AGE 60 passes Senate today..

[Beetle007]

Puffdriver -

I agree that some pilots will be hurt by this. But it will help others (young and old).

You argue that your money is increasing 5.5% a year, but I think the value of the dollar is decreasing by more than that value and has been for at least the last 5 years. Just look at the U.S. Dollar compared to other currencies of the world. When the EURO was first introduced, it was a 1 for 1 with the dollar.

I look at the reality of what things cost that I actually purchase. If your annual expenses have increased less than 5% a year, then you are doing pretty well.

 

[PCL_128]

I agree that some pilots will be hurt by this. But it will help others (young and old).

Anyone that isn't already in the left seat at their career airline will be hurt by this.

I don't believe the government inflation rates. I look at the reality of what things cost that I actually purchase. If your annual expenses have increased less than 5% a year, then you are doing pretty well.

Do you even realize how the government calculates CPI numbers? It isn't some magic number they pull out of their collective ass. They actually have a small army of government employees all over the country that check prices on a continual basis of every product imaginable. The average increase in prices every month is calculated into the CPI figures. Figures are released for non-energy CPI and total CPI. The CPI is weighted by the average amount that an American family will spend on each category (ie. fuel, electricity, car, rent/mortgage, food, etc...). The figure is extremely accurate, and it isn't part of some vast conspiracy to make you believe that you're spending less than you actually are.

And to answer your question, I'd wager that I'm only spending 1%-2% more than I was 5 years ago since I'm not having to spend much money on some of the items that have contributed the most to the CPI increases: health care and education.

 

[PuffDriver]

Puffdriver -

I agree that some pilots will be hurt by this. But it will help others (young and old).

You argue that your money is increasing 5.5% a year, but I think the value of the dollar is decreasing by more than that value and has been for at least the last 5 years. Just look at the U.S. Dollar compared to other currencies of the world. When the EURO was first introduced, it was a 1 for 1 with the dollar.

I look at the reality of what things cost that I actually purchase. If your annual expenses have increased less than 5% a year, then you are doing pretty well.

No, I didn't say that I was making 5.5 a year on my money. I am making much more than that, in fact. What I said was that I could be making at least that in a crummy savings account. There are very safe vahicles in the 7% range. it was a small lesson from "compounding for dummies".

I suggest you take hold of your money, because if you think that airline pilots are going to be making 500K 20 years from now, you've got bigger problems than what you are going to do when your "gravy train" ends at 65.

It's pretty simple, age 65 will help those who are in the senior seats when the legiaslation is passed. Everyone else, it will hurt. By any other account, you are wrong.

 

[av8instyle]

crap.

Age 60 Update Senate passes HR 3074
The Senate passed HR 3074(Transportation and HUD appropriations) including the age 60 change amendment by a vote of 88-7.
Included in HR 3074 is Senate Amendment 2845 which is the Oberstar language to include ALPA's recommendations .
This bill passed the House previously.

I think it will go to the President for signing in the near future.
The 88-7 vote precludes a Presidential veto if I remember correctly.

Just informational in nature... don't shoot the messenger!

 

[Swaayze]

Maybe a stupid question, but did the House already pass this and the Senate vote was the last stop prior to W's desk? I thought they still had to hammer out details and agree on language from the 2 branches into a single document. Did they really work through this that quickly (1 week since they reconvened)?

I swear it seems my "career" has become such a joke (even before getting stuck as a regional FO for another 5ish years) that I should be pictured in the dictionary under "poor dumb bastard".

 

[waverunner]

Yipee! Another 5 years of radiation and emf exposure. What is the average American life expectancy again? 68? or 72?

 

[Andy Neill]

Maybe a stupid question, but did the House already pass this and the Senate vote was the last stop prior to W's desk? I thought they still had to hammer out details and agree on language from the 2 branches into a single document. Did they really work through this that quickly (1 week since they reconvened)?

The way I see it, HR 3074 was ammended from the version that was passed in the House. That will require that a conference committee of the two houses will gather to work out any differences. If the ammended version of the bill is changed in any way, both houses will have to vote on it again. If not, the house will have to vote on it again before going for Presidential signature.

 

[thor2j]

It still has to be implemented by the FAA. Should be 12-18 months knowing how they act. Also must hammer out language with the house.

Can't wait for Fosset to be found. Probably had a heart attack at a ripe old age of 63.

 

[Swaayze]

No delay in implementation if passed by congress is my understanding. Your timeline would only be accurate if it has to go through the NPRM process. We could easily see age 65 in place by Halloween '07 at this rate.

Thank for the reply Andy. That sounds in line with my very limited understanding of where things are now.

