Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Age 60 informal poll
- Thread starter 71KILO
- Start date
- Watchers 146
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Not your fault... it's Klako who keeps posting his drivel and trying to convince everyone that the rules need to be changed to fit his personal circumstances. But don't get him wrong, it's not him being greedy and selfish, it's the rest of us junior bastards trying to steal his sandbox. Yeah, right!71KILO said:
UndauntedFlyer
Ease the nose down
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Posts
- 1,062
Chicago Tribune Age-60 Article
--------------------
Great record. Tip-top health. Too old.
--------------------
Older pilots question mandatory retirement age of 60, but younger brethren want FAA rule to stay in place
By Jon Hilkevitch and John Schmeltzer
Tribune staff reporters
August 22, 2006
Richard Hinnenkamp, a United Airlines pilot for 37 years, recently aced the medical exam required of an airline captain every six months, bench-presses his body weight and outruns his son-in-law.
But because he turns 60 on Friday, he'll be forced to end his career at United due to a government-mandated precaution against taking a chance on his fitness.
That doesn't mean Hinnenkamp will turn in his wings. He plans to change uniforms, joining a foreign carrier as a pilot.
At a time when security concerns make it is easy to argue passengers would like to see the most experienced pilots at the controls, thousands are being forced out by what critics see as an arbitrary federal retirement rule not backed by any clear scientific data or accidents studies.
Hinnenkamp, who weighed offers from at least two carriers, is among a growing number of some of the nation's best-trained fliers joining such foreign carriers as Britain's Virgin Atlantic and Air India. Those airlines and many others are recruiting heavily in the United States in advance of a significant change in international regulations.
Starting in November, pilots up to age 65 working for foreign airlines will be allowed to command flights into the United States under an agreement the government fought to block. It was adopted this year by the International Civil Aviation Organization, which regulates international air travel and is relaxing its retirement rule to allow pilots to command an aircraft until age 65, as long as the co-pilot is no older than 59.
Despite more than 22,000 flight hours logged on aircraft ranging from warplanes over Southeast Asia to 747s doing the so-called Riesling run (a reference to the German wine) to Frankfurt, Hinnenkamp said he is about to suddenly become an unacceptable safety risk to the flying public, but only if he is at the controls of an American plane, according to FAA rules.
"The kid who replaces me on the seniority list at United will not have been born when I dropped bombs on Vietnam," the U.S. Navy veteran said.
"I am an American and I cannot land an American plane in my country," he added. "But [as of November] I can change uniforms and land a 747 here in the U.S. for Air India, El Al or another foreign carrier."
Experts say relaxing the retirement age in the U.S. would save the nation's cash-strapped airlines hundreds of millions of dollars in training costs while also saving the government that much more in lost income taxes, Social Security payments and early payouts by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Board, which is taking over the failed pension plans of airlines.
The United States is one of the few countries in the world opposed to raising the retirement age of commercial pilots. The other notable exceptions are France and China, which also require pilots to step down at 60.
Eighty-three percent of the countries called for raising the retirement age in a 2003 survey conducted by the Montreal-based International Civil Aviation Organization.
U.S. aviation officials consistently have refused to reconsider the decision made in 1959 at the behest of American Airlines to force older pilots from the cockpit. It was not based on any scientific studies.
Marion Blakey, administrator or the Federal Aviation Administration, maintains the available safety data and latest medical research are insufficient for the agency to begin the steps necessary to change the age 60 rule. But Blakey said the FAA position on the issue has changed to "neutral."
"There is a lot of common sense, a lot of data showing that Americans are healthier, they are living longer," Blakey told pilots attending an air show in Oshkosh, Wis., last month.
The outcome may depend on what Congress does, she said.
Legislation is under review in Congress to increase the age limit in the United States to create a uniform worldwide standard. Similar bills have been introduced regularly since 1999.
Dr. Anthony Evans, chief of the aviation medicine section of the international aviation group, said the organization decided to increase the retirement age after a study group in 2003 determined older pilots could safely continue operating passenger planes.
"The flight safety risk of aging pilots has been reduced. People are living longer, and the ability of aviation medicine and medical science to make an assessment has improved," he said, noting incapacitation training is now mandatory.
In response to questions by a group called Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination, FAA officials said age alone is not the best indicator of a pilot's proficiency.
"However, everyone would agree there comes a time when every pilot should stop flying," David Balloff, FAA assistant administrator for government and industry affairs, told the group.
Although no accidents have occurred during the many years foreign airlines have been allowed to enter the United States with co-pilots older than 60, more data is needed to determine if the risks increase due to the older pilots, Balloff said.
Some airlines, including El Al, Virgin Atlantic and a number of European carriers, employ pilots older than 60. But under U.S. rules they must turn over controls to the younger pilot before entering U.S. airspace. France refuses to allow flights over its territory by those carriers.
Younger pilots eager to move into the captain's seat, and obtain the higher pay, say the current retirement age is the way things should remain.
They say the generation of pilots soon to retire was helped by the age-60 rule when their careers advanced. These same older pilots want the retirement age extended so they can benefit again, say the younger pilots.
