Age 60 informal poll

[Klako]

Klako:

Your above post is the best I have ever seen on the age 60 issue.

Thank you for your insightful views.

Undaunted Flyer

Thank You UndauntedFlyer!

How can anyone deny the truth?

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Wow, burdened. Where is my violin?

Have you taken a look at a Regional CA's paycheck lately? Apparently not. 2K/mo. wouldn't be far from the high average. For many, that may be all that's on the horizon in the immediate future, period. No other benefits to speak of, unless you count "jumpseating" on airplanes that have no jumpseats available. I wonder if the vast majority would consider a 300K cash acct. and a house that's almost paid for much in the way of assets.

No offense, but as someone once said, "That's a pretty arrogant statement considering the company you're in!"

Skyye Candy and others of similar views:

I mean no offense here either, but you have to look at the fact that with the kind of income you have pointed out is the average of the new industry pay rates, I would expect that very few will be able to amass enough money to retire at 60 and live on until 80. That's why 5 more years of earning ability is must in this career. Does anyone really think that they can really save 2M dollars by age 60? Or even one million dollars by age 65. You see, 2 million is what it will take to retire at 60, and 1 to 1.5 million is what it will take to retire at 65.

UndauntedFlyer

 

[Andy]

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:

Foxhunter, I don't like it when we decrease the level of safety in commercial aviation. Please take the time to these two FAA reports:
http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/age60/media/age60_3.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/age60/media/age60_4.pdf
As described by the Federal Air Surgeon, there is a steep U curve.

"What was I doing from age 18 to 39?" Serving in the Air Force.
"Did you decide to become a pilot after you turned age 30?" I had already been a pilot for several years before I turned age 30.

"Why is your daughter going to a school that costs $37,000 a year in tuition?" Because she wants to be a surgeon and Regis University has an extremely good track record for med school acceptance. Her first choice was NYU, but didn't make the cut. Regis was her safety school. She liked Regis because of the student to teacher ratio; her largest class has less than 50 students. Most have 10 or less. Here's a link: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1363_brief.php

"You pay $37,000 a year in tuition, plus the other expenses and you have done this on savings?"

$37K/yr includes the whole ball of wax. Tuition, books, room & board, student fees, etc.

As for being able to afford it, my wife and I make ~$150K/yr. My wife doesn't max out her 401k, but I do, so subtract $20K for 401Ks. Subtract another $45K for federal, state, and social security taxes. Subtract another $8K for Roth IRAs. Subtract another $21K for housing (we live in the DC area; it's expensive. But that figure includes utilities). Our cars are paid for.
That leaves us with $56K/yr. Subtract $37K for my daughter's tuition and you've still got $19K remaining. We are dipping into savings ever so slightly.
I'm guessing that after the above, we're spending $2K/month.

It isn't hard if you live responsibly. Give it a try sometime.

 

[Andy]

You see, 2 million is what it will take to retire at 60, and 1 to 1.5 million is what it will take to retire at 65.

UndauntedFlyer

ZOIKS! What are figuring for an annual cash burn rate?
$500K to $1 mil for five years? Not to mention that you should be able to get at least a 5% ROI. So, if you're figuring $1.5 mil at 65 and $2 mil at 60, you're planning on burning through $75K/yr ROI plus $100K/yr. That's $175K/yr! I gotta call BS on your numbers.

Let's take your $2 mil figure. If you live off of the interest and don't touch any principal, you're getting $100K/yr @ 5% ROI (very conservative number). If you think that you need $100K/yr to live on, your budgeting is where the problem lies. You need to adjust to a different lifestyle come 29 January.

 

[miles otoole]

Hey Andy,
What's your daugher look like? I am thinkin' I could retire at 50. (Kidding-just trying to lighten the mood around the subject.)

Many in my family are telecom folks who were sitting on a ton of stock options in the 90s and fully expecting to be able to retire at 55. With the destruction of the telecom industry, including the elimination of hundreds of thousands of jobs, many, many industry professionals in their late 40s and early 50s were all of a sudden competing for jobs with very sharp, savvy 20 Y.O.s Guess who became the preferred hiree? You got it, the new, young guy who was just as qualified.
What did most do? They quickly recognized that it was time to survive. Some became real estate professionals, some went back to school and learned a new career, etc.
The bottom line is that while it's BS that there's an age 60 rule and it has NOTHING to do with medical reasons, age discrimination is in full effect. It's all about money and seniority, err, I mean majority, the real drivers of this F-Up'd industry.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

ZOIKS! What are figuring for an annual cash burn rate?
$500K to $1 mil for five years? Not to mention that you should be able to get at least a 5% ROI. So, if you're figuring $1.5 mil at 65 and $2 mil at 60, you're planning on burning through $75K/yr ROI plus $100K/yr. That's $175K/yr! I gotta call BS on your numbers.

