Age 60 legislation is moving fast as of today

[Flopgut]

The worst things in this business do seem to come as an ambush. If this 104 rule is at all correct you can expect our highest seniority seat positions [widebody aircraft] to perhaps suffer economically. Current staffing methodology for CAL 777s will not work. But, I guess that's OK as long as SWA and a minority of oldsters get whatever they need?!

We deserve the money without the five extra years folks! We've overdone it! Especially SWA pilots. Over the decades we've simultaneously delivered an incredible reduction in the cost of air travel, and garnered an incredible safety record. Nothing compares, NOTHING! Example: Errors in the medical profession take a terrible toll and go almost unreported compared to what we do. We need to assert ourselves and this age change is the antithesis of what we should be doing.

Peanut: Does the fact that what you are witnessing seems strikingly covert and contrary to anything previously considered not make you uncomfortable?

 

[Flopgut]

Peanut Gallery, what's a 104 rule? I did a search, but no joy. Also, can you reveal your source?
Thanks.


The 104 rule is that the combined age of the two front seat pilots must not exceed 104 years if one crewmember is over 60. I do some legal work on the side and was in a consultation yesterday along with a fellow "expert witness" that spent the last two years working on the age 60 due dilligence for the Feds. He recieved the call yesterday from Washington, it could happen quick.

This rule will have an upper limit of 65, right? If this rule let's a 70 year old fly with a 33 year old this profession is srcewed.

 

[Aplus9]

I can't speak for your company but at SWA it will add 12-16 months for upgrade. So I did some math I will work a yr at 6th yr pay and a yr at 7th yr pay.... that is 107/108 per trip. For that sacrifice I will get 5 yrs at 160+ per trip. I ave 110 trips per month. It is easy to see that here at SWA farsighted FO's should hold their water and bide their time for the 16 months the payoff is in the end.

There are a lot of assumptions built into those numbers, like continued growth (35 airplanes a year) for example. Any slow downs will increase that time for upgrade. Too many unkowns with this change in retirement age, all coming during a year when we are supposed to be focused on contract negotiations.:erm:

 

[ultrarunner]

But you start drawing on it 5 years earlier. Did they give an example of how much less would be contributed?

Raising the age to 65 is an unforseen event that will penalize the younger pilots just as the loss of pensions/furlough later in the career of some of the older pilots penalized them.

But only to a point AA. And only in comparision to older pilots. You're thinking short-term. At some point the economy will settle. No one will be on furlough airlines will recover, and there will be pilots that will reap benefits by being able to work 5 more years. Think: "401K Catch up" for example that all pilots on the list could take advantage of.

All the arguements on here against it, from what I have read, have only argued on the short-term side of things.

Years from now, we'll be reading the same arguments on how 65 shouldn't be changed to 70. It's all relative.

 

[GuppyWN]

Both K-Mart and Huck,

What I still have not figured out is why the SWA pilots continue to sell out the profession and themselves to help keep the company’s cost down. You know – pull another one for Herb. Instead of hosing all the younger guys around the industry – why don’t you fix your retirement and health care via negotiation? LUV pilots should be demanding an adequate retirement. I have been told that some LUV pilots are retiring with $2 million plus so why can they not afford their health care? My feeling is a good deal of LUV’s pilots have burnt through their retirement savings and are now ill prepared for their retirement and now have to work another five years to make ends meet.

It’s sad how the arguably healthiest company doesn’t have an adequate retirement program in place after 35 years. This reeks of terrible negotiation on the part of SWAPA and now it has implication for the rest of us in the industry.

Our APA president said he was in contract with SWAPA’s and they are going to soon repoll their membership on the Age 60 issue. SWAPA’s president (I forget his name) says he expects a 60/40 vote in favor of Age 65.

Age 65 really only helps the pilots on the top of the heap. At slow/negative growth airlines such as American, it will spell disaster for the lower majority of the membership/furloughees with an additional 3-5 years of stagnation and/or out in the street. What happens at the next economic downturn and/or terrorist hit. It won’t be pretty.

This process is far from over. Get involved.

AA767AV8TOR

AA. I'll tell you exactly what it is. It's greed!

I've never seen a bunch of dudes torpedo themselves better than pilots. Couple three wives, boats, houses, cars. At 58 with a couple under 10 year old third marriage kids at home they start to sh!t themselves.

When it becomes 65 the same cycle will repeat itself with a couple of year delay. The guys that are saying otherwise are either lying or they're idiots. The only thing that will change is that I will have given away five years of family time in retirement.

