Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Age 60 rule

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
A

Andy

12/13/2012
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
3,097
I haven't seen any threads on this forum for a while, and am curious to hear the thoughts of others.
I personally want to see the rule remain unchanged, but given what is happening to pensions, I think that's wishful thinking on my part. I think that the age 60 rule will be gone within the next five years (I've been wrong plenty of times in the past and am hoping that I'm wrong again).

OK, let's go with the premise that the rule will change. How should it be implemented?

My thoughts:

1) Increase retirement age by one month per quarter until reaching age 65/67/70/75 (or whatever target you want). To illustrate, a pilot must retire at age 60 on 31 Dec 04. On Jan 1 05, make it 60 yrs 1 mo; on Apr 1 05, 60 yrs 2 mo. This would move up retirement age by 4 months per year, allowing for additional age-related safety data to be collected (because this all about safety, right?). This would also allow the system to dampen the effect of increasing the pilot retirement age.
Under this scenario, it would take 15 years to raise the retirement age to 65; 45 years to raise the retirement age to 75.

2) Do not allow any pilot over the age of 60 to act as pilot in command. This is for safety reasons, which is why the age 60 rule is currently in place.

Comments? Criticism? Ridicule?
 
This issue has been beaten to death. Want to know what everybody thinks about it? Do a search....you'll find enough to keep you busy for quite a while.
 
We could implement the same solution that they used on the movie "Logan's Run". . . .

After your last flight, off you go to Carnival. . . .
 
FracCapt said:
This issue has been beaten to death. Want to know what everybody thinks about it? Do a search....you'll find enough to keep you busy for quite a while.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your thoughtful inputs.
I did a search using '60' and came up with nothing. I did a search using 'age' and came up with nothing specific in the last 6 months; I stopped looking past that point.
I then opted to post this thread, specifically stating that I haven't seen anything for a while on this forum addressing this issue.

How about you provide me some links to recent threads?

652 posts in 8 months? Do you LIVE on this board?
 
The G-III, originally characterized by the NTSB as a G-II, was on its way to Houston Hobby from Dallas Love to pick up former President George HW Bush for a trip to Ecuador. Interviews with Hobby controllers who were on duty Monday indicated the crew aboard the Gulfstream was asked to check altitude when the aircraft descended to about 400 feet, according to NTSB Vice Chairman Mark Rosenker. He was quoted by the Houston Chronicle.

The investigation, still in its preliminary stages, has not yet revealed how far from the threshold the aircraft was when that transmission came from ATC, nor whether the crew reacted.

Names of the crewmembers have not been released by the Harris County medical examiner. But Rosenker described the captain as a 67-year old flight veteran with 19,000 hours' experience. The second officer, he said, was equally salty -- a 62-year old pilot with 19,000 hours of stick time



Age 67 and 62. I am sure that this will become part of the argument as time goes on. The fact that they were picking up GWB sr will no doubt come into play.

I am not judging them nor am I saying age had something to do with it. Just pointing out the fact that this will not help the folks who want to raise the limit
 
People should go out and enjoy retitrement, not work till the last day. And anybody that says that the law should be changed is full of KAKA, unless they are 59 and 364 days old. Happy Turkey day
 
Falcon Jet 1 said:
People should go out and enjoy retitrement, not work till the last day. And anybody that says that the law should be changed is full of KAKA, unless they are 59 and 364 days old. Happy Turkey day
Click to expand...
What if you don't have a retirement to retire to? The only answer may be soylent green.
 
Flying Freddie said:
What if you don't have a retirement to retire to? The only answer may be soylent green.
Click to expand...
Freddie, the age 60 rule has been in effect since the 1950s; no one should be surprised at the prospect of retiring at age 60.
While I understand that the loss of a defined benefit pension will hurt some retirees (although the PBGC pays a monthly pension to those that have lost their pensions), IRAs have been around since 1974 and most companies have 401k plans. For those that haven't prepared for retirement, Walmart usually has openings for greeters. Unsympathic? Hell yes.
We can sugar coat this topic as much as like and wrap the issue around arguments about safety and discrimination, but it all comes down to self-interest.