Let's take your $2 mil figure. If you live off of the interest and don't touch any principal, you're getting $100K/yr @ 5% ROI (very conservative number). If you think that you need $100K/yr to live on, your budgeting is where the problem lies. You need to adjust to a different lifestyle come 29 January.

First off, I didn't say I had that kind of money or that I expected to have that amount of money. I said that that is what (the experts say) is required to safely retire at age 60. I also said that a lesser amount is required to retire at age 65. And I said that that amount is nearly impossible to save at the current lower Regional/Majors pay rates, (and certainly impossible if your spouse is a stay at home to better raise the children type.)

So you see this countries transition to defined contribution (401k) retirement plans (for all workers) is becoming a work-until-you-are-no-longer-able-to-work system. Since this is the "retirement plan" of the future for everyone in this country, an age 60 rule for pilots or anyone else is not and can not be be part of such a plan for the future. The age 60 rule for pilots will change soon because of this and the fact that the rest of the world has already changed to an age 65 rule, which forces the USA into compliance. The pressure for change in this country is building fast when one of this nation’s largest newspapers (Chicago Tribune) and other large newspapers cover this inequity and print this as a front page news story. The times are changing in this regard, that is certain.

All the safely arguments about the age 60 rule go out the window when El Al and other international airlines have been flying to age 65 for the past 15 years with no problems. Now the FAA is going to allow these foreign pilots to fly into this country. Cite all the studies you want but the proof of the safety of age 65 is with the rest of the world's experiences. Those experiences prove our countries age 60 rule, while created by the FAA with good intention and with a safety intention, it has now been proven to be unnecessary. So now the age 60 rule is being maintained (by ALPA/APA) for nothing but promotions, and at APA for "retirement" pay for no work and for promotions. This is really nothing more than typical union featherbedding, no different than ALPA’s 3rd man on the 737 from 1968 - 1978 and the "fireman" on a diesel locomotive.

This is now all about steeling your grand parent’s house and throwing them into the street; so the children can have a larger playroom.

 

[Andy]

Hey Andy,
What's your daugher look like? I am thinkin' I could retire at 50. (Kidding-just trying to lighten the mood around the subject.)

I told her that if she needs extra cash, she should consider moonlighting at a strip club (and yes, she could get hired there and make decent money). I said that she'd need to learn how to pole dance, but it was a great way to pay for med school. But she's only 17, so I don't think any strip club's going to hire her.
... and I really did tell her the above; I've got a warped sense of humor.


Your comments on relatives thinking that they were going to be able to retire early reminds me of what will likely happen to a lot of current real estate speculators. The real estate market in the DC area is rapidly collapsing; supply is greatly outstripping demand. A lot of this is because there were so many who bought additional properties to rent out while prices were rising. They were/are highly leveraged. Now that prices have stopped rising and rental prices have gotten very soft, a lot of these speculators are trying to dump their properties. Interest rates aren't helping either.
Currently, most of my investments are parked in cash. The risk/reward ratio in any investment vehicles just isn't worth it. I'd rather be conservative and lose some 'quick money' than lose my money quickly.

 

[Andy]

First off, I didn't say I had that kind of money or that I expected to have that amount of money. I said that that is what (the experts say) is required to safely retire at age 60. I also said that a lesser amount is required to retire at age 65. And I said that that amount is nearly impossible to save at the current lower Regional/Majors pay rates, (and certainly impossible if your spouse is a stay at home to better raise the children type.)

I don't know which expert you're quoting, but that amount of money is not universally shared by financial counselers. You'd be living a pretty grand lifestyle on that amount of savings.
As for the spouse being stay at home to better raise the children ... both my ex and current wives work full time outside of the home. My daughter skipped a grade in high school and participated in numerous after school activities ... she is now in college with a goal of being a surgeon. My son is following in his older sister's footsteps; he is taking almost all advanced classes. One more in the oven with current wife. As far as any problems with my children, the only problem that I've had is that my daughter thinks that she knows everything ... she's usually right, though. But I guess that my children were deprived since my ex works full time.

So you see this countries transition to defined contribution (401k) retirement plans (for all workers) is becoming a work-until-you-are-no-longer-able-to-work system. Since this is the "retirement plan" of the future for everyone in this country, an age 60 rule for pilots or anyone else is not and can not be be part of such a plan for the future. The age 60 rule for pilots will change soon because of this and the fact that the rest of the world has already changed to an age 65 rule, which forces the USA into compliance. The pressure for change in this country is building fast when one of this nation’s largest newspapers (Chicago Tribune) and other large newspapers cover this inequity and print this as a front page news story. The times are changing in this regard, that is certain.

