Age 60 rule

[Andy]

I wasn't looking for another pro vs con debate of the age 60 rule. I'm looking for a reasonable discussion on implementing a change to the age 60 rule.

Those of us opposed to changing the rule are burying our heads in the sand if we think that the current rule will remain in effect for the next decade.

What I want to know is how you would implement the change to the age 60 rule if you were in charge of the congressional subcommittee overseeing this rule change.

 

[Jim Smyth]

I think due to the situation of most of the big airlines the age 60 rule is going to go away soon. Most of them have been against flying past age 60 because it affected there pension formula. Now with the pensions going away or being greatly reduced, many professional aviators that have played by the rules and knew what to expect when they retired now have other problems in addition to the lack of retirement funds. The age 60 rule was brought into exsistence without any research and was done to get rid of the older "so called trouble maker pilots" at American in the CR Smith days. It would be nice to impose the same laws to our professional members of government! Then you would see things change fast! We currently have international airline pilots flying into the US that get to fly to 65. Fair that we have to retire at 60? Hell no! Total BS IMO! Most of the younger Pilots want it to stay around for there own self interest while the older guys want it to go away. Personally I hope I dont have to work to 60! But it would be nice to have a choice. Will it impact the youger guys if it goes away? You bet. Probably delay upgrade for 5 years. Small price to pay for when you get to the left seat and get to fly to maybe 65 without tapping your retirement nestegg. We are all in this flying game together and need to work together to overcome bad management decisions and poor economies. We need to do the right thing!

 

[sandman2122]

The right thing - my a$$! Forget about any support from ANY junior pilot's out there. Simply another wedge between senior/junior pilots, plain and simple.......still not getting my support.

Step aside gramps......go play golf or something.

 

[Jim Smyth]

Well at 45 years old I dont think my teenage boys have fathered any children yet so I wouldnt be a true Grampa, smartass! But for me personally I can retire in 10 years at 55 with full benefits so your not hurting me one bit with your lame ass comments. But I do have alot of good friends that went to other majors and they arnt in the same boat and flying a few extra years would help get you to Social Security benefits and the biggest one of all "Medicare". But it is still very short sighted thinking on your part. You may be young/younger now but in time you wont be anymore. It wont matter anyway, they will change the law to let guys fly past 60. It's inevitable now with what is going on in the industry.

 

[sandman2122]

Let me be the first to wish you a happy early retirement at 55, yeah right! I remember your "lame Southwest Captain's" lobbying on Capital Hill years back and one of the two Captain's, in uniform, actually said during the CNN interview:

"Just when I'm getting good at my profession, the government forces me to retire"

.......riiiiiiight, maybe for that oddball it takes a while to learn to fly @ the states in a 737......he certainly doesn't speak for the rest of us.

 

[FoxHunter]

The right thing - my a$$! Forget about any support from ANY junior pilot's out there. Simply another wedge between senior/junior pilots, plain and simple.......still not getting my support.

Step aside gramps......go play golf or something.

I would never expect to get your support. So you really don't expect mine? Just don't forget the coffee jug.

 

[FoxHunter]

Let me be the first to wish you a happy early retirement at 55, yeah right! I remember your "lame Southwest Captain's" lobbying on Capital Hill years back and one of the two Captain's, in uniform, actually said during the CNN interview:

"Just when I'm getting good at my profession, the government forces me to retire"

.......riiiiiiight, maybe for that oddball it takes a while to learn to fly @ the states in a 737......he certainly doesn't speak for the rest of us.

Hey, WHD you seem to be so smart having only been hired in 98'. Looking forward to passing around your views to my fellow senior airmen. Thank you for your support, good luck.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

Statistically, the safest pilots are the age 60 pilots who are forced to retire.

It makes sense to me. Have the government legislate when people can and can't work, and make the best workers quit before some of them want to.