Gup

 

[Flopgut]

Not the right way to characterize this Ultra:

There is nothing short-term about concern over how this affects collective bargaining. We have to fix the economics of this profession. The broader economy is thriving, the [passenger] airline pilot profession has been left out. We can't continue, short OR long term, to accept lingering vulnerability and a simple 2nd or 3rd mortgage (age 65 then 70) on our earnings as any sort of improvement.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Flop-
Rising wages will only come as a result of leverage given to the pilot group by a limited supply of pilots. Pushing out pilots unnecessarily at 60 doesn't solve the problem, it just allows them to shoulder it. ALL qualified pilots get the opportunity to work and earn an additional 5 years if they choose. Why don't you want 5 more years of top scale pay, especially if it means you only have to forego 2-3 years of bottom scale CA pay? Can you explain that to me (oh, and why this even matters to someone who has bypassed CA already)?

If you look back at any gains made by organized labor, they came when the demand for labor outstripped supply. Otherwise, things languished. You might want to wish it was solely the nerve of those willing to strike, but the reality was and is that they knew that supply and demand was on their side and the bet on a strike was hedged. This is true in the steel industry, coal industry, pilot industry and to a lesser extent the teaching industry (where the threat of screaming kids at home helps the teacher's case).

The bright spot of the regionals finding fewer capable applicants is dimmed by their acceptance of unqualified applicants.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

Flop-
Why don't you want 5 more years of top scale pay, especially if it means you only have to forego 2-3 years of bottom scale CA pay? Can you explain that to me (oh, and why this even matters to someone who has bypassed CA already)?

If you look back at any gains made by organized labor, they came when the demand for labor outstripped supply. Otherwise, things languished. You might want to wish it was solely the nerve of those willing to strike, but the reality was and is that they knew that supply and demand was on their side and the bet on a strike was hedged. This is true in the steel industry, coal industry, pilot industry and to a lesser extent the teaching industry (where the threat of screaming kids at home helps the teacher's case).

Bringupthebird,

I thought I had already informed you on this. Age 65 is not a zero end game for the great majority of us. It negatively affects pilots (with different retirement programs) at different airlines that have severe early out penalties. Figure in the time value of money. Furthermore, you are forcing the rest of us to spend an extra five years in an already unstable industry. Ask yourself what the odds are of another terrorist hit in the next 10 years. As a result, many pilots will end up working an additional five years with very little net gain. Not all airlines are growing at 10% per year.

This is where the LUV pilots have to open their eyes to what they are going to do to the rest of the industry. Age 65 is nothing more than a band-aid fix to a retirement problem at LUV that will affect the rest of us.

Contrary to your views, there has always been a surplus of pilots in this profession. Real gains were made when labor was willing to stand up for the profession. Why don’t you grow a set and demand a real retirement program instead of screwing the rest of us?

AA767AV8TOR

 

[ultrarunner]

This is a trend in corporate america. And airlines are not immune. Defined Benefit Pension Plans are getting flushed down the toilet, cancelled and/or not even being offered.

While they were the gravy-train of many an airline pilot in retirement, they simply have become a massive finacial burden. Hey, if there were cheap, everyone would have 'em. But they are not. And the next generation of airline pilots will simply adapt.

 

[JohnnyCash]

104? i thought it was about safety. i thought it was age discrimination. i thought it was just "unfair." i thought it was about 60+ being more experienced. i thought it was about 60+ being medically sound.

why the provision for the 60+ guys. i thought they were experienced, medically sound, competent and safe. weird? maybe not? hey why 63, 65? why not 67? why any age limit? as long as they can get their powered scooter to the crew stairs, use their walker, have someone else carry their bags and have a young guy "watch over" them what's the problem?

keep on truckin'

 

[Big Beer Belly]

Both K-Mart and Huck,

You both have hit the nail on the head. Yesterday our APA President was discussing sick leave (it’s a huge issue currently with our VP of Flight). He showed how sick leave spikes starting at age 58 and continues all the way to 60. American’s management is well aware of this fact. It’s probably the reason they have stayed mostly neutral on the subject since they realized it will happen at all the other carriers so it’s probably a zero sum game for them. There is also data from our old two-stripers that flew into their 70’s. A great majority of them were calling in sick half the month.

What I still have not figured out is why the SWA pilots continue to sell out the profession and themselves to help keep the company’s cost down. You know – pull another one for Herb. Instead of hosing all the younger guys around the industry – why don’t you fix your retirement and health care via negotiation? LUV pilots should be demanding an adequate retirement. I have been told that some LUV pilots are retiring with $2 million plus so why can they not afford their health care? My feeling is a good deal of LUV’s pilots have burnt through their retirement savings and are now ill prepared for their retirement and now have to work another five years to make ends meet.