"It's not about bashing 60-year-old pilots so we can benefit," said Ben Armen, 36, a first officer who has been flying 11 years for a major U.S. airline after starting with a regional commuter carrier. "But the group seeking to raise the age limit overnight is trying to make a political change to prolong their earning capabilities."
Keeping the pilot retirement age is supported by the Air Line Pilots Association, the nation's largest pilots union.
Supporters of raising the retirement limit say the pilots group is courting entry-level pilots working for regional airlines, warning that the FAA might impose additional training and qualification standards on all pilots. Supporters also say that the union is ignoring the fact that airlines might not even be around without the financial sacrifices senior pilots have made.
E. Allan Englehardt, a 37-year United veteran, said the existing rule is "gross age discrimination" and would force him to become a burden on society.
"My big problem if I am forced to retire on Jan. 29 is how am I going to support my wife and 15-year-old son," said Englehardt of Lake Bluff. "I want to send my son to college and help him reach his goals in life. Isn't that what every parent wants?"
Bill Siegert, a Boeing 737 captain with Southwest Airlines, which is fighting the government's refusal to raise the retirement age, said the deciding factor comes down to who is best served by the FAA's intransigence.
In addition to Southwest and its pilots union, JetBlue Airways and ATA Airlines also support raising the retirement age. Major carriers are on the sidelines.
"Our flying public deserves the best pilot, the most experienced and the most qualified," said Siegert, who turns 58 this year. "The age-60 rule does cause a brain drain."
Siegert said he and his wife, Gayle, are prepared to pack up and move overseas from their home in Kane County if that is what it takes for him to continue flying.
Without a change in the age rule, many pilots turning 60 will wait for Social Security to kick in and live on retirement checks substantially smaller than what they planned for because their financially struggling airlines reduced or terminated pilot pensions.
Other veteran pilots will begin second careers as expatriate Americans flying under foreign flags.
Pilots like Hinnenkamp say they anticipated a comfortable retirement and saw no need to keep flying beyond age 60 until they lost most of their pension and all of their medical and dental benefits in retirement.
"Now I will have to live on less than one quarter of what I planned to live on," said Hinnenkamp, who lives with his wife in Morgan Hill, Calif., about an hour's drive from San Francisco International Airport, his base for United.
He worries about the future.
"My father died at age 96, and his older brother is now 102," Hinnenkamp said. "I may be retired longer than I flew."
--------------------
Great record. Tip-top health. Too old.
--------------------
Older pilots question mandatory retirement age of 60, but younger brethren want FAA rule to stay in place
By Jon Hilkevitch and John Schmeltzer
Tribune staff reporters
August 22, 2006
Richard Hinnenkamp, a United Airlines pilot for 37 years, recently aced the medical exam required of an airline captain every six months, bench-presses his body weight and outruns his son-in-law.
But because he turns 60 on Friday, he'll be forced to end his career at United due to a government-mandated precaution against taking a chance on his fitness.
That doesn't mean Hinnenkamp will turn in his wings. He plans to change uniforms, joining a foreign carrier as a pilot.
At a time when security concerns make it is easy to argue passengers would like to see the most experienced pilots at the controls, thousands are being forced out by what critics see as an arbitrary federal retirement rule not backed by any clear scientific data or accidents studies.
Hinnenkamp, who weighed offers from at least two carriers, is among a growing number of some of the nation's best-trained fliers joining such foreign carriers as Britain's Virgin Atlantic and Air India. Those airlines and many others are recruiting heavily in the United States in advance of a significant change in international regulations.
Starting in November, pilots up to age 65 working for foreign airlines will be allowed to command flights into the United States under an agreement the government fought to block. It was adopted this year by the International Civil Aviation Organization, which regulates international air travel and is relaxing its retirement rule to allow pilots to command an aircraft until age 65, as long as the co-pilot is no older than 59.
Despite more than 22,000 flight hours logged on aircraft ranging from warplanes over Southeast Asia to 747s doing the so-called Riesling run (a reference to the German wine) to Frankfurt, Hinnenkamp said he is about to suddenly become an unacceptable safety risk to the flying public, but only if he is at the controls of an American plane, according to FAA rules.
"The kid who replaces me on the seniority list at United will not have been born when I dropped bombs on Vietnam," the U.S. Navy veteran said.
"I am an American and I cannot land an American plane in my country," he added. "But [as of November] I can change uniforms and land a 747 here in the U.S. for Air India, El Al or another foreign carrier."
Experts say relaxing the retirement age in the U.S. would save the nation's cash-strapped airlines hundreds of millions of dollars in training costs while also saving the government that much more in lost income taxes, Social Security payments and early payouts by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Board, which is taking over the failed pension plans of airlines.
The United States is one of the few countries in the world opposed to raising the retirement age of commercial pilots. The other notable exceptions are France and China, which also require pilots to step down at 60.
Eighty-three percent of the countries called for raising the retirement age in a 2003 survey conducted by the Montreal-based International Civil Aviation Organization.