Also, since there are TONS more new workers taking up the reins for the baby boomers that are retiring, Social Security and Medicaire will be well funded for eternity, and it makes sense to make people retire early, when they're at the top of their productivity, since we don't need their money to support the very few older people retiring.

CLiff
GRB

 

[Jim Smyth]

I guess Common Sense isn't something you can buy!

 

[sandman2122]

From Foxhunter:

"........Just don't forget the coffee jug."

......Funny thing is I always seem to forget that darn "java jug" when I have to fly with "left seaters" with an authority complex...........you're not short too!

Adios Napoleon

 

[Andy]

ARRGH!

I'm not talking pro vs con of changing age 60. I'd like to debate the mechanics of implementation of a change.

For those in favor of a change, how do you want to see it implemented? Congress passing a law stating no age restriction? (Fly til you die?)

For those opposed to a change, what implementation would be palatable? Based on the bill pushed through the last Congressional session, it will instantly change to 62 (or whatever new age limit is designated). Is that what you are willing to accept?

 

[Falcon Jet 1]

I will accept anything as long as anyone over the age of sixty reverts back to a First Officer. Wont screw up seniority and will let those guys that need to work and have insurance to do so. Do some countries already to this?

 

[hr2eternity]

when was it pushed through?

"For those opposed to a change, what implementation would be palatable? Based on the bill pushed through the last Congressional session, it will instantly change to 62 (or whatever new age limit is designated). Is that what you are willing to accept?"

What session of congress are you talking about? Do you have specifics? You mention it as if its a done deal. Has the senate bought off on it? President? Who's lobbying for this anyway? Not the airlines. Forgive me because I don't know much about what's going on in the gov't with this. Please advise us if you have specifics.

 

[Jim Smyth]

I have always been one to read in between the lines so here goes. United for the most part over many many years has been ALPA. Granted there are alot of Airlines within ALPA but look at who runs it and who donates the most PAC monies etc. Now United is 8.3 Billion in the hole for there pension liability. To date the PBGC

http://www.pbgc.gov/about/default.htm

pension funds largest liability has been the steel industry that has dumped 3.1 Billion into it. The PBGC is not healty at all! Boardering on insolvency itself. So you add up Uniteds pension dept load with Delta/American/UsAir and the list goes on and on. So it's pretty obvious to me that something has to give.

Pension funds of old are on there way out. 401K's and Profit Sharing/Stock Options will be the thing of the future. So the guys that have the most to loose are the 40-60 year vetrans of the industry that have there whole nest egg in the now largerly underfunded pensions that there companies have been defaulting on.

So you think with all this going on the people in the government arnt under "ALOT" of pressure to do something? You bet they are. Southwest has been against the age 60 "DISCRIMINATION" for quite some time now and has done something and put there money where there mouth is. Personally I hope I dont have to work past 55 let alone 60 but it would be nice to have the choice based on your own personal circumstances. I have gone to alot of my buddies retirements over the years (that have worked for many different airlines due to no fault of there own) that after been kicked out of the cockpit and now they now have to go find another job to have medical insurance and income to get them to age 62 (partial social security) and age 65 (Medicare).

I always find it commical that you have members of congress (Strom Thurmann comes to mind) that preform a job well past 60 and find themselves fully competent to do the job! But we have to go at 60.

ALPA has always been against increasing the age 60 rule because alot of the pension formulas were based on years of service/ your age / best 3 of your last 5 years pay etc. Now that the pensions are in alot of trouble you will now see a more concentrated effort on ALPA carriers to get the age 60 issue done away with. There is no other way around it IMO.

 

[bafanguy]

I wasn't looking for another pro vs con debate of the age 60 rule. I'm looking for a reasonable discussion on implementing a change to the age 60 rule.

Those of us opposed to changing the rule are burying our heads in the sand if we think that the current rule will remain in effect for the next decade.

What I want to know is how you would implement the change to the age 60 rule if you were in charge of the congressional subcommittee overseeing this rule change.

Andy,

If I remember correctly, the answer to your "how" question has been discussed in years past as increased frequency/depth physicals and increased number of PC's. Even at that, there really isn't any agreed-upon science to definitively answer the "when are you unsafe" question.

 

[bafanguy]

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

FJ1,

Retirement is merely a remote concept for most of one's career. I can't tell from your avatar what type flying you do but when the concept becomes real life for YOU...come back and let us know how it strikes you.

 

[bafanguy]

What magical physiological event is going to take place in all of our bodies simultaneously on our 60th birthday?

Hugh,

Nothing they can measure by any accepted standard.

 

[Andy]

"For those opposed to a change, what implementation would be palatable? Based on the bill pushed through the last Congressional session, it will instantly change to 62 (or whatever new age limit is designated). Is that what you are willing to accept?"

What session of congress are you talking about? Do you have specifics? You mention it as if its a done deal. Has the senate bought off on it? President? Who's lobbying for this anyway? Not the airlines. Forgive me because I don't know much about what's going on in the gov't with this. Please advise us if you have specifics.

Senate amendment 00223 (Inhofe Amendment), voted on 12 Jun 03. Here's the vote breakdown:

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---44
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)**
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee (R-RI)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeWine (R-OH)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)**
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)**
Nickles (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)**
Sessions (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

*****NAYs ---52********

Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)**
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)**
Coleman (R-MN)**
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-NC)**
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (D-FL)
Gregg (R-NH)**
Hagel (R-NE)**
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)**
Mikulski (D-MD)
Miller (D-GA)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)**
Snowe (R-ME)**
Stabenow (D-MI)
Talent (R-MO)**
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 4
Edwards (D-NC)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lieberman (D-CT)


Given that both the House and Senate have gone more GOP since the last election, how much closer do you think that things will be?

 

[Andy]

Andy,
If I remember correctly, the answer to your "how" question has been discussed in years past as increased frequency/depth physicals and increased number of PC's. Even at that, there really isn't any agreed-upon science to definitively answer the "when are you unsafe" question.

Those issues are different than implementation. You're discussing the mechanics of qualifying to fly past age 60. As we all know, there are 'pilot friendly' AMEs out there that will pass anyone.
If things go the way of the Inhofe Amendment in the last Congress, retirement age will be 60 one day and 62 the next with no restrictions on seat position (ie can remain PIC to 62). This is the issue that I want to change. I want to see a gradual phase-in with seat restrictions (ie no PIC past 60).

 

[Andy]

hr2eternity, here's a link:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00223

I'm not positive, but I believe that the House version passed.

Again, you need to keep in mind that ALPA strongly opposed this; I don't think that you'll much ALPA lobbying this time around.

 

[bafanguy]

As we all know, there are 'pilot friendly' AMEs out there that will pass anyone.

Andy,

I see what you mean, but are there "pilot friendly" training departments who will pass anyone ? Kinda doubt it.

 

[SuperFLUF]

Andy,

I see what you mean, but are there "pilot friendly" training departments who will pass anyone ? Kinda doubt it.

There are plenty of instructors in the schoolhouse that let senior guys slide and or give easy checkrides to their buddies. If the feds aren't there then its "hey I know you know how to do this".

 

[SuperFLUF]

I will accept anything as long as anyone over the age of sixty reverts back to a First Officer. Wont screw up seniority and will let those guys that need to work and have insurance to do so. Do some countries already to this?

I agree but it will still screw the mid to junior fo's because they can never become senior. Just like what happened to flight engineers when the gummers slid over to that seat. No upward movement until upgrade.

Still its better than the pay hit from being kept out of the left seat by the greedy, three wife guys who want it both ways.

 

[bafanguy]

There are plenty of instructors in the schoolhouse that let senior guys slide and or give easy checkrides to their buddies. If the feds aren't there then its "hey I know you know how to do this".

Yikes !!! I was one of those senior guys and never got away with anything. Wrong schoolhouse, I guess.

 

[SuperFLUF]

FJ1,.............Retirement is merely a remote concept for most of one's career. .............

Maybe retirement being a remote concept is the whole reason for this BS. If those who are retiring now had thought about it early enough they would be prepared for it.

I feel for those who are losing their pensions (I am too) but counting on more than the PBGC guarantee is nothing but a gamble. Why should others be made to suffer for your gamble that didn't pay off?

 

[bafanguy]

Maybe retirement being a remote concept is the whole reason for this BS. If those who are retiring now had thought about it early enough they would be prepared for it.

I feel for those who are losing their pensions (I am too) but counting on more than the PBGC guarantee is nothing but a gamble. Why should others be made to suffer for your gamble that didn't pay off?

Super,

Easy now, Junior. We're YOU a decade or two from now. Tell me how you're in any position to speak to how prepared or unprepared people are financially. Besides, I wasn't really thinking about the financial side when I talked about retirement being a remote concept. Retirement is a major life phase that takes in all aspects of your life and, like my grandfather said, "You don't know it 'til you live it.".

I can see why guys want to keep flying although I am not qualified to speak to the societal and industrial ramifications of post-60 airline pilots. How 'bout you. Got anything more than an opinion ? That's all I've got.

 

[Andy]

Andy,

I see what you mean, but are there "pilot friendly" training departments who will pass anyone ? Kinda doubt it.

Bafanguy, I've got to agree with SuperFLUF on this one ... there are plenty of 'pilot friendly' training departments. I'd venture to say that there's at least one 'pilot friendly' examiner in just about every airlines' training department.

Bafanguy, given that you are an advocate of changing the rule, you have not stated how you would like to see it implemented. Are you in agreement that everyone over 60 should not be PIC, along with a gradual phase-in, or do you want the whole enchilada (instant age 62/65/67 with no seat restrictions)?

Most of the pilots I've dealt with are pretty dammed opinionated. I feel like I'm exchanging posts with a bunch of lawyers ... very few are willing to express any opinion on implementation of a change in rules. Can I assume from this that no one cares how the change is implemented?

 

[mobie]

Should the airlines go back the 30yr. old cut off to be hired? Any of you remember how that was such a fight and the young under 30 tried to keep it that way?

By the way I was giving IOE's one day and then my 60th. came and I could not even ride J/S.

I was always told thar my retirement was safe, but I lost it 4 months before 60.

 

[bafanguy]

I'd venture to say that there's at least one 'pilot friendly' examiner in just about every airlines' training department.

Bafanguy, given that you are an advocate of changing the rule

Andy,

So, you've been in EVERY airline's training dept. ? I haven't but I've been in UAL, AA, EAL, DAL, MCD, SWA, Alteon, and a non-sked you never heard of, and haven't seen what you describe. But, I haven't been in EVERY training dept. Let he who has speak. Maybe I'm wrong in my trust of the integrity and professionalism of training dept people. Kinda doubt it.

As for changing the rule, I never said I was in favor of a change. Show me where I said that. I said I can see why people want to fly past 60...not that I want to change the current rule.

How to implement a change ? Don't have a friggin' clue...

 

[canyonblue]

Like it or not it will change. If you are currently on furlough you won't even have a voice as far as ALPA is concerned. Too many pilots are being affected by the turmoil in this industry and don't care what a junior pilot thinks. They will present the facts, that most of the world is moving to a retirement age of 65 for airline pilots. Japan and the Netherlands, to name but two, have done extensive studies which showed raising an airline pilot’s age is not a risk. Countries such as Japan, Australia, those of the Joint Aviation Authority in Europe...all have raised their pilots’ retirement age. Some 45 nations now allow their airline pilots to fly past the age of 60. Some do so in United States airspace. And they aren't fallin' out of the sky.