 year old FO and my Captain is also 61. I don't get to fly that trip. THAT IS DICRIMINATION!

Let's all just be honest with one another and tell it like it is. It's not about age discrimination, it's about $$$.

Gup

 

[KCPilot]

I'm sure someone has done the math but I'm gonna have another go at it. I'm 37. I'm an FO. Captains at my airline make roughly 80k/yr more than me. I am "guessing" that the length of stay in my seat could be another 3 years. That's 240k lost cash. Compound that 3 times (money doubles every 7 years at 7%) and you're at a cool million bucks. Plus the loss of profit sharing, 401k match and you can see that it will cost me well over a $1,000,000 to sit another 3 years in the right seat.

If I stay from 60 to 65 I COULD earn another $1,000,000 THEN. I'd rather have it now cause there is no promise that I'll be healthy when I'm 61 and beyond.

This is all demographics. The older you are the more you care about this issue. I'll ask all of you one question.

Were you riding the "this is discrimination" horse 20 years ago? 10 years ago? I doubt it. ALPA is still against Age 60 repeal. Guys have lost thousands or millions in pensions. 5 years ago they were fine but now they don't have the money to retire it's "discrimination."

ICAO will go to 65 for ONE pilot in the cockpit in November. What if I'm a 61 year old FO and my Captain is also 61. I don't get to fly that trip. THAT IS DICRIMINATION!

Let's all just be honest with one another and tell it like it is. It's not about age discrimination, it's about $$$.

Gup

I agree with that and more and would like to thank them for the delay in my career!

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

Let's all just be honest with one another and tell it like it is. It's not about age discrimination, it's about $$$.

On that we agree. This is about money. Not discrimination. Not safety. And certainly not about "tradition."

Half of "us" would like to see the other half of "us" forced out of our jobs, so that the half of "us" that still have jobs will have better jobs.

My dad always said that airline pilots would never have an effective union, because they didn't understand the concept of "brotherhood," at least in the sense that mine and steelworkers had it. At the time, I thought he was full of $hit.

That was before the pilots at one Legacy carrier accepted a two-tiered pay structure...before they later "stapled" an entire workforce to their seniority list, so they could furlough them en masse. That was before Continental, before Eastern, before all the shenanigans over RJ's and the guys who fly them. That was before the concessionary agreements that were signed by virtually every pilot group at every airline in bankruptcy, in which not one dollar per crewmember per hour was offered to keep some semblance of a pension intact for the guys who had spent 35 years building the airline.

The old boy was right. As a group, we're nothing but self-serving sharks...

 

[FoxHunter]

Slight correction.

ICAO will go to 65 for ONE pilot in the cockpit in November. What if I'm a 61 year old FO and my Captain is also 61. I don't get to fly that trip. THAT IS DICRIMINATION!
Gup

ICAO/JAA/S.65 One pilot must be under age 60, all others in the crew must be under age 65.

 

[Klako]

Half of "us" would like to see the other half of "us" forced out of our jobs, so that the half of "us" that still have jobs will have better jobs.........
we're nothing but self-serving sharks...

If this is the case then here is the equitable solution for those out there who fear that that a change to the age 60 rule would be unfair to them by slowing upgrades and causing seniority list stagnation. Instead why not then make it mandatory for all 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 for all, no age discrimination, and give everyone just enough time to build their 401K to a level that they can retire on. Fair is Fair, right?(I posted this once before)

 

[NoJoy]

Gup you are right on. It's about the $ only. 10 years ago, majority of the same pilots saying-or yelling- that the age 60 rule is discrimination were wistling a different tune. Like when can I get off reserve, make CA, ect. Besides most pilots should know better and plan for their retirement independantely, minus pension or Social Security. Relying on only one plan, instead of many isn't a good idea-as we all know now. Take care.

 

[3BCat]

Why don't you become an air traffic controller? Oh, that's right, you have to be younger than 31 to start, with a mandatory retirement age of 56...How about serving your community as a policeman or fireman? Retirement at 55 there too?

City, State and Federal retirements go with those mandatory early outs. Where's ours?

 

[Sluggo_63]

City, State and Federal retirements go with those mandatory early outs. Where's ours?

I realize they all have retirements. So do most pilots. It may not be as much as they thought, but they have one nonetheless.

Either way. This was in response to a post citing 'age discrimination' as a reason to abolish the age 60 rule. Just because someone gets paid, doesn't make it any less discriminatory.

 

[Phaedrus]

Again, discrimination schmiscrimination. If you want to play that tune then offer up an age that isn't "discriminatory". A great philosopher once said, "Know thyself". It ain't discrimination that's got your panties in a wad.

 

[Flopgut]

“Know thyself, know thy enemy”, Gen Shun Tzu author of The Art Of War, a 2000+ year old battlefield manual still popular in management studies today. The manual instructs that on “death ground” (imminent defeat) “steal something from your enemy that is precious to them”. (I suppose an airline pilot who is, for whatever reason, unprepared to retire and approaching 60 might feel like this). An age change proponent would be stealing something precious from his enemy when he steals the seniority of those junior to him for sure.
Normally you don’t lose a “battle” with superior numbers and a valid cause. But, in this case defeat might be forced on us. So, let’s stick to the manual. It will then be our turn to steal something precious from our enemy. I propose a Z scale to our CBAs. Age 60+ wages will diminish. Maybe max pay of 50K, that can only be used for health care and retirement savings for instance. How’s that sound?

 

[3BCat]

Again, discrimination schmiscrimination. If you want to play that tune then offer up an age that isn't "discriminatory". A great philosopher once said, "Know thyself". It ain't discrimination that's got your panties in a wad.

Hi Phaedrus. No age limit - No discrimination.

 

[Klako]

“Know thyself, know thy enemy”, Gen Shun Tzu author of The Art Of War, a 2000+ year old battlefield manual still popular in management studies today. The manual instructs that on “death ground” (imminent defeat) “steal something from your enemy that is precious to them”. (I suppose an airline pilot who is, for whatever reason, unprepared to retire and approaching 60 might feel like this). An age change proponent would be stealing something precious from his enemy when he steals the seniority of those junior to him for sure.
Normally you don’t lose a “battle” with superior numbers and a valid cause. But, in this case defeat might be forced on us. So, let’s stick to the manual. It will then be our turn to steal something precious from our enemy. I propose a Z scale to our CBAs. Age 60+ wages will diminish. Maybe max pay of 50K, that can only be used for health care and retirement savings for instance. How’s that sound?

“steals the seniority of those junior to him” That is the biggest bunch of bull that I have read yet on this thread. This of course, is the typical junior ALPA/APA attitude. You junior ALPA/APA twerps who think that the left seat is your birth right had better get used to the fact that the mandatory retirement will likely change to 65 within a year.
The only stealing going on has been the junior pilots stealing the left seat from the pilots who have earned that position and for all the rights of decency and fairness they should be allowed to keep it past age 60 if they should choose.
I had one of those obnoxious, arrogant young ALPA guys in my jump seat today spouting his disdain for the “old farts stagnating the seniority list”. He obviously did not have a clue that I turn 60 this year. I almost told him to take off his offensive ALPA pin before he could ride in my cockpit.

 

[jbDC9]

The only stealing going on has been the junior pilots stealing the left seat from the pilots who have earned that position and for all the rights of decency and fairness they should be allowed to keep it past age 60 if they should choose.

Umm, I hate to break it to ya, but the only way you "earned" that left seat position was the Age 60 rule... you know, back when you were an FO, the old guys retired so you could move up to that lofty Left Seat? Perhaps you've forgotten this small detail?

 

[Flopgut]

Klako: I'm not APA, I work for CAL with around 10 years longevity.

FYI: My father had 22+ years with an ALPA carrier when he lost his job and pension. I say that, not for sympathy, but to communicate to you that I am not confused about how bad it is to lose retirement savings and have to go to plan B. Anybody that wants this change for the money, I say: gut it out! My family did. And BTW, my father had to tolerate plenty of crap from arrogant twerps from your generation, so keep your thoughts to yourself and be generous with your JS. It belonged to someone else before it was yours; you think your the only pilot that has ever turned 60? Talk about arrogant.

If my ten years means nothing then why should your [blank] years matter? If seniority was in any way a determinent in your career progression (which of course it was), then when it's getting handed out for free it should be distributed in some way. Age 60+ can go to the right seat at the bottom of the list IMHO. I also think it would be smart to garner age 60+ earnings so you don't go blow it. If this rule changes your a replacement worker, plain and simple. (You get super seniority outside any CBA) NOT a scab, but the effect will be the same on my career and the careers of at least a 2/3rds majority. Am I suppose to be happy about this?

Well, it might be happening irregardless of any of our feelings. What I would caution you to consider is that a majority of pilots don't want this changed. You might want to find some middle ground on this issue. You might not like how the majority of pilots want this implemented in our contracts.

 

[Flopgut]

I'll admit that I'm softening up on this issue. There is a CA Jim Smyth that posts on here and he described his seniority at SWA. Basically, he's a senior CA but is nearly the same number he hired on at. Great for him and pretty neat for SWA's growth, but there are more people that have won 10+ million dollar lottery jackpots than have found themselves in that situation. Is that what we want to make this job, a lottery? He!! no! Let's give everybody the best deal we can. Even CA Smyth's career has progressed through seniority, albetit very little, it still counts.

Klako: Your not really up to speed here. If you read you post you admit to stealing seniority yourself! "The only stealing going on has been the junior pilots stealing the left seat from the pilots who have earned that position and for all the rights of decency and fairness they should be allowed to keep it past age 60 if they should choose."

What seat are you in? Were you never junior?

 

[Klako]

I'll admit that I'm softening up on this issue. There is a CA Jim Smyth that posts on here and he described his seniority at SWA. Basically, he's a senior CA but is nearly the same number he hired on at. Great for him and pretty neat for SWA's growth, but there are more people that have won 10+ million dollar lottery jackpots than have found themselves in that situation. Is that what we want to make this job, a lottery? He!! no! Let's give everybody the best deal we can. Even CA Smyth's career has progressed through seniority, albetit very little, it still counts.

Klako: Your not really up to speed here. If you read you post you admit to stealing seniority yourself! "The only stealing going on has been the junior pilots stealing the left seat from the pilots who have earned that position and for all the rights of decency and fairness they should be allowed to keep it past age 60 if they should choose."

What seat are you in? Were you never junior?

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. I earned my place my helping my company expand. 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. So, it is fair that people like me should be forced into poverty so some ALPA/APA pilot can get a better schedule and upgrade sooner.
ALPA and APA have been cutting their own throats with greed and misdeeds. To my knowledge there are only two organized labor unions that now oppose a change to the “Age 60 Rule”, ALPA and APA. This begs the question, what legitimate labor union would actively support a rule which discriminates against its own members, forces them to leave their workplaces and leaves them with reduced benefits?

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

I propose a Z scale to our CBAs. Age 60+ wages will diminish. Maybe max pay of 50K, that can only be used for health care and retirement savings for instance. How’s that sound?

If nothing else, I'm sure it will receive the full support of airline management.

Just think! In 15 or 20 years, when you and all your age-60 peers are working for 50K, you can tell them, "Yea, that was my idea!"

 

[jbDC9]

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. I earned my place by helping my company expand.

You've mentioned several times "earning" your place... again, here's a news flash for you; we're all doing that. We hire on, go to work and "help the company expand", while senior, older guys retire at 60, enabling us (including you) to move up. You're no different from the rest of us, except for your being 42 when hired on. But, you knew the Age 60 rule was in place then, correct?

Why is this all so hard to understand? All current 121 pilots have benefitted from this rule... including the senior guys at the top. The senior dudes bitch and moan about the "greedy junior guys"... never mind the fact that they used to be greedy junior guys themselves.

