Age 60 rule

[FoxHunter]

I'm not so sure about that. ALPA probably unknowingly did us a favor by making this an online poll. Half the old guys I fly with have a hard time checking their email or pulling weather. Some still refuse to do an online expense report favoring the 'good ole paper method'. Lets hope that the 50% are the computer savvy young' uns. Although I believe ALPA made up their mind on this before even announcing this poll.

Hmm, from what has been reported over 50% of FedEx pilots are in favor of the change. If you are correct the percentage should have been much higher.

 

[alaskaplt]

Hmm, from what has been reported over 50% of FedEx pilots are in favor of the change. If you are correct the percentage should have been much higher.

Where are you getting the data that over 50% of FedEx are for it. I see that just over 50% of Fedex filled out the survey, but how do you know how they responded.

 

[HarleyGuy]

I don't claim to be the smartest guy ever, so this might be full of holes. If it is, spare the flames. This whole age 60 debate bothered me, and I couldn't figure out exactly why. Until today. Here's the problem as I see it: Raising the age 60 rule will allow current captains more total time earning captain pay. But by doing so it will effectively stop others' upgrade to captain for that same time. So, it FORCES everyone not already a captiain to work until the new age limit in order to get the ORIGINAL number of years as a captain, while the current captains get extra years as captain. So you enable some guys now to work longer, yet by doing so you FORCE the rest of us to work longer! I know there are some unmentioned variables in this, such as the expansion/ contraction of airlines, new airlines, liquidation, early retirements, etc. I also realize that moving the retirement age enables everyone to work as pilots longer, but I think we all can agree that time as captain is more important that time earing FO wages. Thoughts? Am I on the money or out to lunch? Because I think I'll put these thoughts on paper to my congresspeople.

 

[ACAFool]

I don't claim to be the smartest guy ever, so this might be full of holes. If it is, spare the flames. This whole age 60 debate bothered me, and I couldn't figure out exactly why. Until today. Here's the problem as I see it: Raising the age 60 rule will allow current captains more total time earning captain pay. But by doing so it will effectively stop others' upgrade to captain for that same time. So, it FORCES everyone not already a captiain to work until the new age limit in order to get the ORIGINAL number of years as a captain, while the current captains get extra years as captain. So you enable some guys now to work longer, yet by doing so you FORCE the rest of us to work longer! I know there are some unmentioned variables in this, such as the expansion/ contraction of airlines, new airlines, liquidation, early retirements, etc. I also realize that moving the retirement age enables everyone to work as pilots longer, but I think we all can agree that time as captain is more important that time earing FO wages. Thoughts? Am I on the money or out to lunch? Because I think I'll put these thoughts on paper to my congresspeople.

Very well said. It is all about a few getting to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Harley,

Your analysis is correct if you have zero growth which is occuring at many carriers, and everyone flies to mandatory retirement age. If the retirement age is raised 5 years will it take an extra 5 years to upgrade? No. There will always be early retirements either by choice or health matters. Growth always drives more upgrades than retirements. At SWA there have probably been 200-220 retirements in the last 4 years. In that 4 year span probably 500-700 upgrades. If your seeing furloughs, of course the reverse would be true.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

ACAFool,

Speak for yourself. To many it is about right and wrong. Is it right to fire someone based on age so someone else can advance? Those who have advanced due to retirements prior to the rule change will benefit more than those yet to upgrade. Is that fair? No. But I do not believe it is enough reason to keep a bad rule that was based on little or no fact in place.

 

[Data]

It's 'Throwback Monday'!

 

[Flopgut]

Harley,

Your analysis is correct if you have zero growth which is occuring at many carriers, and everyone flies to mandatory retirement age. If the retirement age is raised 5 years will it take an extra 5 years to upgrade? No. There will always be early retirements either by choice or health matters. Growth always drives more upgrades than retirements. At SWA there have probably been 200-220 retirements in the last 4 years. In that 4 year span probably 500-700 upgrades. If your seeing furloughs, of course the reverse would be true.

ACAFool,

Speak for yourself. To many it is about right and wrong. Is it right to fire someone based on age so someone else can advance? Those who have advanced due to retirements prior to the rule change will benefit more than those yet to upgrade. Is that fair? No. But I do not believe it is enough reason to keep a bad rule that was based on little or no fact in place.

Very interesting to read these old posts. I can understand better where this sort of perspective came from, and I hate it even more. Either didn't understand or didn't care about what junior pilots were about to endure. Unbelievable this sort of greed and self interest is what came to be normal. This is both the best job there is, and the worst profession there is, at the same time.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

This is both the best job there is, and the worst profession there is, at the same time.

Pithy, but I like it.

 

[fr8doggie]

Pithy, but I like it.

Yes. It has pith. [emoji12]