Age 60 rule

[bafanguy]

Change is always painful...to someone. Maybe ALPA should let the furloughed guys vote too.

How about if your contract says retirement is age 6o, but the government changes the rule to add years. Does your contract require you to retire at 60 until the contract is renegotiated to reflect FAR changes ? Side letter, maybe ?

 

[FoxHunter]

There were quite a few over age 60 guys flying Captain for foreign carriers in to and out of the USA in the early 70s. One of my furlough jobs was as a F/O with Dominican company called Aerovias Quisqueyana, flying DC-8-21s based in Miami. The Chief Pilot was age 69, retired EAL in 1965, former Chief Pilot, VP, friend of Captain Eddie. All the line guys were recent retired from EAL, and one from National.

When Icelandic got the DC8 in 1970 they hired a number of retired EAL DC8 guys as Captain, the F/Os were furloughed Seaboard World pilots. This same group went to Air Jamaica and flew down there until the FAA decided in 1975 to apply the age 60 rule to foreign carriers. At that time the oldest active Air Jamaica/ex EAL guy was well over age 65.

 

[SuperFLUF]

................. 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.

Of course they ain't fallin' out of the sky. The FO's are saving their @$$.

No, really, have you ever flown with over 60 guys? Before the "one level of saftey" change at the commuters, I flew with many over 60 guys on the 135 airplanes. Many of them were over 70 and had their ME in their back pocket. (most of their ME's were the same age)
90% of them required a whole lot of extra work from the FO's. It was exhausting work to fly with those guys 'cuz you had to do everything when they would fall asleep or miss radio calls, forget checklists, forget something in a flow.........the list goes on. The saving grace was that they were so senior so they only flew with experienced FO's.

Once again, I beleive that it will change because "everybody else is doing it", "it isn't fair" blah, blah, blah. The unions still control the seniority lists though so if the majority wants those guys to move to the right seat when they can't let go at age 60 I'm all for that.
Or maybe they could stay in the left seat and swap paychecks with the guy they just screwed out of an upgrade. (And don't tell me this isn't about money because everytime someone says we should change the rule they mention the pensions and current industry turmoil.)

 

[Spooky 1]

Age 60

Personnaly I think the age rule change over the next three years. The ALPA in it's wisdom is singing a different tune these days and stepping away from the hard fast position that they took in the past simply because those pilots at UAL, USAir and others have seen their pensions desolve into almost nothing. We can fight amongst ourselves til the cows come home but there is little if any evidence that flying beyond age 60 is a detriment to safety. Don't know the details of the Hobby accident and would not care to make a fool of my self at this early stage of the investigation by speculating on possible scenorios.

BTW I do not have a dog in this fight as I left the majors two years early to do something much more rewarding than what they were offering at the moment. I do believe that some folks over 60 should stay out of cockpits, just as some earlier than that age, should do as well.

Spooky 1

 

[DaveGriffin]

Change is always painful...to someone. Maybe ALPA should let the furloughed guys vote too.

I agree bg.

The MEC DALPA is doing what they can to help the old guys, even if they haven't yet reached 60. The TA which allows recently early-retired old farts to come back and fly contract is a good example. The MEC's strategy of small, incremental steps towards the goal of increasing age 60 will eventually prevail, as long as the senior guys are in control.

In the near future, seeing a 764 flying LGA to LAX with its left turn signal flashing the whole time will not be uncommon.

 

[FoxHunter]

Change is always painful...to someone. Maybe ALPA should let the furloughed guys vote too.

LOL, I was told by the 69 year old Chief Pilot pilot of Quisqueyana that ALPA had once been a good organization, but then they gave the co-pilots a full vote. In the old days Captains had one vote, co-pilots had half a vote.

 

[bafanguy]

It was exhausting work to fly with those guys 'cuz you had to do everything when they would ... or miss radio calls, forget checklists, forget something in a flow.........the list goes on.

SuperF,

You're describing some of the FO's I used to fly with.........

 

[SuperFLUF]

SuperF,

You're describing some of the FO's I used to fly with.........