U.S. aviation officials consistently have refused to reconsider the decision made in 1959 at the behest of American Airlines to force older pilots from the cockpit. It was not based on any scientific studies.
Marion Blakey, administrator or the Federal Aviation Administration, maintains the available safety data and latest medical research are insufficient for the agency to begin the steps necessary to change the age 60 rule. But Blakey said the FAA position on the issue has changed to "neutral."
"There is a lot of common sense, a lot of data showing that Americans are healthier, they are living longer," Blakey told pilots attending an air show in Oshkosh, Wis., last month.
The outcome may depend on what Congress does, she said.
Legislation is under review in Congress to increase the age limit in the United States to create a uniform worldwide standard. Similar bills have been introduced regularly since 1999.
Dr. Anthony Evans, chief of the aviation medicine section of the international aviation group, said the organization decided to increase the retirement age after a study group in 2003 determined older pilots could safely continue operating passenger planes.
"The flight safety risk of aging pilots has been reduced. People are living longer, and the ability of aviation medicine and medical science to make an assessment has improved," he said, noting incapacitation training is now mandatory.
In response to questions by a group called Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination, FAA officials said age alone is not the best indicator of a pilot's proficiency.
"However, everyone would agree there comes a time when every pilot should stop flying," David Balloff, FAA assistant administrator for government and industry affairs, told the group.
Although no accidents have occurred during the many years foreign airlines have been allowed to enter the United States with co-pilots older than 60, more data is needed to determine if the risks increase due to the older pilots, Balloff said.
Some airlines, including El Al, Virgin Atlantic and a number of European carriers, employ pilots older than 60. But under U.S. rules they must turn over controls to the younger pilot before entering U.S. airspace. France refuses to allow flights over its territory by those carriers.
Younger pilots eager to move into the captain's seat, and obtain the higher pay, say the current retirement age is the way things should remain.
They say the generation of pilots soon to retire was helped by the age-60 rule when their careers advanced. These same older pilots want the retirement age extended so they can benefit again, say the younger pilots.
"It's not about bashing 60-year-old pilots so we can benefit," said Ben Armen, 36, a first officer who has been flying 11 years for a major U.S. airline after starting with a regional commuter carrier. "But the group seeking to raise the age limit overnight is trying to make a political change to prolong their earning capabilities."
Keeping the pilot retirement age is supported by the Air Line Pilots Association, the nation's largest pilots union.
Supporters of raising the retirement limit say the pilots group is courting entry-level pilots working for regional airlines, warning that the FAA might impose additional training and qualification standards on all pilots. Supporters also say that the union is ignoring the fact that airlines might not even be around without the financial sacrifices senior pilots have made.
E. Allan Englehardt, a 37-year United veteran, said the existing rule is "gross age discrimination" and would force him to become a burden on society.
"My big problem if I am forced to retire on Jan. 29 is how am I going to support my wife and 15-year-old son," said Englehardt of Lake Bluff. "I want to send my son to college and help him reach his goals in life. Isn't that what every parent wants?"
Bill Siegert, a Boeing 737 captain with Southwest Airlines, which is fighting the government's refusal to raise the retirement age, said the deciding factor comes down to who is best served by the FAA's intransigence.
In addition to Southwest and its pilots union, JetBlue Airways and ATA Airlines also support raising the retirement age. Major carriers are on the sidelines.
"Our flying public deserves the best pilot, the most experienced and the most qualified," said Siegert, who turns 58 this year. "The age-60 rule does cause a brain drain."
Siegert said he and his wife, Gayle, are prepared to pack up and move overseas from their home in Kane County if that is what it takes for him to continue flying.
Without a change in the age rule, many pilots turning 60 will wait for Social Security to kick in and live on retirement checks substantially smaller than what they planned for because their financially struggling airlines reduced or terminated pilot pensions.
Other veteran pilots will begin second careers as expatriate Americans flying under foreign flags.
Pilots like Hinnenkamp say they anticipated a comfortable retirement and saw no need to keep flying beyond age 60 until they lost most of their pension and all of their medical and dental benefits in retirement.
"Now I will have to live on less than one quarter of what I planned to live on," said Hinnenkamp, who lives with his wife in Morgan Hill, Calif., about an hour's drive from San Francisco International Airport, his base for United.
He worries about the future.
"My father died at age 96, and his older brother is now 102," Hinnenkamp said. "I may be retired longer than I flew."
UndauntedFlyer (I'll explain later in the post how I know that you are one in the same), welcome to the discussion. Let me take this article on point by point.
That's a quote by Capt. His 60th birthday was yesterday, 25 Aug. From 24-26 Aug, United has recalled approximately 150 pilots off of the seniority list, myself included.
Capt will be replaced by a furloughee. The youngest pilots on the UAL seniority list, and there are 9, were born in 1976. Yes, the Vietnam war ended in 1975, so there's a microscopic possibility that he'll be replaced by one of the 9 on a list of 8655 pilots.
Even if Capt is replaced by the youngest pilot on the seniority list, I would not consider anyone turning 30 this year to be a kid. The only people that would call a 30 year old a kid are senile senior citizens.