 

[Klako]

ALPA and APA no longer have any credibility in telling Congress that the "Age 60 Rule" must not change. This is because the Airline Pilots Association's (ALPA) has now signed Canadian air carrier “Jazz” to a contract allowing pilots to fly to age 65. ALPA represents Jazz and has approved a contract that set pensions at age 60 and allows flight to age 65. Additionally, ALPA's President Duane Woerth publicly stated that he would sign any ALPA over age 60 contract for a United States carrier if the Age 60 Rule were changed in the US.

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.

 

[Klako]

Motives
By Steve Jacques​

As I have become more involved in the Age 60 issue, and have had the opportunity to listen to more and more pilots input on the subject, it appears that the question of motive is raised frequently. Many of those opposed to any change are usually the first to ask; "why would anyone want to work beyond 60?" That is a very good question.
From my perspective, the answer is very clear. For the most part, those leading the charge are unable to retire at 60. "What's this! Those high paid senior pilots crying poverty! Why don't they take their 30 year pensions and retire with dignity!!" Well, it's not quite that simple. What follows in my unscientific model of the average pilot who is in the forefront of the Age 60-rule change movement.
AGE: Late 40's
MARITAL STATUS: Married, 3 children (2 currently in college)
YEARS IN AVIATION: 25+
YEARS WITH PRESENT AIRLINE: 3
CURRENT STATUS: F/O, B-757
NUMBER OF PREVIOUS AIRLINES: 3 (furloughed from one, others went bankrupt)
CURRENT FINANCAL STATUS: Marginal - Still paying off medical bills incurred while out of work with no insurance. Almost lost home to bank.
RETIREMENT PACKAGE: Nil
The statistics listed above do not describe any particular person, but do describe a core group of pilots who work for various airlines, and whose mission is to try to continue to work for those airlines because of previous unfortunate circumstances (I am not referring to a specific group such as the PPF). They do not want charity; they do not want sympathy… they want to provide as best they can for the welfare of their family and their later years (which aren't so far away).
This core group is not concerned with greed, nor with losing status because of forced retirement. They simply have not had the opportunity to put in 30 years with the same company in order to garner the seniority and the retirement package that others have. They are not looking to "rob" anyone else of a job, or a chance to upgrade. They feel that there are ideas already being tendered that will allow everyone on every side of the issue to be satisfied with an extended age FAR.
Are there others not in this core group who wish to work beyond 60? Yes. Do they already have enough to retire on comfortably? Probably. Will some of these people opt to work beyond 60 if the rule is changed? Most likely. But does it really matter? If protection is guaranteed to those who wish to retire at 60, and to those who want the quickest possible upgrade, does it matter? Do we mind, as a pilot group, if those who need to work longer can have the chance to do so? Would you want the same consideration in 20 years if your career doesn't quite go the way you planned?

These questions, and others put forth by individuals in our greater pilot community will define the debate as the months go on. I invite you to ask your own tough questions to yourself and others. But above all, I ask you to see the shades of gray between the black and white of the issue.
Please let me leave you with one final thought. Put yourself in the "unscientific model" specified above. If you have ever experienced moderate to severe financial trauma, this will probably be easy to you. Then "walk the walk" of that individual, and ask yourself if there can be a win/win solution to raising the retirement age.​

 

[Klako]

You're no different from the rest of us, except for your being 42 when hired on. But, you knew the Age 60 rule was in place then, correct?

When I first started flying, an old Western Airlines captain assured me that the age 60 rule would eventually be abolished before it could affect me. This Western guy was active then with ALPA in trying to abolish the age 60 rule and I recall while I was still in high school helping him stuff envelopes for Western pilots in their effort to change the rule. I can honestly tell you that I have been a supporter of changing the rule ever sense. I would have never guessed that it could still be around in 2006.

 

[Flopgut]

So Klako, this really has ambushed you? You were just sure it would be abolished? Right. So I should have to pay for this?

Look, if you earned your place because you posses abilities none of the rest of us do, then you'll have no problem finding other employment.

Doesn't matter what any of us think, it might change this time. What you might want to be concerned with is how the majority of pilots want this implemented into thier CBAs.