True, true. There's always going to be the "one percenters" out there that get by because we pass along the gouge or whatever gets 'em through training.

In my experience though the older we get the more the percentages go the other way. Instead of "some" of the FO's are bad, its "some" of the gummers are good.

65 may be a good age because most of the CA's that I flew with that needed to go were older than that but when you pick an arbirtrary age what is a good one? Its all descrimination right?

If we allow commercial pilots to fly until they can't pass anymore that's when I think the safety factor comes in. Checkrides for the most part won't weed out the ones who need to call it quits. If you've been doing basically the same ride for the past 30 years of your career and you know exactly what to expect on the next one the majority will pass weather they can hack it in the real world or not. Any variables for this years ride are passed along by the "gouge" so there are no "gotcha's". And we all know the reality of the AME's. You can always find one that's easy if you look hard enough.

 

[Jim Smyth]

True, true. There's always going to be the "one percenters" out there that get by because we pass along the gouge or whatever gets 'em through training.

In my experience though the older guys were more bad than good. Its not about safety. Its all about the Benjamins.

SuperFLUF, Well if its all about the Benjamins, then explain to me how an FO would be hurt by being able to fly 5 extra years ( assuming they raise it from 60 to 65) at the most senior pay level in the left seat? Everybody gets 5 more years not just the Captains! Plus not all of the guys will want to fly past 60 or will be able to make it past 60.

 

[SuperFLUF]

SuperFLUF, Well if its all about the Benjamins, then explain to me how an FO would be hurt by being able to fly 5 extra years ( assuming they raise it from 60 to 65) at the most senior pay level in the left seat? Everybody gets 5 more years not just the Captains! Plus not all of the guys will want to fly past 60 or will be able to make it past 60.

Many, I would say a MAJORITY don't want to fly past 60. So either you fly past 60 to make up for the extra years as an FO or you retire at 60 with less money because of the minority who wanted to change the rule.

Those "5 extra" years of earning come at age 60-65 when most of the big expenses are gone (kids, college, mortgage...etc). In turn those who's advancment is suppressed are making less when their expenses are the highest.

In reverse, explain to me how its not fair to put over 60 guys back in the right seat. They were able to get to that most senior pay level when they did because of age 60 retirements, now they want to stay there for an extra five years? If an over 60 guy goes to the right seat then the upgrade time is not affected (granted junior FO quality of life is affected but pay is not) and there is no double dipping for those who are Captain now and choose to stay.

 

[bafanguy]

I agree bg.

The MEC DALPA is doing what they can to help the old guys, even if they haven't yet reached 60. The TA which allows recently early-retired old farts to come back and fly contract is a good example. The MEC's strategy of small, incremental steps towards the goal of increasing age 60 will eventually prevail, as long as the senior guys are in control.

DaveGriffin,

No doubt there was a time when the "senior guys" controlled ALPA, but nothing stays the same. The ALPA demographics appear to have shifted a bit in my view. For example, if you're a DAL guy, you're familiar with greenslips and how they worked BEFORE and AFTER that really good contract. I was the senior guy in my category and flying four GS days a month. After the GS policy was changed in the new contract ( in response to wishes of "junior" guys ), the change took a significant amount of money directly OUT of my pocket to accomodate the wishes of the "masses". This is only one example but shows clear signs of ALPA being democratic vs controlled by the privileged few. One guy claimed it would "spread the wealth"...I guess it did, Comrade.

And, by the way, I was a serious GS'er and make no apology for it so no one needs to burn up any electrons yankin' my chain about THAT !!! As I said before, when you are staring the reality of retirement in the face, the world will take on a whole new appearance....trust me.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

I just read this here:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/318-full.html#188659

AVWEB
"Pilots' Union Rethinks Retirement Age
ALPA Members To Be Polled On Age 60...