Dr is also a pilot for British Airways, hired at that company in 1971. He is likely VERY near the 60 mark. Talk about conflict of interest.
If you want a smoking gun on the safety aspects of having someone over the age of 60 flying, see page 24 of this report:
http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/age60/media/age60_3.pdf
Capt, you appear to have led a distinguished career, including being recognized as the FAA Flight Instructor of the Year in 1977, are Chairman of SIU's Programs Committee (where your son Ty goes to school), and are a 777 Captain at United. You have chosen to show zero integrity with that quote.
You have a Super Decathalon for sale: http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/detail.asp?ohid=1104196
And you own a Pitts Special: http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=78084
Your son Ty's a great stick. (That post is the smoking gun as to your identity).
But to claim poverty when you own at least two aircraft and live in the high rent district of Lake Bluff shows how far you will go for a dollar. How many other high dollar toys do you have? If you've been unwilling to adjust your lifestyle to save a few dollars for your son's college education, don't be crying to the national media.
You don't care about the reduced safety margins that will occur when pilots over 60 remain in the cockpit. All you care about is lining your pockets with another $1 million or so in earnings over the next 5 years. Your single selfish act wipes out a lifetime of good that you've brought to aviation.
UndauntedFlyer said:
That's a quote by Capt. His 60th birthday was yesterday, 25 Aug. From 24-26 Aug, United has recalled approximately 150 pilots off of the seniority list, myself included.
Capt will be replaced by a furloughee. The youngest pilots on the UAL seniority list, and there are 9, were born in 1976. Yes, the Vietnam war ended in 1975, so there's a microscopic possibility that he'll be replaced by one of the 9 on a list of 8655 pilots.
Even if Capt is replaced by the youngest pilot on the seniority list, I would not consider anyone turning 30 this year to be a kid. The only people that would call a 30 year old a kid are senile senior citizens.
UndauntedFlyer said:
Dr is also a pilot for British Airways, hired at that company in 1971. He is likely VERY near the 60 mark. Talk about conflict of interest.
If you want a smoking gun on the safety aspects of having someone over the age of 60 flying, see page 24 of this report:
http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/age60/media/age60_3.pdf
UndauntedFlyer said:
Capt, you appear to have led a distinguished career, including being recognized as the FAA Flight Instructor of the Year in 1977, are Chairman of SIU's Programs Committee (where your son Ty goes to school), and are a 777 Captain at United. You have chosen to show zero integrity with that quote.
You have a Super Decathalon for sale: http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/detail.asp?ohid=1104196
And you own a Pitts Special: http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=78084
Your son Ty's a great stick. (That post is the smoking gun as to your identity).
But to claim poverty when you own at least two aircraft and live in the high rent district of Lake Bluff shows how far you will go for a dollar. How many other high dollar toys do you have? If you've been unwilling to adjust your lifestyle to save a few dollars for your son's college education, don't be crying to the national media.
You don't care about the reduced safety margins that will occur when pilots over 60 remain in the cockpit. All you care about is lining your pockets with another $1 million or so in earnings over the next 5 years. Your single selfish act wipes out a lifetime of good that you've brought to aviation.
§kyye Candy
Remove before flight...
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2005
- Posts
- 196
UndauntedFlyer
Ease the nose down
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Posts
- 1,062
Andy said:
Actually, I own no airplanes or boats but I do own a Honda motorcycle and I live in quite a modest home in a very modest section of my community. I have been in the same house for the past 28-years. I chose to live where I do for the schools in my area which I believe are good. The education of my children is most important to me and as I believe it is most important to every parent. My promised retirement funds have been pulled out from under me in the 11th hour of my career. Can I get by if forced to retire? Myself, yes. But my 15-year old is a sophomore in HS and a good student. He says the wants an education as an electrical engineer and he says he wants to attend law school to become a patent attorney. Plus, like most of the members of this Board and my family, he wants to learn to fly. Those are his dreams and like every parent I want help him reach his dreams. Is that wrong or selfish? I think not. Personally I wouldn't mind if I lived in a trailer, I just want to help my children. Every parent wants to help their children and to provide for their family, this is a natural instinct. Should I be criticized for this? My profession is flying so naturally I want to keep flying so I can still provide for my families needs and my eventual retirement.
How much cash does a person need to retire? Well let me say that if you will live to be 80, it is more than most any pilot can save up to age 60. Remember full social security and Medicare benefits don't start until age 65. So from 60 to 65 a retiree with no income is burning cash fast while providing for health insurance and other expenses. One problem is that many young people don't understand is that with a 401k type of retirement fund, you never know how long you will live and therefore don't know how much cash is necessary to have before retiring.
Now, it has become clear that the age-60 rule is no longer about safety; it is about who should have the opportunity to earn money in a dream job and profession. Yes, younger people want my job and they will have it when their time comes. But it is wrong to try to force the senior pilots to retire when they still want and need to work.
The age 60 rule will change soon because the whole world is changing to that age. And so will the United States. Everyone agrees on this point.