I've read that the EU has pushed back implementation. I wouldn't be surprised if this change gets shelved by ICAO before it is implemented.
The age 60 rule has been around since before you were hired. You've seen several airlines go under and have witnessed many, many pilots lose their entire DB retirements. Did you think that you were immune to this?
And FWIW, I understand that you have a fairly thriving business on the north side of Chicago with refresher courses and as a DE. What is your income from those ventures?

All the safely arguments about the age 60 rule go out the window when El Al and other international airlines have been flying to age 65 for the past 15 years with no problems.

Yet you fail to cite any contradictory statistical evidence. The FAA reports are derived from four separate studies and they indicate that safety is compromised by having pilots over the age of 55 flying.
And that 59 1/2 YO Southwest captain who was unable to deploy the reversers doesn't help the accident statistics. But I'm sure that many will say that it wasn't an age issue (WhatEver).
The two over 60 pilots who were supposed to pick up Bush Sr in Houston and flew the plane into the ground don't help either.

This is now all about steeling your grand parent’s house and throwing them into the street; so the children can have a larger playroom.

Not me. I had the advantage of having poor parents & grandparents. I was forced to live within a budget and save money so that I could retire comfortably without counting on any retirement plans or government programs.
I did deprive my children in my efforts to save; they weren't handed every toy they desired. I think that it's made them much more aware of the value of a dollar.

 

[vetrider]

In other related big news,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-09-03-aging-surgeons_x.htm?csp=34

For 3 complicated surgeries, it seems that doctors older than 60 had higher death rates in their patients.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Andy:

Your financial comments fail to consider inflation, unexpected events (health issues, crash in the market, divorce, etc.) and that no one knows how long they will live.

Surely you do not believe that the ideal situation for raising children is the "Latch-Key-Kid" method. Supervision is what children need. If your children have done well with both of you working full time and through your two marriages, congratulations, but that's certainly isn't something to advocate. If a mother wants to nurture and be with her children full time, that should be encouraged as being best of all.

Andy, please get this straight now so there will no longer be false hope of continued age discrimination against your senior colleagues. Age 60 will be gone and its coming to a country near you. And trust me; the new age 65 standard is not changing in the EU or with ICAO.

And regarding safety, the proof is in the statistics of those like El Al who have been flying to age 65 for 15 years. There is no more contrary evidence for or against age 65.

I stand by my quote: “This is now all about steeling your grand parent’s house and throwing them into the street; so the children can have a larger playroom.”

 

[Gearup727]

no....

 

[Andy]

Your financial comments fail to consider inflation, unexpected events (health issues, crash in the market, divorce, etc.) and that no one knows how long they will live.

My comments were aimed squarely at analyzing the five year gap and the extreme variation in the numbers that you posted. In a five year span, those issues are minimal.
You pulled an extremely high number out of your nether regions. You failed to justify it. I did a very quick back of envelope calculation to show you that those numbers are very high unless you live a lavish lifestyle. There are many around the US who survive on only their SS checks; there's no savings for them. I know; my grandparents survived for years on only SS checks. Not a lavish lifestyle, but they did not lack for food, shelter or clothing. They didn't have a car, but I wouldn't have wanted them driving anyway; it would have been unsafe.
You are looking for a gold plated retirement. Your gold plated retirement went up in smoke with the World Trade Center.

Surely you do not believe that the ideal situation for raising children is the "Latch-Key-Kid" method. Supervision is what children need. If your children have done well with both of you working full time and through your two marriages, congratulations, but that's certainly isn't something to advocate. If a mother wants to nurture and be with her children full time, that should be encouraged as being best of all.

Wow. My ex and I spend a great deal of quality time with our children. We supervise them, but we don't smother them.
My children can reach me any time they want; with cell phones, you're not out of touch. And neither are my children out of touch from me.
I don't like the stay at home mother, but am not going to make negative comments about it. If my daughter decides to be a stay at home mom after going to med school, I think that will be a terrible waste of her time and my money. I believe that a fulfilling life involves having a professional career; be the person male or female. JMO.

Andy, please get this straight now so there will no longer be false hope of continued age discrimination against your senior colleagues. Age 60 will be gone and its coming to a country near you. And trust me; the new age 65 standard is not changing in the EU or with ICAO.

And 65 is not age discrimination? IF (huge IF) 65 passes, I expect a push for the age to be increased to 70 in short order. Because the same claims will be made - it's discrimination.
60 is not age discrimination; it's about safety. I've posted the reports, yet you have not posted any reports that counter them.