Probably the longest-running debate in aviation circles (besides how to properly lean an engine) took a twist this week. After decades of defending mandatory retirement at age 60 for airline pilots, the largest pilots' union has agreed that it might be time for a change. "We have to be convinced (a change) would not affect safety," John Mazor, a spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), told the St. Petersburg Times. "But there's enough there to warrant a re-examination. Everybody understands that age 60 is an arbitrary number." The union plans to poll its 64,000 members in the spring. Critics of the regulation, enacted in 1959, argue that today's 60-year-olds are more active, healthier and better-equipped for the job than their counterparts 40 years ago. They also argue that advances in aircraft and navigation technology have changed the job over the years.

...Financial Issues Loom...

The union's stance isn't the only thing that's changed in the debate. The strong dose of emotionalism that has always characterized the issue is giving way to more practical arguments. As struggling airlines work with worker unions to slash salaries (up to 35 percent at some carriers) and dump once-lavish pension plans, some senior pilots are facing a retirement cash crunch. "Sixty-three would have been nice," Jim Hamilton, a US Airways pilot who will turn 60 this week, told the Times. "No one knows how long you'll live or if you'll outlive your money." More than 40 other countries have raised their pilot retirement age to 63 or 65. Mazor acknowledged that part of the impetus behind the union's review is that some pilots are hurting financially. The union fought the rule for the first 20 years after its enactment but then changed its position in 1980 because of the FAA's intractability on the issue. It changed its focus, instead, to negotiating the generous retirement packages that are now in jeopardy.

...FAA Firm, But What About Congress?

Last we heard, the FAA remains adamant in upholding the rule. It's a topic that always comes up at the annual Meet The Boss session at EAA AirVenture and current FAA Administrator Marion Blakey has consistently refused to consider a change. Could it be taken out of the FAA's hands? Congress in 2001 considered (and eventually voted against) a bill to raise the age to 63. ALPA lobbied against that bill but a change in the union's position might be enough to sway Congress, said Kit Darby, a United pilot who runs a pilot career-consulting business called AIR Inc. Meanwhile, there continues to be no shortage of grass-roots opposition to the rule. A new organization, Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination, has launched a Web site and is conducting a letter-writing campaign. Its slogan is: "The best safety device on our nation's airliners is an experienced pilot!"

NOTE: See AVweb's prior coverage, which includes issues surrounding medical factors, accidents and age."

Cliff
GRB

PS-I have flown with several over 60 guys. Some were great, some were good, just like the rest of our captains. Overall, they were better than the younger guys.

PPS-I would like to fly until I decide I don't want to. I don't want the government arbitrarily picking an age.

 

[Jim Smyth]

SuperFLUF, you definately arnt talking to the same people that I am so you majority isnt the same as mine! I have jerked gear for many years with multiple airlines and have gone up and down the senority list a few times. I have lived modestly and am in good shape no matter what happens to the age 60 rule or my airline for that matter. Once you have been burned you learn to not let that happen again.

I have also in my mind paid my dues and wouldnt consider going back to the right seat at age 60 to watch the new FO learn how to be a Captain. You would loose nothing other than the left seat for 5 years if/when they change the law. That 5 years would be extra earning power for the rest of your carrer which at that point you would still have the left seat and its pay and benefits that go with it while you earn an income and are getting up to the point of social security and medicare benefits. If you dont think this is important because you may be younger now I suggest you do a little research into the matter and see what that may cost you when you get to 60 and thats if those benefits are still there at that time.

I'm not sour about the age 60 rule because I knew it going in but it isnt fair the way they came up with it and I am pro active and try to change things that adversly affect my life. If we have to retire at 60 then fine, let me collect the social security that I should be entitled to and be eligible for instant Medicare at this time and then it wouldnt be that big of a deal. I do sympatize with the FO's I fly with and all the guys out on the street. I have been there more than once!

So for me I will continue to support extending the age limit with my time and money.

(sorry for the highlighted post, dont know how that happened)

 

[Spooky 1]

I dare say that if you polled the working pilots at UAL,USAir,CAL,NWA and even DAL and AA you would get a result that would be in favor of a beyond age 60 retirement. What age, I don't know. Things have changed for many of these pilots and this is just the beginning. By the time this administration is done with the legacy airlines you will not recognize the landscape. A good friend of mine was at a diiner earlier this month at VP Chenney's home. In attendance was Trent Lott. When asked what he thought about the state of the airline industry, he spouted enough langauge disparing the over paid and under worked airline pilots that there was little left to the imagination as to where this industry is headed with the full blessing of the goverment.