Let me say this, because it is true, there is not a person on this board who if they were in my situation would not want to keep working to provide for their family and their retirement. People talk like they want to retire early, and given certain situations they would, but not if they were in my situation, I am sure of that.
What is driving the issue hard now is the ICAO change which will allow foreign pilots in command to fly the same airplanes on the same airways and into the same airports as Americans, but they will be able to do it to age 65 starting November 23. The above article was printed on the front page of the Chicago Tribune because this inequity is big news. Yes, change will come as a result of the ICAO change.
Andy, I thank you for the compliments regarding the accomplishments of my career. But I will say that if in the end my most recent work allows all pilots to work until they want to retire that will be the accomplishment of which I will be most proud. I say this because getting rid of the age 60 rule helps every single pilot in the long term who has to save for retirement in a defined contribution (401k) type plan.
Last edited:
Captain, you were #11 on the 2005 seniority list and you are #9 on the 2006 seniority list. You have been a 777 Captain for how long? Likely before your paycut under C2003 that brought you down to earning ~$180K/yr. What were you earning after C2K, $275K/yr? Where'd it all go?
I find it incredibly hard to believe that you haven't been able to save enough money for retirement.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that you haven't been able to save enough money for retirement.
UndauntedFlyer said:
Last edited:
Captain, please tell me two things:
1) Where did all of your money go? You've been earning a 6 figure salary for a LONG time.
2) Why didn't you spearhead this effort to change the retirement age 20 years ago? Why did you wait until you were 59?
And one piece of advice. Start making alternate plans. There is only a very small window of opportunity for Congress to change the age 60 law; approximately 15 days in session. It is unlikely to happen before 29 January.
It is apparent that your lack of planning got you in this situation. I doubt that you are as lax on aircraft emergency procedures as you have been on your finances.
1) Where did all of your money go? You've been earning a 6 figure salary for a LONG time.
2) Why didn't you spearhead this effort to change the retirement age 20 years ago? Why did you wait until you were 59?
And one piece of advice. Start making alternate plans. There is only a very small window of opportunity for Congress to change the age 60 law; approximately 15 days in session. It is unlikely to happen before 29 January.
It is apparent that your lack of planning got you in this situation. I doubt that you are as lax on aircraft emergency procedures as you have been on your finances.
UndauntedFlyer
Ease the nose down
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Posts
- 1,062
Andy, you say your daughter wanted a pony and yet you try to say that that is equivalent to children wanting an education? Sorry but this is not the same thing. As a parent I consider it is my obligation to provide an education, just as you are doing, not ponies.
And as far as airplanes are concerned, you some how want to think I own an airplane and apparently that is just too much to have in life. Let me say this again, I do not own an airplane in any way. I did own a Pitts Special which I sold several years ago and I have recently sold my Decathlon because I can not afford to keep it. I really don't think owning an airplane is a crime as you seem to want to characterize it.
You say you are a F/O at UAL. To many members of this Board and probably all on the Regionals board you are a very fortunate guy. Count your blessings, especially if your children are healthy and you're able to provide for their education. Also, from how you have described your situation, you, above all, will most certainly be a person that will continue past age 60. Am I right? I think most certainly so. Does that make your desire for me to be required to retire at 60 to be hypocritical? My guess is that when you are 60 and still working that you will remember well how you fought the rule and how glad you will be that there were others who did what was possible and necessary to change the rule.
So what you are really saying in your post is that only those who you think have had it bad should be able to work past age 60, like you.
While you think I had such a great career we can all complain. The complaint of people of my new hire date is that we all had to be Second Officers for a minimum of 15-years. Plus many of us, including me were furloughed for from 4 to 7 years. Personally I have no complaints about any of this as I take the good with the bad.
How about you taking a minute to read the following letter and then tell me how you as a UAL pilot who will be working to age 65 have had it so bad. As I said before, count your blessings for how lucky you are in the eyes of others.
To all members of Congress,
I am a Vietnam era veteran of the US Air Force, 1965-69 and I turned 60 in Nov. of 2005. Since I flew for a commuter airline, I get NO retirement benefits, NO health insurance, or any Social Security. So far I have only found one job offer to move to Boston and fly a Cessna 402 for Cape Air. Unfortunately, I could not afford to take that job since it only paid $25,000/yr and I could not afford to live there with my wife being unable to work to help out.
I have tried to get other flying jobs, but have had no luck so far and I have been out of work for over 7 months. I am rapidly running through my savings so I will have to take a job at WalMart soon and find second job to keep going as well. Preferably one with health care.
I had hoped that for me at least the Veterans Hospitals would be my last resort health care provider, but with the influx of new wounded vets and the cuts in funding, I am no longer considered to have enough priority to even get that much. So hopefully, I will stay healthy. My wife is fast running out of her medicines, so I don't know what we will do when she hits bottom on that.