I don't want to see the age 60 rule change. Just to make sure that I've fully disclosed my stats, I'm 44 years old and furloughed from United. I won't be recalled until 2007 at the very earliest, so I'll be 47 and at the bottom of the seniority list. I will probably just be getting to the left seat when I'm staring at retirement, but that's fine. I save as much as possible in my IRA and 401k, so an airline pension is not important to me. Besides, I'll get my military reserve pension at age 60.

We can bury our heads in the sand on this issue, but it is highly likely that the age 60 rule will be repealed well before I am retirement eligible; possibly before I get recalled (no sweat; I've got a good non-flying job). I'd like to see if there are any good ideas for implementing the change, other than the retirement age jumping from 60 to 65 in a blink of the eye.
At 44, I'll admit that I'm not as sharp as I was in my 20s and 30s (some could reasonably argue that I've never been sharp). While some pilots can safely fly well past 60, there are others that become increasingly hazardous past their mid-40s. I'm just hoping that I'm not excessively dangerous when I return to the cockpit.


G4G5, excellent post. I didn't know that both of the pilots were over age 60. Let's hope that the accident delays any changes for quite a while. My condolences to the families.
 
Andy said:
Besides, I'll get my military reserve pension at age 60.
Click to expand...
And once again the usual start to any argument against Age 60, Retiree Benefits or any other pilot issue that does not become self serving.:rolleyes:
 
Andy,

I was talking about those who thought they had a retirement. I wouldn't mind retiring at 60 if I had Social Security and a retirement. I need to work on my golf game, not on asking "Would you like that supersized." It would also give me time to spend with my teenage bride.;)
 
I can see that I should have phrased the title of this thread differently. I consider it a foregone conclusion that the age 60 rule will be amended.

Given that it will be amended sometime in the future, I was looking for inputs on how to implement the change. Thus far, it seems all threads have discussed a simple yes/no to age 60 (including the links kindly provided by FracCapt).

If the rule were to change, would everyone be OK with it going instantly to age 62/65/67/70/75, or would they want to see a gradual phase-in? What about PIC over age 60? Is it OK to be PIC at age 67? 70? 75?
 
Andy said:
Bitter? No. Smarta$$ response to your smarta$$ post? Yes. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. You seem to be very thin skinned.
Click to expand...
Actually, it wasn't a smartas$ post....at least, not intended to be that way. Sometimes I come across that way after a few beers....but, then again, after a few beers, I usually don't care. :D
 
Andy said:
If the rule were to change, would everyone be OK with it going instantly to age 62/65/67/70/75, or would they want to see a gradual phase-in? What about PIC over age 60? Is it OK to be PIC at age 67? 70? 75?
Click to expand...
I think that all depends on individual self interest, as usual. Interesting history behind the rule. ALPA fought the rule for 20+ years before switching positions. Now with the pension fiasco it looks like that will change back again. Congress will mandate the change, not the FAA. That may be the only solution to keep the PBGC solvent without taxpayer money.

http://www.ppf.org/chrono.htm

http://www.apaad.org/
 
FracCapt said:
Actually, it wasn't a smartas$ post....at least, not intended to be that way. Sometimes I come across that way after a few beers....but, then again, after a few beers, I usually don't care. :D
Click to expand...
It's all good, dude. We pilots are a real pain in the a$$, aren't we?
Happy holidays.
 
FoxHunter said:
I think that all depends on individual self interest, as usual. Interesting history behind the rule. ALPA fought the rule for 20+ years before switching positions. Now with the pension fiasco it looks like that will change back again. Congress will mandate the change, not the FAA. That may be the only solution to keep the PBGC solvent without taxpayer money.

http://www.ppf.org/chrono.htm

http://www.apaad.org/
Click to expand...

I agree that congress will mandate the change. What I'd like to see is some suggestions from pilots/ALPA on how to implement the change.
Based on how close the vote was in the last session of Congress (with a lot of ALPA opposition), I don't see how it won't pass now that ALPA has softened its position considerably.

You're absolutely correct about self-interest, but I would think that suggesting to Congress a gradual phase-in would be the prudent approach to implementing the change. Again, I am opposed to change in any way, shape, or form.
 