The good times are over for the near future. I doubt that many of our pilots decided to get into this business for money alone, but it sure made for a comfortable living while it was there.

The fact is that money or earnings potential is not a reason for barring someone from flying beyond age 60. Performance is the sole issue, and if you can pass a bonafied check ride and physical, then the argument is over IMHO. Your probably have figured out that I am over 60 (62 to be exact) and I continue to fly a full schedule in a very demanding corporate flight department. Very enjoyable with a bunch of very capable guys (sorry no gals yet), Take a check ride and medical every six months and so far have not fumbled either. I do appreciate the younger guys as they bring a certain amount of energy and talent that is different from my perspective. It all works to make for a very dynamic organization that for the most part works well for everyones benefit.

Spooky 1

 

[Jim Smyth]

Spooky 1, very well put. I have seen some of my older buds that I have worked with over multiple airlines retireing over the last 5 years or so. There retirement party is more like a funeral than a party. Ya, lots of laughs, food and some tears to go with it but most of them already have another job lined up. The 60 law passed in 1959 was a fast move by CR Smith with the politicians help. No reasearch whatsoever. Now 45 years latter when life expectancies have gone up 10+ years since 1959 we are still at the age 60 limit and benefits like Social Security and Medicare keep going up age wise to collect. Kinda makes you wonder.

 

[SuperFLUF]

........I have also in my mind paid my dues and wouldnt consider going back to the right seat at age 60 to watch the new FO learn how to be a Captain. You would loose nothing other than the left seat for 5 years if/when they change the law. That 5 years would be extra earning power for the rest of your carrer which at that point you would still have the left seat and its pay and benefits that go with it........

I (any many, many others) want to retire at 60. This is a good job but it is still WORK. I do not want to work any longer than I have to. If my upgrade is pushed 5 years further down the road then when I get to 60 I will have earned less. The only way to get it back is to continue working. OR We can allow those who wish to stay to continue working as FO's and thereby not reduce my ability to earn the same way YOU did and retire at 60 as a Captain with the same years in the left seat as you had.

No "new" FO's are making capt at the legacy carriers, they have at least 10 years. Most if not all have been captains in the past and are well qualified. Just because you are older than them or got there first doesn't make you more qualified.

Forcing pilots to retire at age 60 is not fair. Niether is forcing me to work to 65 to make up for your desire to work past 60. There has to be a compromise. You uprgraded and lived the way you did because of senior guys going at age 60 now you should not be allowed to have it both ways. If you wan't to stay in the left seat to satisfy your ego or massage an "I'm better than you" attitude then go corporate. Otherwise I feel a good compromise is to move to the right seat.

 

[Spooky 1]

Age 60

Did you mean, move to the RIGHT seat or am I not getting your drift?

Spooky 1

 

[SuperFLUF]

Oops, right seat. Fixed it.

 

[FoxHunter]

Many, I would say a MAJORITY don't want to fly past 60. So either you fly past 60 to make up for the extra years as an FO or you retire at 60 with less money because of the minority who wanted to change the rule. /QUOTE]

The desire to fly past age 60 has a direct relation to age. At age 35 1% think they will, age 40 10%, age 45 25%, age 50 50%, age 55 75%, age 59 95%. Now with the failure of pensions all those numbers would have to be shifted upward.

 

[LEROY]

How about this; change the age-60 rule, but "grandfather" it in. Only those hired since it went into effect would be allowed to work past age 60.
Let me guess, no takers. Why not? Because as usual it's all about money; "I didn't get mine," or "the company screwed me,so," and a bunch of others.
I feel the pain of those who had their retirements liquidated, and as I've posted before, it should be illegal to deprive anyone of an earned retirement.
But give us all a rest, please! We knew the rules when we signed on! Don't tread on those who went after you simply because you failed to plan for retirement!!