The other complicating factor is S 65 and HR 65. I was unable to plan for another job for when I turned 60 since I was hoping that the bill would be passed in time to save my job. I am now on leave of absence to preserve my recall rights when and if those bills pass. What this does is deny me all travel privileges, and benefits of retirement, so that hopefully I can get my job back once you do your duty and change the age 60 rule. By delaying the passage of this bill, it is really hurting me because I can make NO plans and cannot in good conscience go to an employer and state that I will be there for the long term. That sort of limits my options. So this delay or failure to pass the bill, is the worst of all worlds for me. At least if it were either voted up or down, I could make plans. Right now it is flat out impossible.
So I plead with you to act on this bill and don't screw the Vietnam vets again. We are the ones who are coming up against the age of 60 now. It is unfair that the junior pilots as it stands right now will get the benefit of the eventual rule change, AND the benefit of quicker promotions on the backs of the very people who have made significant sacrifices for our country in wartime. I ask you to not spit on us veterans AGAIN!
Captain Arthur Randolph Erb, Retired
Chautauqua/Shuttle America
EMB-170 Captain
And as far as airplanes are concerned, you some how want to think I own an airplane and apparently that is just too much to have in life. Let me say this again, I do not own an airplane in any way. I did own a Pitts Special which I sold several years ago and I have recently sold my Decathlon because I can not afford to keep it. I really don't think owning an airplane is a crime as you seem to want to characterize it.
You say you are a F/O at UAL. To many members of this Board and probably all on the Regionals board you are a very fortunate guy. Count your blessings, especially if your children are healthy and you're able to provide for their education. Also, from how you have described your situation, you, above all, will most certainly be a person that will continue past age 60. Am I right? I think most certainly so. Does that make your desire for me to be required to retire at 60 to be hypocritical? My guess is that when you are 60 and still working that you will remember well how you fought the rule and how glad you will be that there were others who did what was possible and necessary to change the rule.
So what you are really saying in your post is that only those who you think have had it bad should be able to work past age 60, like you.
While you think I had such a great career we can all complain. The complaint of people of my new hire date is that we all had to be Second Officers for a minimum of 15-years. Plus many of us, including me were furloughed for from 4 to 7 years. Personally I have no complaints about any of this as I take the good with the bad.
How about you taking a minute to read the following letter and then tell me how you as a UAL pilot who will be working to age 65 have had it so bad. As I said before, count your blessings for how lucky you are in the eyes of others.
To all members of Congress,
I am a Vietnam era veteran of the US Air Force, 1965-69 and I turned 60 in Nov. of 2005. Since I flew for a commuter airline, I get NO retirement benefits, NO health insurance, or any Social Security. So far I have only found one job offer to move to Boston and fly a Cessna 402 for Cape Air. Unfortunately, I could not afford to take that job since it only paid $25,000/yr and I could not afford to live there with my wife being unable to work to help out.
I have tried to get other flying jobs, but have had no luck so far and I have been out of work for over 7 months. I am rapidly running through my savings so I will have to take a job at WalMart soon and find second job to keep going as well. Preferably one with health care.
I had hoped that for me at least the Veterans Hospitals would be my last resort health care provider, but with the influx of new wounded vets and the cuts in funding, I am no longer considered to have enough priority to even get that much. So hopefully, I will stay healthy. My wife is fast running out of her medicines, so I don't know what we will do when she hits bottom on that.
The other complicating factor is S 65 and HR 65. I was unable to plan for another job for when I turned 60 since I was hoping that the bill would be passed in time to save my job. I am now on leave of absence to preserve my recall rights when and if those bills pass. What this does is deny me all travel privileges, and benefits of retirement, so that hopefully I can get my job back once you do your duty and change the age 60 rule. By delaying the passage of this bill, it is really hurting me because I can make NO plans and cannot in good conscience go to an employer and state that I will be there for the long term. That sort of limits my options. So this delay or failure to pass the bill, is the worst of all worlds for me. At least if it were either voted up or down, I could make plans. Right now it is flat out impossible.
So I plead with you to act on this bill and don't screw the Vietnam vets again. We are the ones who are coming up against the age of 60 now. It is unfair that the junior pilots as it stands right now will get the benefit of the eventual rule change, AND the benefit of quicker promotions on the backs of the very people who have made significant sacrifices for our country in wartime. I ask you to not spit on us veterans AGAIN!
Captain Arthur Randolph Erb, Retired
Chautauqua/Shuttle America
EMB-170 Captain
Last edited:
UndauntedFlyer
Ease the nose down
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Posts
- 1,062
Andy said:
You may be very wrong about this. We will soon see however.
Also, on this Board, you continually use my personal name. I don't think my name is or was a great secret and it doesn't take much detective work to learn this information, but it is not allowed by FI rules. Your posts will most likely be deleted for this reason. That will be unfortunate because they show how you think you have it so bad when others I'm sure have had much less of a career than you.
One thing that is really strange about this career, just about everyone complains, from new hires with one year under their belt to the 747/777 captains. Only those in their first year think this is all great.
Last edited:
UndauntedFlyer said:
OK, I can see that your cognitive abilities are diminishing. I clearly compared your son's desire to fly to my daughter's desire to have a pony.
I view providing a child's education as a neccessity; far more important than material objects.