No Way

I am against raising the age. I also believe that if someone hasn't sufficiently saved for their retirement by 60, there's something else wrong. What the age 59+ guys don't think about, is how it would affect the other struggling (younger) generations that are trying to feed their families and save for their retirerment. The way we look at it is: hey you got your chance, if you didn't save enough, that's your problem, but it doens't give you the right to clog up our seniority list for ever, does it? Like the other dude said, go work for a non 121 operation if you can't stand the idea of not flying anymore. But if you want to stick around on the seniority list till your 70, you're out of your mind. The issue is, supply and demand. The rule will never change and here's why: there's a higher percentage of younger pilots out there who airlines can pay less, and who have more longevity (not on earth, but with the company in question). Why would the company want to keep around a guy they have to pay top dollar to for 5 or 10 more years when they can pay some 38 year old half to do it? I work for a company with about 300 engineers and 2200 pilots. 180 or so of those engineers have been clogging up our seniority list for years making any upward movement in the engineer seat impossible. Just imagine if the were still in the left seat instead? Think about it. Besides, who wants to work for anyone at age 60? I want to be sailing a boat or fishing by then.
 
hr2eternity said:
I am against raising the age. I also believe that if someone hasn't sufficiently saved for their retirement by 60, there's something else wrong. What the age 59+ guys don't think about, is how it would affect the other struggling (younger) generations that are trying to feed their families and save for their retirerment. The way we look at it is: hey you got your chance, if you didn't save enough, that's your problem, but it doens't give you the right to clog up our seniority list for ever, does it? Like the other dude said, go work for a non 121 operation if you can't stand the idea of not flying anymore. But if you want to stick around on the seniority list till your 70, you're out of your mind. The issue is, supply and demand. The rule will never change and here's why: there's a higher percentage of younger pilots out there who airlines can pay less, and who have more longevity (not on earth, but with the company in question). Why would the company want to keep around a guy they have to pay top dollar to for 5 or 10 more years when they can pay some 38 year old half to do it? I work for a company with about 300 engineers and 2200 pilots. 180 or so of those engineers have been clogging up our seniority list for years making any upward movement in the engineer seat impossible. Just imagine if the were still in the left seat instead? Think about it. Besides, who wants to work for anyone at age 60? I want to be sailing a boat or fishing by then.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is something wrong. The pensions that these older pilots expected are disappearing. Now if these pilots are told that they will have X number of dollars per month at age 60, and 6 months before retirement are told that it will be 1/5X dollars this can hardly be called poor planning.

Now as far as saving or costing money you had better look at those numbers again. When one pilot retires he may be replaced with a 38 year old but he or she will be at the top pay scale of 12 years which is the norm at most ALPA carriers. The other fact that you ignore is that each pilot reaching age 60 causes numerous training events. In the case of FedEx it is possible to have 10 pilots in training for each retirement. Now that one person that was hired off the street may be inexpensive, but the rest of the costs are huge.

The rule came very close to being changed a couple of years ago. This was with strong opposition from ALPA, and Democrats looking for ALPA support. Now USAIR pensions were terminated, UAL about to be, DAL are frozen, NWA pensions are underfunded and the PBGC is screaming that Congress must do something. Even companies like FedEx, with strong balance sheets, have a large number of pilots supporting change because of the people they have hired, ex EAL, BNF, CAL, USAIR, Tigers and retired military will benefit from the change.
 
Hey Foxhunter:

You said:

"Even companies like FedEx, with strong balance sheets, have a large number of pilots supporting change because of the people they have hired, ex EAL, BNF, CAL, USAIR, Tigers and retired military will benefit from the change."

Well I'm one of the many (more than likely majority) that do not support raising the age limit beyond 60. The ex EAL, BNF, CAL, USAIR, Tigers and ESPECIALLY the retire guys can keep wishing they'll get support on this issue. Even the retired military guys who already have pensions - why the heck should I sacrifice my seniority/upgrade so these guys can get two?!! Talk about wanting their cake and eating it too!

Funny how ALPA opposed it in the past over safety concerns AND now they're willing to look the other way in the interest of the mighty dollar......
 
Last edited:
If this does get passed, hopefully they mandate that you become an F.O., then how many will stick around? That is the only way i would go along with it and it would not effect my upgrade time.
 
additional thoughts.