And regarding safety, the proof is in the statistics of those like El Al who have been flying to age 65 for 15 years. There is no more contrary evidence for or against age 65.

Post the statistics and a report from a reputable source. You keep talking about these phantom statistics, yet are unable to provide proof of your anecdotal comments.

I stand by my quote: “This is now all about steeling your grand parent’s house and throwing them into the street; so the children can have a larger playroom.”

That concept may be how you justify your actions, but it's foreign to me. I live my life with four themes- Family, Duty, Honor, Country. If the above statement is how you justify lowering safety standards in commercial aviation, then it appears that the main theme that runs through your life is a lack of integrity.
But after hearing about your side businesses and estimates (greater than airbus FO pay) on the income that you earn from them, in direct contradiction to your published comments, then I'd say that your moral compass is broken. There's more to life than money and material possessions.

 

[Klako]

Foxhunter, I don't like it when we decrease the level of safety in commercial aviation. Please take the time to these two FAA reports:
http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/age60/media/age60_3.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/age60/media/age60_4.pdf
As described by the Federal Air Surgeon, there is a steep U curve.

Figures lie and liars figure. Your “steep U curve” is bogus. The FAA has fallen in its normal objective approach to amend the age 60 rule. Succumbed by obvious political pressures from ALPA, the FAA has chosen to become deceptive in promoting ALPA's false theories about aging and pilot safety. The FAA has used questionable statistics to try to prove that pilots over the age of 60 are unsafe. The fourth report in the FAA’s Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) series examined accident rates under 14 CFR, part 121 (scheduled commercial aviation regulations) and 14 CFR, part 135 (air taxi regulations) for professional pilots holding air transport or commercial pilot and Class I or II medical certificates for the period 1988-1997. An overall "U"-shaped trend was noted, with pilots aged 60-63 having a statistically higher accident rate than pilots aged 55-59. However, all of the accidents involving pilots over 60 occurred only in Part 135 air taxi operations as Part 121 pilots are not now permitted to fly past age 60. Pilots flying under Part 135-regulated operations have historically had a higher accident rate and this difference influenced the overall distribution when the data are combined. Therefore, no definitive conclusions about the relationship of age to accident rates for pilots engaged in commercial operations can be drawn solely on the basis of this study.
The bottom line is that there is no proof 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.

 

[Andy]

Klako, how do you explain the rise starting to occur at 55? There's still 121 data in the 55-59 age groups. The 60-63 data follows that upward curve.

 

[Sluggo_63]

Amazing video.

Figures lie and liars figure. Your “steep U curve” is bogus. The FAA has fallen in its normal objective approach to amend the age 60 rule. Succumbed by obvious political pressures from ALPA, the FAA has chosen to become deceptive in promoting ALPA's false theories about aging and pilot safety. The FAA has used questionable statistics to try to prove that pilots over the age of 60 are unsafe. The fourth report in the FAA’s Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) series examined accident rates under 14 CFR, part 121 (scheduled commercial aviation regulations) and 14 CFR, part 135 (air taxi regulations) for professional pilots holding air transport or commercial pilot and Class I or II medical certificates for the period 1988-1997. An overall "U"-shaped trend was noted, with pilots aged 60-63 having a statistically higher accident rate than pilots aged 55-59. However, all of the accidents involving pilots over 60 occurred only in Part 135 air taxi operations as Part 121 pilots are not now permitted to fly past age 60. Pilots flying under Part 135-regulated operations have historically had a higher accident rate and this difference influenced the overall distribution when the data are combined. Therefore, no definitive conclusions about the relationship of age to accident rates for pilots engaged in commercial operations can be drawn solely on the basis of this study.
The bottom line is that there is no proof 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.

Cool video. Watch until the 4 minute mark at least.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06LBgfuxgA

By the way... 61 year old Danish pilot.
http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC05LA085&rpt=fa

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Klako, how do you explain the rise starting to occur at 55? There's still 121 data in the 55-59 age groups. The 60-63 data follows that upward curve.

Andy, how do you explain the 25-year old captain with his 21-year old first officer who decided to try to join the FL410 club. Or how about the recent accident at LEX. Clearly, a lack of experience was a factor in these tragedies. Do you possibly think that Capt. Al Haines, Capt Hinnenkamp or Capt. Cronin would have fallen into these traps? I think not. That gray hair only distinguishes today’s airline pilot as the ones with the experience to avoid those pitfalls. Don't you watch the movies?

And I do have one question for you:

If you were in my place, having your pension ripped away in the 11th hour, would you really want to just quit and give up what you worked for all your life to become a whatever?