UndauntedFlyer said:
I don't think that owning a plane is a crime, but it certainly is NOT a neccessity. If you can't provide for your son's education, why would you own a plane?
UndauntedFlyer said:
No. Rather than spend all of my money on luxuries, I've salted away enough in my IRA and 401k to not have to worry about retirement. I also have a decent cash pad to fall back on. I don't own a house or live high on the hog, but I don't need to worry about retirement either.
This is like the story of the grasshopper and the ant. I chose to be like the ant. You chose to be the grasshopper. Now that it's winter and you have no food, you want to make the world less safe so that you can get more food.
Captain Erb doesn't sound like a very bright individual. He should've seen this coming more than a decade before he retired. I have no sympathy for people who fail to plan for the future. Those that fail to plan, plan to fail.
Now, where'd all those big, fat paychecks go to? You claim to have lived a modest lifestyle; if you had, you'd have buckets of cash socked away. I am under the impression that, in spite of making far less than you, I have more money saved up for retirement.
Cessna Queen
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2003
- Posts
- 18
UndauntedFlyer
Ease the nose down
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Posts
- 1,062
Andy said:
Much of what I have earned has been given to ALPA, as well as the ALPA PAC money so you can have a better career. How much have you given to the PAC? Also much has been given to the furlough fund to pay for the health insurance for the furloughees like you. Were you a beneficiary of this assistance? From what you have written I would think so. And if so I think a nice thank you is appropriate. I also do much volunteer work in aviation and I guess that all costs money. Plus, of course, I do give an appropriate chunk of my salary to my church and other worthy causes including scholarship funds for those who are interested in aviation. Plus, of course, I have spared no expense in educating my older two children so they to can hope to reach their dreams. How about you? Are you just socking it all away in your 401k and your Roth plan? Sounds like that is the case from what you have written.
And regarding flying lessons, I consider learning to fly to be the same as paying for an education, but you seem to think that such lessons are like buying a pony. Sorry but ponies are a lot different than education. In my life, flying lessons were the best investment I ever made, but my pony rides have yet to pay off.
It is interesting that you seem to think that only those who are the neediest should be able to work past age 60, as if that is some kind of litmus test for work past that age. And regarding your own plans past age 60, give us all a break with your saying how well prepared you are to retire. That will make no difference, I know you will work past age 60 because there is nothing special about that age. If you're in good health why would you quit at age 60 unless you hate the job or have a horrible commute? And if that is the case you should quit now and let some guy who loves this work in the door.
And as a question to you and others who read this, what would you do if you were in my place? Quit now or keep working as a senior 777 captain? Isn't a senior captain's position what we've all wanted all our lives. So be honest, does anyone really think they would just quit? I say, no way would anyone leave this job unless they must. Does anyone think being retired with not much money is better than flying to Hawaii every week? And by the way, anyone who wants to ride my jump seat to HNL on September 5th from ORD is welcome to be my special guest and to attend the Captain’s crew layover party. The place: Chuck’s Steakhouse, 5PM. Just let me know and you’ll be most welcome, even Andy.
Chuck’s Steakhouse: http://www.restaurantswaikiki.com/chuckssteakhouse.htm
Last edited:
FoxHunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2002
- Posts
- 679
Andy said:
Andy, you don't like it when the rules change unless it is to your benefit. The age 60 rule was put into place and will change in the near future. The rule that changed 15-20 years ago was the one that you had to be under the age of 32 to be considered by almost any airline in the USA for a pilot position. You were hired at UAL at age 39, lucky you!!! What were you doing from age 18 to 39? Did you decide to become a pilot after you turned age 30? Very poor planning on your part.
Why is your daughter going to a school that costs $37,000 a year in tuition? I just had four children go to Penn State or another PA state school. Harvard or Yale, but Regis in Denver? You pay $37,000 a year in tuition, plus the other expenses and you have done this on savings? I'm impressed, could there be any other source of funds? Some people inherit money, some have grand parents that help, or I guess that some are so talented like you that their money just grows like a weed.:beer:
§kyye Candy
Remove before flight...
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2005
- Posts
- 196
No offense, but come on...
I think I speak for quite a few when I say that I would MUCH rather have the opportunity to earn my own money than to take handouts from a bunch of guys above me who are trying to end the chances of a decent career for any of the rest of us, just so they can abscond with even more of the proverbial pie for themselves.
Dare I ask... oh, what the hey: What happened to your industry-leading contract? Did you "give" money to ALPA, or were you working hard to secure a better future for us when you grandfathered in your own contract language? - which is it? Thanks for the financial advice, what with my fledgling youth and all, but I think I'll take my chances.
Many guys entered into their airline careers at age 21 with 3-digit total times, yet somehow are retiring with nothing. I'm sure that some people would work until age 100 if they could, and still not have anything to show for it.
No, do tell... what is it like to fly one trip per week and have all of that free time to spend telling us how grateful we should be?
Thanks for the invitation, but I would guess the vast majority of us actually have to work... personally, I am not affording many "crew LO parties" or trips to the steakhouse these days. But hey, thanks for a leg-up in the industry. What a guy.