Hey Fox, thanks for your reply. No answer will ever encompass all of the factors here. I admit you bring up some interesting points. One thing that bubbles to the top of your argument is the unfortunate consequences of the current bancrupcy laws. Its a shame that those at USAIRWAYS and other carrieres will shirk their duty to pay the EARNED retirements because they want to save their own bacon/golden parachutes, etc. I didn't mean to sound insensitive when I said "there's other problems if. . .". But the answer should more likely be to advance legislation that would limit a companies ability to operate in with such marginal profitability that the only way to survive is to can someone's retirement. In other words, the retirements should be sacred and inviolate in bancrupcy protection to the extent that a company should be forced to retain its assets to a level of liquidity that allows them to still pay their retirements--BEFORE being allowed to file. This would force companies to be more responsible and remove the leverage they currently have to barter for reduced wages. Anyway, maybe I'm off on a tangent but I hope you understand my point. I just think there's a fairer way of handling it without clogging up the seniority list for ever. Why should I forego seniority that's guaranteed by a law (and was part of the decision process whereby I decided to be a career pilot) because of poorly written bancrupcy laws? Please reply and fly safe. And Dizel8 Where can we see some more pics of that babe on your profile? Or is that you?
 
If the rule doesn't fit your needs, lobby to have it changed.

Think about it...if mgmt can't afford to pay the A-funds (or ANY retirement benefits, especially for those who have already retired) then ask the bankruptcy judge to let the pension funds go.

If the age 60 rule doesn't give a pilot his(her) proper retirement, then ask to have the rule changed.

Both sides of this issue seem to be working toward the same goal; self-interest.

I think it should be a criminal offense to take away the hard-earned retirement from an individual who did his time. Imagine if the U.S. government repealed military retirements!!!

By the same token, I think we all should play by the rules; we knew that age 60 was the rule when we got into this fiasco, we knew others junior to us relied upon that rule to plan THEIR financial future. Why would we sweep the rug out from underneath those junior to us to preserve self-interrest? That sounds like a mgmt tactic.

Look at the REAL culprits here. Businesses that think it's ok to give the shaft to someone who has given them their entire working life. If you want to lobby for something, lobby for criminal charges against those who liquidate pension funds in order to remain financially viable.

BTW this ain't just an airline issue...look at Bethlehem Steel...

Funny how none of this discussion has ANYTHING to do with the physiological aspects of being over-60. But then, did it ever...

Back to my beer, flame on!
 
sandman2122 said:
Hey Foxhunter:

You said:

"Even companies like FedEx, with strong balance sheets, have a large number of pilots supporting change because of the people they have hired, ex EAL, BNF, CAL, USAIR, Tigers and retired military will benefit from the change."

Well I'm one of the many (more than likely majority) that do not support raising the age limit beyond 60. The ex EAL, BNF, CAL, USAIR, Tigers and ESPECIALLY the retire guys can keep wishing they'll get support on this issue. Even the retired military guys who already have pensions - why the heck should I sacrifice my seniority/upgrade so these guys can get two?!! Talk about wanting their cake and eating it too!

Funny how ALPA opposed it in the past over safety concerns AND now they're willing to look the other way in the interest of the mighty dollar......
Click to expand...
I think you would be suprised how many support the change. Take a look around the crew room. Young guys or old guys wearing three stripes? Many avoid the subject because it is an emotional issue.

ALPA opposed the age 60 thing in the first place. It was imposed by management at American, Western, and TWA and managment lost in arbitration. The CEO was a buddy of the first Administrator of the FAA when it was formed. Copies of the letter from CR Smith to Gen. Quesada have been made public in recent years with the FOIA. ALPA has been opposed to a lot of things the said were due to safety like, three pilots in all jet aircraft. Why do you think the 737 had a S/O for years? Safety????:)get real!
 
Falcon Jet 1 said:
If this does get passed, hopefully they mandate that you become an F.O., then how many will stick around? That is the only way i would go along with it and it would not effect my upgrade time.
Click to expand...
Although I doubt it willl mandate F/O I just have to look at how many go back to S/O right now, even on the 727.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

SS at RC.PNG
Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom