AGE 60 passes Senate today..

[tomgoodman]

Take precautions

Right. CAL's A fund is frozen. But the 100% payout is pretty good.

Yes, if everyone gets 100% of what they are owed for work that has already been performed, that is pretty good, compared to what has happened elsewhere. Pensions, whether A or B, should be in your own name and moved from the companies' control into the hands of solid outside financial institutions. That will reduce the chances of underfunding, overestimation of growth, "distress" termination, and other such shenanigans.

 

[av8instyle]

So in 5 extra years at SWA, your saying you will only make $400k? That doesn't sound close to correct. Seems to me if you would lose $400k by retiring at age 60, then working 5 extra years at $220K+ per year would more than make up your shotfall.

Here's the simple math for you. I'll use myself and my airline for you. Our captains top out around 160,000. Damn paycuts. When I am supposed to upgrade based on retirements (2 years or less) My FO pay will be around 90,000. Damn paycuts. That's a 70,000 pay raise that I should be seeing at age 35. That means 70,000 extra for 25 years (age 60). Take away taxes and a couple of extras and that leaves 45,000 take home. I am personally in a position where I live well under my means so this would be extra money for me. 45,000 take home times 5 years is only 225,000. But if you invest that money at a conservative 8% rate over 25 years that money turns into around 1.5 million dollars. If you don't have that money to invest, but then work from 60-65 that means you take 1.5 million and subtract 225,000, which leaves 1.275 million dollars...that is a loss from the age 65 screw job. And this is not at swa, ups, or fed ex rates.
Obviously this is not micrometer measured, but the point is very valid. Anyone who is not real close to being a line holding captain when this goes through will get financially screwed. And the newer you are, the more screwed you will get.

Thanks ALPA and geysers.

 

[BigMeat]

Not to mention 5 more years you will never get back in your life. 5 more years of TSA, 5 more years of dry cleaning, 5 more years of Jepps!

 

[Duke of Ale]

To Bluefish:
Age 60 is not a LAW. It is a rule of the FAA. Big difference.

Also to someone earlier in this thread that said the Euro started out at 1 to 1 is wrong. The day it came out it was worth $1.17.

 

[Hutchman]

To Bluefish:
Age 60 is not a LAW. It is a rule of the FAA. Big difference.

Also to someone earlier in this thread that said the Euro started out at 1 to 1 is wrong. The day it came out it was worth $1.17.

..and a year later it was 0.8252.

2000 26 Oct 0.8252

Now it is 1.39, that is a huge swing.

 

[bluefishbeagle]

To Bluefish:
Age 60 is not a LAW. It is a rule of the FAA. Big difference.

Ok it’s an FAR, but what’s your point? Big difference? Can you can ignore it if it’s only an FAR or ignore it if it is a law? Difference? HOW?

 

[Rekks Inbound]

There's no federal law that says date of hire anything, that's contractual. Age 60 is (was) a federal law and it was discriminatory. If you don't like the changes make it a contractual issue and if it's not followed then whine.

Gotta go, the age 70 rule change committee is calling.

Explain to me what is discriminatory about Age 60 reilot retirement. Last I checked, you exercise the priviledge of your certificate, not the right of you certificate.

So now we will continue to let ICAO and the JAA dictate US Aviation policy? Great.

Thanks, selfish bastards.

Peace.

Rekks

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Just finished reading the bill, as amended for the Age 65 provision. Items of note:


5. Requires airlines to engage in negotiations with labor unions if the CBAs require changes to benefits or work rules as a result of the new age limit.

Where is the text requiring this provision?

 

[luckytohaveajob]

• `(f) AMENDMENTS TO LABOR AGREEMENTS AND BENEFIT PLANS- Any amendment to a labor agreement or benefit plan of an air carrier that is required to conform with the requirements of this section or a regulation issued to carry out this section, and is applicable to pilots represented for collective bargaining, shall be made by agreement of the air carrier and the designated bargaining representative of the pilots of the air carrier.

Found it.

Wow! This provision would make all the contracts in the industry amendable at the same time.

This could really put some pressure on the NMB if every ALPA carrier was forced by ALPA National to all sign at the same time.

Weak d!ck ALPA National could never pull it off.