And as a comment about my "business" and its success. That is really a joke. Everything you have heard is greatly embellished by someone with little or no knowledge of me personally. Haven't you heard, there isn't any money in general aviation. Or if there is, I haven’t found it anywhere. But no matter either, if I had $10M in savings, that should make no difference. Age discrimination has nothing to do with how much money you have. It has to do with age only.

 

[Andy]

"If you were in my place, having your pension ripped away in the 11th hour, would you really want to just quit and give up what you worked for all your life to become a whatever?"

Yes. The stock and bond money that you received will easily sustain you through the next few years PLUS pay for your son's college. And you should have been squirreling away every extra dollar that you made post-911 instead of buying airplanes. The writing on the wall was VERY CLEAR. Were you not able to comprehend the magnitude of the problem? From your statements, you were not able to comprehend. I would consider this to be another indicator that your cognitive abilities have been deteriorating over the last five years.
As a furloughed United pilot, I had my pension ripped away from me. Care to state publically the amount of stock and bond money that you received? Ballpark from what I've read is that it's north of $500K. I can do a bit of digging and get an actual numbers. You know how much stock and bond money that I received? About $8K (zero bond money). Am I upset? No; I have contingency plans to offset that loss.
Is this your rationale for reducing public safety?


Undaunted flyer, if you read the graphs from the reports that I cited, there is a clear U shape. Younger pilots have a higher accident rate. But so do older pilots.
I assume that we can agree that as we age, our physical and cognitive abilities deteriorate. You have placed a great deal of wieght on experience. At what point is that experience outweighed by the deterioration of physical and cognitive abilities?
From looking at the data, I'd say that the age is 55. I've yet to see any data that indicates pilots older than 55 are safer than pilots in their 40s and early 50s.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Andy: Keep trying but its not going to work. The facts have all been considered by the world (ICAO) and the change is coming based on those facts.

 

[Klako]

Klako, how do you explain the rise starting to occur at 55? There's still 121 data in the 55-59 age groups. The 60-63 data follows that upward curve.

Aerospace Medical Association finds no medical support for the Age 60 Rule

After 2-plus years of study, the Aerospace Medical Association's Civil Aviation Safety Subcommittee found last year (2004) that there is insufficient medical evidence and/or accident record to support airline pilot restrictions based on age alone. The Subcommittee thus suggests that the Association abandon its 20-plus year prior policy of support, and recommends that the FAA abandon the Age 60 Rule altogether, change the cutoff criteria, or raise the age limit. Note: This was one of the sources cited by ICAO in justifying it increase of the age limit for airline pilots.​

The Subcommittee's recommendation to the Association's governing body, dated January 15, 2004, can be viewed at:

Aerospace Medical Association Position Paper, Age 60 Rule,
(.pdf, 48 Kb).​

The paper was published in the Association's scientific journal Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 75, No.8, August 2004.
Note: At the bottom of p.6, last sentence of the Staff paper, the AsMA Subcommittee recognizes the methodological flaws underlying Reports 3 and 4 of the FAA/CAMI 4-part study that is the subject of my DQAct complaint. Visit the "Woolsey DQAct Complaint & Docket" at left to view these Data Quality Act complaint documents.

 

[Klako]

Aerospace Medical Association finds no medical support for the Age 60 Rule

After 2-plus years of study, the Aerospace Medical Association's Civil Aviation Safety Subcommittee found last year (2004) that there is insufficient medical evidence and/or accident record to support airline pilot restrictions based on age alone. The Subcommittee thus suggests that the Association abandon its 20-plus year prior policy of support, and recommends that the FAA abandon the Age 60 Rule altogether, change the cutoff criteria, or raise the age limit. Note: This was one of the sources cited by ICAO in justifying it increase of the age limit for airline pilots.​

The Subcommittee's recommendation to the Association's governing body, dated January 15, 2004, can be viewed at:

Aerospace Medical Association Position Paper, Age 60 Rule,
(.pdf, 48 Kb).​

The paper was published in the Association's scientific journal Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 75, No.8, August 2004.
Note: At the bottom of p.6, last sentence of the Staff paper, the AsMA Subcommittee recognizes the methodological flaws underlying Reports 3 and 4 of the FAA/CAMI 4-part study that is the subject of my DQAct complaint. Visit the "Woolsey DQAct Complaint & Docket" at left to view these Data Quality Act complaint documents.

Source:http://age60rule.com/

Also note in the source that:
"FAA statistics show that air carrier pilots aged 60 and over have a superior safety record as compared to other pilot age groups within either Part 121 or Part 135."