Age 60 legislation is moving fast as of today

[dooork]

Since you've failed to grasp the relatively simple concept of supply curve shift, I've supplied a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

Refer to: Supply curve shifts. Unfortunately, the text has an error; instead of reading S0 to S1, the text in the paragraph should read S1 to S2.
Pilots are the widgets. Quantity of pilots increases; price of pilots decreases. Econ 101 for dummies.

Too complex for you? That proves once again that you can't teach a geriatric dog new tricks.

But....pilots are dynamic widgets!

 

[dooork]

I'm not sure I can contradict you any more than you did yourself, in your own post?! (is your mom, also you aunt?)

This issue CAN NOT be good for collective bargaining because a majority of pilots oppose it. If it's forced upon us it will divide us in a very awkward way. Supply and demand is not even half the equation. Our unity and the political climate is far more important. You have NO concept of unity and you would just as soon squander political advandage as long as YOU get paid. Being a captain wouldn't change my opinion. I want to see raises and overall increase for ALL airline pilots. I want to see a workforce of well paid airline professionals with fat retirements and happy families that don't have to worry. That is not the case now and I'm sick of it.

Retiring at maximum age limit should be the easiest thing a pilot has to deal with. If age 60 can't be respected then age 65 won't either. We will fight this forever and never see an honest pay raise, only a steady decrease as pilots like you take for themselves. I realize this current group has had to deal with a lot, but that has always been the case. Don't forget, I have that T shirt (so to speak). A majority of them got to do this at top pay for a long time. By and large, they enjoyed raises, top pay, and tasted overall increase. They watched others retire at 60 and they knew they were to retire at 60. But MORE importantly, they saw some get their retirements, and they saw some LOSE their retirements. They didn't plan accordingly.

Again pilots are dynamic widgets!! If the majority of pilots are against this than the majority will rule....even if it does get passed. The majority will rule at the contract table.

 

[dooork]

Andy seems to be applying academics to airline management!!!!
Lets see.....when times are bad they (manag) wants you to work for less.
When times are good they (manag) wants you to work for less.

Explain that F#cking curve!

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

Most pilots don't live too long after retirement for many reasons. /quote]

Actually that's a very common urban legend with no real truth to it.

Also most studies show that working longer actually increases longevity. Retirement is a huge life style change thst most aren't ready for and in many ways is a stressful change. Worklife offers comraderie not seen in retirement and continues the routine a person is accustomed to. Many pilot marriages find it somewhat stressful when all of a sudden they find themselves together 7 days a week. Many guys thought it would be a dream to putter around the house and play golf 7 days a week but they actually get quite bored with it all.

This age 60 thing isn't going to be as big a deal as many of you think. Additionaly I predict most will work till 62 or 63 and then call it a day.

Mach 80,

For most other professions, you are absolutely correct. Flying an aircraft above FL300 for an additional five years for 80 – 90 hours a month and the risk in additional radiation exposure is an unknown hazard at this point.

Age 65 will be a big deal depending on whether the particular airline is shrinking or growing.

Moreover, if we find age 65 is a terrible idea, unlike collective bargaining that changes every five years, we will be stuck with this rule for a very long time. Look at the history of the airlines, growth doesn’t last forever.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[LarryinTN]

Refer to: Supply curve shifts. Unfortunately, the text has an error; instead of reading S0 to S1, the text in the paragraph should read S1 to S2.

It's wiki. You can fix the error yourself.

 

[LarryinTN]

It may hurt for awhile but it also prolongs your career. What's wrong with that?

It shortens your retirement.

 

[Joe Schmo]

A big thanks to the Senior Pilots of this country for once again giving something back to the freshmen of the industry.

 

[Freight Dog]

For every one pilot who is perfectly capable in terms of cognitive and mental skills to keep going past 60, there are 4-5 that should have retired at 55.

 

[Andy]

I was told that this arbitrary number had to be attached to the legislation to get support in the political realm.

on another side note, heavy crewing issues were not discussed in front of the person I know on the commitee. He thinks they were addressed but was not present for that discussion.

If that were the case, the sources that I have spoken to would be aware of this '104' rule. Washington is not a place where something such as that could be kept a secret for very long.

As far the legal issues an NPRM can be bypassed any time by the legislative branch. Administrative law takes a back seat to any legislation coming from the legislative branch. This issue has the horsepower to go all the way unless opposed in the legislative session. If I were you I would focus my energies on that rather than going into your flame bait mentallity.

That's a different story than you stated:

No NPRM, it is moving fast with a 104 rule attached.

Are you now implying that this would go through the legislative branch with some sort of age restriction on it? That's a horse of a different color. And do you really think that the committee chairs will allow this to get out of committee?
If you had stated that this would be a legislative measure, I would have told you that it's DOA. My sources tell me that any legislative action will fail in the 110th. An NPRM, on the other hand, IS a real possibility.
I question the reliability of your source.

As for spending my horsepower on legislative efforts, I'm already there. I am plenty busy on this issue in other ways than merely posting on this board. I have tried to energize as many people as possible who oppose this change and have directed them where to expend their efforts for best results. It's a game of constant defense; the pro-change crowd has the luxury of running an offensive game. They may eventually win, but not without maximum resistance on my part. I'm not going to sit idly by while a few further destroy this profession.

 

[Andy]

It's wiki. You can fix the error yourself.

Done. Thanks for the tip.

 

[Andy]

Andy seems to be applying academics to airline management!!!!
Lets see.....when times are bad they (manag) wants you to work for less.
When times are good they (manag) wants you to work for less.

Explain that F#cking curve!

I don't need to get banned again.

 

[Falconjet]

It may hurt for awhile but it also prolongs your career. What's wrong with that? Maybe you went to your airline because of promises of fast upgrades?

I "went" to my airline because I was lucky and they hired me. Nobody ever promised me any upgrade at all. Didn't ask for one, didn't care. Now I would simply like the opportunity to progress and upgrade based on the same criteria that the older guys did.

I would REALLY like to see the guys on furlough have a chance to re-start their career NOW rather than 5 years from now.

And yes, it WILL extend my career, forcing me to work 5 extra years to TRY to recoup about 2-3 years worth of Captain's pay, while the old guys get another 5 full years of Captain's pay.

Those are just a few of the things wrong with that.

There, I didn't even use the safety argument because the simpletons that think they don't age because they have bought into the hype that 70 is the new 40 (do you believe everything else Hollywood tells you?) obviously can't accept the reality that their cognitive skills decrease as they age. These are the ones who refuse to answer the question (coherently logically) why is one of the pilot's required to be under 60. They give that the old just because. It couldn't possibly be about SAFETY.

FJ

 

[Snapshot]

I think most of the guys I know at SWA (Capts) have a higher integrity level than you give them credit for.

Then why do they keep pushing lawmakers to change the rules of the game and rob the junior guys of the opportunities they themselves had on the way up? Especially when they are one of the few pilot groups that hasn't had their pensions stolen from them!
Do you ask your FO to buy you dinner on the overnights as well?

 

[NoJoy]

And how many flight engineers over age 60 at places like FedEX or UPS get to bid back to CA if this passes. Should be interesting. I would think pilots at those airlines would definatley be voting no!

 

[Andy]

And how many flight engineers over age 60 at places like FedEX or UPS get to bid back to CA if this passes. Should be interesting. I would think pilots at those airlines would definatley be voting no!

As currently written, S 65 does not give them the right to bid back to the left seat. ... and we're still waiting on a companion bill in the House.

If this changes, it looks more likely to occur through an FAA initiated NPRM.