 

[BobbyB]

Here's the simple math for you. I'll use myself and my airline for you. Our captains top out around 160,000. Damn paycuts. When I am supposed to upgrade based on retirements (2 years or less) My FO pay will be around 90,000. Damn paycuts. That's a 70,000 pay raise that I should be seeing at age 35. That means 70,000 extra for 25 years (age 60). Take away taxes and a couple of extras and that leaves 45,000 take home. I am personally in a position where I live well under my means so this would be extra money for me. 45,000 take home times 5 years is only 225,000. But if you invest that money at a conservative 8% rate over 25 years that money turns into around 1.5 million dollars. If you don't have that money to invest, but then work from 60-65 that means you take 1.5 million and subtract 225,000, which leaves 1.275 million dollars...that is a loss from the age 65 screw job. And this is not at swa, ups, or fed ex rates.
Obviously this is not micrometer measured, but the point is very valid. Anyone who is not real close to being a line holding captain when this goes through will get financially screwed. And the newer you are, the more screwed you will get.

Thanks ALPA and geysers.

That is a pretty good example, but you are missing something key to the argument.

The old guys say "you will enjoy the same benefit of working from age 60 to 65, and you can retire at 60 if you want, but you have a choice" Well, the truth is that of the money that you lose from delay of upgrade you don't start to earn that money back until you turn age 60. On your 60th bday you can start earning back the money that you would have earned had the rule not changed. In my case, I have to work for at least 2 years before I break even on where I would have been without the rule change. So my first extra dollar earned isn't until age 62 and change. You ask most of these guys and they will say that they'd like to work an extra couple years, but not to 65. Yeah, the couple extra years is what I have to work to break even you bastard. So if I work to age 65, I really only get the 2.5 years of pay/benefits/growth divided by 5 years. Not a sweet deal. Thanks for making me work for 2+ years for free.

 

[bluefishbeagle]

Repeal of the age 60 injustice means that millions of dollars lost by generations past will now be regained but not by those who were unjustly removed from the cockpit, that's gone forever.

You talk about having your income reduced and disregard the same plight others have endured.

Sounds like whining to me.

 

[Falconjet]

Sounds like whining to me.

Must be time for a hearing test old man.

FJ

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

That is a pretty good example, but you are missing something key to the argument.

The old guys say "you will enjoy the same benefit of working from age 60 to 65, and you can retire at 60 if you want, but you have a choice" Well, the truth is that of the money that you lose from delay of upgrade you don't start to earn that money back until you turn age 60. On your 60th bday you can start earning back the money that you would have earned had the rule not changed. In my case, I have to work for at least 2 years before I break even on where I would have been without the rule change. So my first extra dollar earned isn't until age 62 and change. You ask most of these guys and they will say that they'd like to work an extra couple years, but not to 65. Yeah, the couple extra years is what I have to work to break even you bastard. So if I work to age 65, I really only get the 2.5 years of pay/benefits/growth divided by 5 years. Not a sweet deal. Thanks for making me work for 2+ years for free.

BobbyB,

Thanks for making the argument that I’ve been preaching for over 10 years since the PPF really started making this a big issue in the 90’s.

Age 65 is nothing more than making whole a few guys at the tip of the spear and allowing a few retired military guys (that already have a pension) the ability to fly five more years.

The great majority of us will find that we will get to work an extra five years for only a couple of years of extra pay. How good a deal is that?? The main argument from the pro-65 crowd of “you get to work an extra five years” holds little water when the effect of loss of compounding earnings from pensions, 401k, and other investments are figured into the equation.

Age 65 is nothing more than the new B-scale of the 21st century. Once again, it’s the older pilots selling out the junior guys. For some over at American, it’s a complete and utter windfall at the junior pilot’s expense. It’s too bad to see Prater sell out ALPA’s membership on this one. Prater was the Pro-65 constituency’s Trojan horse into the debate.

Let’s just pray that the industry doesn’t once again fall into a prolong period of stagnation due to some terrorist event or hiccup in the economy.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[afhercdriver]

I know it is probably too late for this but what if the over 60 crowd were allowed to keep flying but had to move to the right seat? This would still slow hiring but everyone already on board should see the same upgrade times.

Flack jacket donned!
Jim

 

[The Prussian]

Talk about the new B-scale of the 21st century...there is a bigger picture at play here. It's free market economy...(and down the road, globalization). Basically we are going to have to share the bath water with a whole lot more of the world. Like it or not, we are going to have to work harder and work longer than our parents. And the bad news is, it's not just here...it's socialized governments that will be forced to compete with the free market economies of the world. It's unions being forced to recognize the reality of people around the globe, willing to do whatever it takes to get a piece of the pie. Everybody is going to have to play their careers smarter and work harder to achieve what used to be a given. We can't ignore the changing domestic or global dynamic...that would be naive, if not stupid.
You can blame "geezers" and call them names all you want. Some planned well, and some didn't. Some younger guys are planning well, and some aren't. We are all being forced to deal with this changing economic landscape...some have more time to adjust, and some don't. So batten down the hatches, while I prepare for incoming...