UndauntedFlyer said:
I think I speak for quite a few when I say that I would MUCH rather have the opportunity to earn my own money than to take handouts from a bunch of guys above me who are trying to end the chances of a decent career for any of the rest of us, just so they can abscond with even more of the proverbial pie for themselves.
Dare I ask... oh, what the hey: What happened to your industry-leading contract? Did you "give" money to ALPA, or were you working hard to secure a better future for us when you grandfathered in your own contract language? - which is it? Thanks for the financial advice, what with my fledgling youth and all, but I think I'll take my chances.
Many guys entered into their airline careers at age 21 with 3-digit total times, yet somehow are retiring with nothing. I'm sure that some people would work until age 100 if they could, and still not have anything to show for it.
UndauntedFlyer said:
No, do tell... what is it like to fly one trip per week and have all of that free time to spend telling us how grateful we should be?
UndauntedFlyer said:
Thanks for the invitation, but I would guess the vast majority of us actually have to work... personally, I am not affording many "crew LO parties" or trips to the steakhouse these days. But hey, thanks for a leg-up in the industry. What a guy.
Last edited:
UndauntedFlyer
Ease the nose down
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Posts
- 1,062
Klako
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Posts
- 171
Since it’s inception, “The Age 60 Rule” has been an on-going curse on the airline industry. The primary reason why the “Age 60 Rule” is still around today is because of the persistent opposition from ALPA APA as they continue to succeed in preventing a change to the “Age 60 Rule” through their political influence within the FAA along with their lobbying efforts in Congress. The motive behind ALPA and APA resisting a change to the “Age 60 Rule” reflects the “me now” attitude of their junior pilots. The rule has had little chance of being abolished because the pilot groups under age 50 will always represent the majority, maintaining their political power through the forced retirement of pilots over age 60. Junior pilots will always view the forced retirement of all pilots over the age of 60 as essential to their career progression. Thus the majority will always maintain command of a system that succeeds in eliminating competition from the minority. When pilots over the age of 50 finally come to the realization that the “Age 60 Rule” will adversely impact the remainder of their lives, it is too late as they are now members of the minority and have little power to effect a change.
A person’s age must not be the sole determination of one’s ability to safely perform the duties of an airline pilot. The federal law mandating that all airline pilots must retire at the arbitrary age of 60 was never intended to be a vehicle to enhance aviation safety. Safety is the ruse that the FAA has used to deflect criticism of it’s “Age 60 Rule” as being discriminatory and unfair to older pilots. The FAA defends the “Age 60 Rule” solely on the grounds that no one has come up with a study proving that pilots will be safer beyond their 60th birthday. The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Marion Blakey, says that the available safety data and latest medical research are insufficient for the agency to begin the steps necessary to change the age 60 rule. Thus the FAA's official position is that, in spite of numerous scientific studies, it has insufficient evidence to prove that an airline pilot would be as safe or safer if allowed to fly beyond age 60 and therefore all airline pilots must be grounded on their 60th birthday. What a pitiful distortion of logic that the FAA uses to deprive otherwise qualified persons their right to perform in their lifelong career. If the Federal government wants a law that denies an otherwise qualified person to practice in their profession, then that government must prove that there are enough scientific reasons for such a law to exist. It is the federal government’s burden to prove that all airline pilots suffer an unacceptable decline in their ability to fly beyond age 60 which poses an unacceptable safety risk to the flying public. This proof is something that Congress has repeatedly directed the FAA to come up with for over 20 years but the FAA has failed produce such proof. That proof simply dose not exist.
A person’s age must not be the sole determination of one’s ability to safely perform the duties of an airline pilot. The federal law mandating that all airline pilots must retire at the arbitrary age of 60 was never intended to be a vehicle to enhance aviation safety. Safety is the ruse that the FAA has used to deflect criticism of it’s “Age 60 Rule” as being discriminatory and unfair to older pilots. The FAA defends the “Age 60 Rule” solely on the grounds that no one has come up with a study proving that pilots will be safer beyond their 60th birthday. The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Marion Blakey, says that the available safety data and latest medical research are insufficient for the agency to begin the steps necessary to change the age 60 rule. Thus the FAA's official position is that, in spite of numerous scientific studies, it has insufficient evidence to prove that an airline pilot would be as safe or safer if allowed to fly beyond age 60 and therefore all airline pilots must be grounded on their 60th birthday. What a pitiful distortion of logic that the FAA uses to deprive otherwise qualified persons their right to perform in their lifelong career. If the Federal government wants a law that denies an otherwise qualified person to practice in their profession, then that government must prove that there are enough scientific reasons for such a law to exist. It is the federal government’s burden to prove that all airline pilots suffer an unacceptable decline in their ability to fly beyond age 60 which poses an unacceptable safety risk to the flying public. This proof is something that Congress has repeatedly directed the FAA to come up with for over 20 years but the FAA has failed produce such proof. That proof simply dose not exist.
UndauntedFlyer
Ease the nose down
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Posts
- 1,062
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