It’s sad how the arguably healthiest company doesn’t have an adequate retirement program in place after 35 years. This reeks of terrible negotiation on the part of SWAPA and now it has implication for the rest of us in the industry.

Our APA president said he was in contract with SWAPA’s and they are going to soon repoll their membership on the Age 60 issue. SWAPA’s president (I forget his name) says he expects a 60/40 vote in favor of Age 65.

Age 65 really only helps the pilots on the top of the heap. At slow/negative growth airlines such as American, it will spell disaster for the lower majority of the membership/furloughees with an additional 3-5 years of stagnation and/or out in the street. What happens at the next economic downturn and/or terrorist hit. It won’t be pretty.

This process is far from over. Get involved.

AA767AV8TOR

BINGO! Excellent post AA!

BBB

 

[Andy]

I never heard of it before, but that stipulation is presently being attached to the legislation. I did not think to ask about three pilot crews and heavy crew pairings. Going back to the hearing today so if I get the chance I will ask about that.

BS. You are yanking everyone's chain on this '104 rule.'
Let's start from the beginning. You claim to be a legal consultant. A legal consultant would know that this is a regulatory change, NOT a legislative change. Legislative changes occur from the legislative branch - you know, Congress - any lawyer would know that. Any legislative effort is DOA for the 110th Congress.
As for bypassing the NPRM, that's highly unlikely. Name one FAA regulation that has changed/been enacted in the last 20 years that bypassed the NPRM process. You claim to be a lawyer; find it.

As for the age changing, I will admit that it is now very highly likely that pilot retirement age will change, but it will go through the entire regulatory process, including a NPRM, prior to enactment. That will allow Blakey to announce the NPRM and then resign at the end her term in August 2007 prior to enactment. Blakey's successor, appointed by W, will be the one to see it through to completion.

My source within ALPA (ALPA's govt lobbyist) has informed me that Blakey will be announcing a NPRM, and Ralph Hunter (APA president) has confirmed that information in a message to APA pilots. Expect the process to take 18-24 months prior to implementation.

This '104' rule doesn't pass any sanity check, as has already been pointed out by 777TX's CAL 777 pairing dilemma.

This is a pure flamebait thread.

 

[Andy]

Rising wages will only come as a result of leverage given to the pilot group by a limited supply of pilots. Pushing out pilots unnecessarily at 60 doesn't solve the problem, it just allows them to shoulder it. ALL qualified pilots get the opportunity to work and earn an additional 5 years if they choose. Why don't you want 5 more years of top scale pay, especially if it means you only have to forego 2-3 years of bottom scale CA pay?

I don't like discussing the economics of this issue, because it should only be about safety. And I've already clearly demonstrated through safety data that accident rates increase above the age of 55. Does that mean that 55-59 is unsafe? No; it just means that it is less safe than the 45-55 age bracket. And the accident rate takes an increasingly sharp upward turn approaching 60.

As for the economics of it, let's keep it in macroeconomic terms. The increase in retirement age will cause a sudden supply-demand imbalance due to the surplus supply of pilots. Over time, this will result in lower wages in order to increase pilot demand. It's Econ 101. A change WILL decrease pilot wages.
Now, you want to talk about all non-senior pilots who will sacrifice 3-4 extra years in smaller equipment, in the right seat, or on the street. In order to achieve an additional five years of wages. The problem is, with the supply-demand imbalance, you have now subjected all but the most senior pilots to a lower career expectation in terms of wages due to the surplus of pilots. So those 1-2 extra years at the top wage scale (not 5; 3-4 will be spent in career stagnation) will not offset the loss in career earnings due to the impact of lower wages on these pilots.

One should also keep in mind that these top pilots will be the least efficient for the company, causing the company to increase the number of pilots in order to achieve the same number of block hours flown. Since the total size of the pilot wages pie is only so big, all pilots will lose due to this rule change. The only ones to benefit from such change are in the mid-50s to 59 age bracket.

 

[Yuppyguppy]

Well go figure...could it be the senior grampas trying to change the rules again at the last minute. Time to retire men and IF the NPRM goes thru it'll be about another 2 years anyway before it gets implemented. You're still gonna get kicked out the door either way...God bless you. Andy thanks for the PM I took care of the email.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

OK...after looking at all the comments on Flightinfo.com....I've decided to get on the SWAPA website and vote....No...on the age 65....

Nahhhh....just kidding....But, I promise, I won't call in sick for multiple trips monthly after I turn age 60....I'll just put them in "Trip trade/Give away"...if they go...they go...if they don't...I'll fly them.

Deal? OK, deal....

Tejas