 

[PCL_128]

It still has to be implemented by the FAA. Should be 12-18 months knowing how they act. Also must hammer out language with the house.

I believe Andy Neill is correct that this has to go back for another vote in the house since the bill was amended by the Senate. However, if the bill passes, which I assume it will, there will not be any 18 month delay in implementation. The bill requires that the regulation be changed immediately upon the bill becoming effective. That means this could all become effective in less than two months.

 

[HarryShadow]

Any mention of “age 70” and I vote we get to kick all you old farts square in the stones (literally).

 

[LeonPhelps]

Veto?

Hey, I've heard/read from a couple of different sources, that Bush plans to veto this bill...not necessarilly for the age 65 rule, but because it is an addtional spending bill that he disagrees with. Now, I understand that it was passed with enough votes to overrule a veto, but if vetoed, it still has to go back for a vote(through both chambers?), and then overrule a veto at that point? Am I off on what I learned in civics class?

I know that the votes exist to ovverrule the veto, understood...but, any of you big brained smart guys out there have any understanding of the process to go ahead and overrule that veto? Anyone have information on likelihood of a veto? Anyone have a bottle of courvosier for good ole' Leon?

Heck, I know that even a few months means more retirements...how are you folks at FedEx/UPS on this one? I bet a lot of our older friends went to the engineer panel to ride this storm out...are there a lot of folks hanging on the panel so that they can remove that tape off their fourth stripes(true story I've heard about at least one guy) and become in charge again? Best of luck to ya...

 

[Paul R. Smith]

So for those of us with class dates in late Sept. early Oct, is this something we should withhold our resignation letters for? I don't want to resign my seniority and then get canned by future employer before I get a chance to get going.

 

[HarryShadow]

Hey, I've heard/read from a couple of different sources, that Bush plans to veto this bill...not necessarilly for the age 65 rule, but because it is an addtional spending bill that he disagrees with. Now, I understand that it was passed with enough votes to overrule a veto, but if vetoed, it still has to go back for a vote(through both chambers?), and then overrule a veto at that point? Am I off on what I learned in civics class?

I know that the votes exist to ovverrule the veto, understood...but, any of you big brained smart guys out there have any understanding of the process to go ahead and overrule that veto? Anyone have information on likelihood of a veto? Anyone have a bottle of courvosier for good ole' Leon?

Heck, I know that even a few months means more retirements...how are you folks at FedEx/UPS on this one? I bet a lot of our older friends went to the engineer panel to ride this storm out...are there a lot of folks hanging on the panel so that they can remove that tape off their fourth stripes(true story I've heard about at least one guy) and become in charge again? Best of luck to ya...

Well versed Leon…well versed. Here I am talking of kicking old dudes square in their low danglers and you’re wishing everyone good luck. I am a jerk!!!

 

[Falconjet]

Still a long way to go, and many of us certainly need to go back and figure out how bills become laws in this country.

This from the ALPA fastread today:

"By an 88-7 vote, the Senate today passed its FY'08 Transportation Appropriations bill with one important modification: At the urging of ALPA, it added the “Oberstar language” that ALPA has supported for any legislative directives to change the mandatory pilot retirement age rule. The Senate version of this bill now must be reconciled with the House-passed Transportation Appropriations bill, which does not address changing the rule. (The Oberstar language is contained in the House FAA reauthorization bill.) ALPA will provide a more detailed status update on this legislation in a future FastRead".



The following from US News and World Report Sep 17, 2007:

Showdown Over Spending, pg 33:

"If Senate Democratic leaders can pass the transportation bill this week, they will have completed four of the 12 bills. The House and Senate versions of each bill must be reconciled before heading to Bush's desk.......All of that finagling could force Congress to miss the September 30 deadline, leaving lawmakers to fund government with short-term stopgap measures."



Those stop gap measures would be Continuing Resolutions, like the one the FAA is currently still operating under for FY07.

There is still a long way to go.

By the way, Bush has threatened to veto nine of the 12 bills. Wonder what Congress will do and how long it will take to get any of those over the hump if he does veto them.

FJ

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

65 was coming no matter what... might as well get it over with.

 

[Flopgut]

question for someone with more knowledge than I:

I was under the impression that the "B" fund existed as a means of compensating pilots for not being able to work all the way to retirement age (65), i.e., the B fund payments over a career would make up for five years' less income with mandatory retirement at age 60.

is that the case, and if so, now what?

Great point! IMHO, mgt(s) will come to the CBA process with the thesis that we no longer are in need of B plans since we can now work to a more normal retirement age.

Nevermind that we have no A plans!

No account MFrs that want this could care less! Just read what the sum b!tches are writing on here: They just want the pay!

We'll all be suffering the age 70 argument in 3-5 years...

 

[General Lee]

Does anyone know where the old FEs at UPS and Fedex can go next on a new bid? Could they rebid the left seat?


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[FoxHunter]

Does anyone know where the old FEs at UPS and Fedex can go next on a new bid? Could they rebid the left seat?


Bye Bye--General Lee

The S/Os at FedEx can bid any seat their seniority will allow. The company has the right not to train them if they are within 24 months of the regulated age. In that case they will be pay protected for the higher pay.

 

[Andy Neill]

Hey, I've heard/read from a couple of different sources, that Bush plans to veto this bill...not necessarilly for the age 65 rule, but because it is an addtional spending bill that he disagrees with. Now, I understand that it was passed with enough votes to overrule a veto, but if vetoed, it still has to go back for a vote(through both chambers?), and then overrule a veto at that point? Am I off on what I learned in civics class?

I know that the votes exist to ovverrule the veto, understood...but, any of you big brained smart guys out there have any understanding of the process to go ahead and overrule that veto?

When HR 3074 was passed in the house, it was done so with a 268-153 vote which is short of the 290 votes to make 2/3 needed for veto override. By the way, the vote was 99.7% yes on the Democratic side of the house and 78% no on the Republican side. I couldn't begin to guess on how the votes might fall or why on the conference committee report version of the bill. There is a lot more to it than Age 65 considerations.

 

[ironspud]

F**k all you bastards who want to fly till your 65

Excellent. Say it again, only louder. You and PCL-128 "Greedy Bastards" go together.

 

[SuperKooter]

This has to be the funniest thing I've ever read on here. I LOVE IT!! Who in the hell would want to work for AMR anyway? 15 year upgrade and barely making $100k??? not my cup of tea..........

However, this just allowed YOU to work an extra 5 years at the top of the payscale too! But, I do agree with the "selfish bastards" comment!

He is just so typical of the Alpa types out there. They preach how we are all "brothers" but will be the first people to stick a shank in your back when you are not looking.

 

[PCL_128]

They preach how we are all "brothers" but will be the first people to stick a shank in your back when you are not looking.

The shank in the back just came from the senior geezers that are trying to line their own pockets at the expense of the junior pilots and the furloughees.

 

[beytzim]

f the age 65 rule

I figured out what it would cost me at SWA where there is actual projected growth. The union sent us a worksheet based on expected retirements etc, and projected aircraft deliveries. That was before last month's announcement of reduced growth.

Anyway, having been hired at SWA at age 31, I will lose, yes, lose $400,000 because of the rule change. That's if I compare my earning when retiring at age 60 with and without the rule change. If I stay till age 65, (as I never planned to do) I will make the money back, i.e. another 400k. BUT, I will work 5 extra years to catch up money I should have earned. So f u all you age 65 guys!

 

[Mr.B]

He is just so typical of the Alpa types out there. They preach how we are all "brothers" but will be the first people to stick a shank in your back when you are not looking.

Very true....but it ain't just ALPA pilots.

 

[instructordude]

65 was coming no matter what... might as well get it over with.

Exactly.

On a positive side this change will get you to medicare without having to pay out of pocket for you and your family.

It is good also to take care of the folks that have lost everything and taken a 50% paycut. I had a UAL 747 Capt on the jumpseat to ORD the other day and was saddened listeneing to his story. Seriously, the guy has lost his pension and taken a 40/50% paycut. His kids are starting college, his wife has played housewife for 20 yrs so she can't work leaving him as the sole bread winner for the household. We have a responsibility as a pilot group to not leave the senior guys out on the street cold and hungry.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Daddy]

Exactly.

On a positive side this change will get you to medicare without having to pay out of pocket for you and your family.

It is good also to take care of the folks that have lost everything and taken a 50% paycut. I had a UAL 747 Capt on the jumpseat to ORD the other day and was saddened listeneing to his story. Seriously, the guy has lost his pension and taken a 40/50% paycut. His kids are starting college, his wife has played housewife for 20 yrs so she can't work leaving him as the sole bread winner for the household. We have a responsibility as a pilot group to not leave the senior guys out on the street cold and hungry.

Just my thoughts.

Keep talkin like that and you'll be the one out in the street cold and hungry...that 747 CA still got the PBGC bailout...the folks behind him got screwed out of a job, a retirement, a career, and a future spot in the left seat...all of which he still has (albeit less than before)...that jackass probably wouldn't stop to piss on you if you were on fire by the way...enjoy a few more years at your commuter airline as this will slow/stop hiring at all the majors (if it ever even passes)

 

[Flopgut]

Exactly.

On a positive side this change will get you to medicare without having to pay out of pocket for you and your family.

It is good also to take care of the folks that have lost everything and taken a 50% paycut. I had a UAL 747 Capt on the jumpseat to ORD the other day and was saddened listeneing to his story. Seriously, the guy has lost his pension and taken a 40/50% paycut. His kids are starting college, his wife has played housewife for 20 yrs so she can't work leaving him as the sole bread winner for the household. We have a responsibility as a pilot group to not leave the senior guys out on the street cold and hungry.

Just my thoughts.

Next time, be sure to ask this guy what he thinks all those old Frontier guys did when his UALALPA ruined their careers. This guy got off easy compared to what those guys went through, and it was guys like him (or maybe he himself!) that made that happen.

 

[skywdriver]

Hey, I've heard/read from a couple of different sources, that Bush plans to veto this bill...not necessarilly for the age 65 rule, but because it is an addtional spending bill that he disagrees with. Now, I understand that it was passed with enough votes to overrule a veto, but if vetoed, it still has to go back for a vote(through both chambers?), and then overrule a veto at that point? Am I off on what I learned in civics class?

I know that the votes exist to ovverrule the veto, understood...but, any of you big brained smart guys out there have any understanding of the process to go ahead and overrule that veto? Anyone have information on likelihood of a veto? Anyone have a bottle of courvosier for good ole' Leon?

Heck, I know that even a few months means more retirements...how are you folks at FedEx/UPS on this one? I bet a lot of our older friends went to the engineer panel to ride this storm out...are there a lot of folks hanging on the panel so that they can remove that tape off their fourth stripes(true story I've heard about at least one guy) and become in charge again? Best of luck to ya...

Here is where i saw that Bush will veto the bill:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-1/hr3074sap-h.pdf

"The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3074 because, in combination with the other FY 2008 appropriations bills, it includes an irresponsible and excessive level of spending and includes other objectionable provisions.
The President has proposed a responsible plan for a balanced budget by 2012 through spending restraint and without raising taxes. To achieve this important goal, the Administration supports a responsible discretionary spending total of not more than $933 billion in FY 2008, which is a $60 billion increase over the FY 2007 enacted level. The Democratic Budget Resolution and subsequent spending allocations adopted by the House Appropriations Committee exceed the President’s discretionary spending topline by $22 billion, causing a 9 percent increase in FY 2008 discretionary spending. In addition, the Administration opposes the House Appropriations Committee’s plan to shift $3.5 billion from the Defense appropriations bill to non-defense spending, which is inconsistent with the Democrats’ Budget Resolution and risks diminishing America’s war fighting capacity.
H.R. 3074 exceeds the President’s request for programs funded in this bill by $3.4 billion, part of the $22 billion increase above the President’s request for FY 2008 appropriations. The Administration has asked that Congress demonstrate a path to live within the President’s topline and cover the excess spending in this bill through reductions elsewhere, while ensuring the Department of Defense has the resources necessary to accomplish its mission. Because Congress has failed to demonstrate such a path, if H.R. 3074 were presented to the President, he would veto the bill."



My understanding is that there has to be a 2/3 majority vote in BOTH houses to overide the veto. Senate has enough votes, House does not.

 

[highsky]

Exactly.

On a positive side this change will get you to medicare without having to pay out of pocket for you and your family.

It is good also to take care of the folks that have lost everything and taken a 50% paycut. I had a UAL 747 Capt on the jumpseat to ORD the other day and was saddened listeneing to his story. Seriously, the guy has lost his pension and taken a 40/50% paycut. His kids are starting college, his wife has played housewife for 20 yrs so she can't work leaving him as the sole bread winner for the household. We have a responsibility as a pilot group to not leave the senior guys out on the street cold and hungry.

Just my thoughts.

Many of those multi-decade senior UAL guys (and others) made the sad and unfortunate mistake of placing too much faith in their A Fund. I'm not calling them stupid; perhaps I would have made the same mistake. Many have.

The thing is, before 9/11, UAL pilots were the highest paid in the world. The multi-decade senior pilots had many, many years to develop their retirement portfolios, at substantially more money than we're making now. Younger guys, like me, and most of you, will have less years at the big money to prepare. Furthermore, many of these guys were hired at their career airline when they were very young. The average age of a new-hire at my airline, a prestigious cargo carrier, is 37, not mid-20s like many of these UAL guys (and others). I was 39.

So, as sad as it may be for some of these old guys who lost their retirements, perhaps you can see why guys like me aren't gushing with sympathy for them.