Age 63????

[LarryinTN]

There for a while I was the only pilot that is against changing the age 60 rule.

No, you're not alone. Some of us just have had enough of beating our heads against the wall.

I bet that none of the pro-increase crowd here even knows about the implications that any increase would have in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) which would penalize any age 60 retiree if the mandatory retirement age was increased or elliminated.

 

[FN FAL]

You pay your money, you take your chances.

This would amount to a windfall for the guys near the top of the list, and a hardship for those on furlough.

Now you are blaming the furloughs on the changing of the age 60 rule?

The windfall would be the same for the those on furlough as it would be for those at the top of the list...3 to 5 more years to work at a 121 carrier.

Like I said, we don't have any people on furlough at our place, and now that we are going 121 I don't like the idea of the Government telling me when I have to quit.

It's not all about furloughee's, nor is all about the majors, sorry bubs...you're not the only game in town.

 

[DesertFalcon]

This entire subject started the discussion, on this board, from a post about a 1-1-2005 law changing the max age to 63.

Has anyone confirmed that this is going to happen, Or, are we all taking about the never ending age 60 discussion while we wait another 20 years for the law to change?

Not trying to be sarcastic, I am just wondering if the 1-1-2005 date is a real date of change?

As Bill Reilly would say, "What say you?"

 

[Boeingman]

No, you're not alone. Some of us just have had enough of beating our heads against the wall.

I bet that none of the pro-increase crowd here even knows about the implications that any increase would have in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) which would penalize any age 60 retiree if the mandatory retirement age was increased or elliminated.

Part of the change in legislation includes a change to the tax code to accomadate this.

Before you start, I plan on leaving before 60.

 

[mar]

Here's the problem

Now that both sides have had their say.

Again.

The problem is this: The Age 60 Rule is unfair.

But unfortunately in this case, to do the right thing would have horrible effect on the industry.

I sympathize with both sides of the arguement.

It's like the merging of seniority lists: You can't please everyone, so everyone is pissed off.

It's just rough.

 

[jbDC9]

I would only support the change if all the retirees over 60 are allowed to return.

Yes, this puts more guys on top of me, but at least it screws the guys on top who think that they can have it both ways.

They got their advancement by others being forced out. Now its their turn.

I'm surprised it took so long for someone to mention this aspect of the age 60 rule... the crusty farts nearing retirement call us younger guys greedy and selfish for wanting to kick 'em out at 60 so we can move up.

Well Mr. Senior Captain, guess what? The age 60 rule has been benefitting you since the day you hired on, or did you lose track of that? How else did you move up the list to gain that lofty left seat? 25 years ago these same guys were all in favor of the rule since it allowed them to move up... but now, nearing 60, they don't want to go. Talk about selfish and greedy...

Lately though, it seems that most captains I fly with can't wait to retire, just want to get the hell out while there's still a retirement plan. They don't want to wait for 60 to roll around. As for me, I love to fly, can't imagine doing anything else... but if I make it to 60, I'll have been flying for 45 yrs. I figger that'll be just about enough for me.

 

[A Squared]

So I return to my previous point that a junior captain, ANY junior captain is worth more to a company than a senior captain on the basis not only of hourly pay, but utilization. I'm a relatively senior FO currently and they get a lot less out of me now than when I was junior and was scheduling's b*tch. With my 15 days off and 75 hr lines, I'm making as much as I did as a new hire on reserve cause they used me a lot more.....same holds true with junior Captain's I'm sure.

I look forward to your reply. (You're really giving me food for thought!)

Against my better judgment, I'm posting on this thread. It's just that I am compelled to point out fallacious reasoning, wherever I see it. I can't help myself, it's a disease.

It doesn't matter how long you've held a senority number, junior is junior and you're going to be "scheduling's b1tch" Let's say a company has 100 captain slots. If you're #100, you're the junior captain. You get the reserve lines, the calls in the middle of the night on your day off, the trips no-one else wants. It doesn't matter if you've been #100 for a month or you've been #100 for 7 years, you're still the most junior captain, and you still get the least desirable assignments. If you've already topped out on the pay scale, then your compensation doesn't change either. Your argument that the company gets less utilization out of you doesn't hold water. They get the same level of utilization out of the junior captain, regardless of how long you've been the most junior captain. If you've been stuck at #100 for 7 years, you're still utilized and abused at the same level. The same applies at the top, if you're senority #1, you get the best the company has to offer. It doesn't matter if you've been #1 for 1 month or 7 years. If you've already topped out on the pay scale, your pay doesn't change and your bidding prospects don't change ... unless the work rules at the company change. (that's a seperate issue and now were comparing apples to oranges)

Your position seems to be that the company needs to cycle pilots through the senority list so that you can always have junior pilots who are "highly utilized" My point is that no matter how slowly or quickly the pilots move through the senority list, somone will always be junior, and that somone will always be "highly utilized" regardless of how long he's been there.

However, I don't believe there is a direct "domino effect" such as your post suggests. All airlines have continuous training cycles which are based on growth, retirements, deaths, medicals, etc. These costs are budgeted every year and are generally a fixed cost.

It doesn't matter if you believe in it or not. The domino effect is there. If a captain leaves, you do in fact have to train at the very least, one person for each seat. In the very simplest example of a company with one a/c type with a 2 pilot crew, a captain leaving means that you have to upgrade one F/O to captain, and train one new hire F/O. At companies with multiple types and multiple bases, the chances get better that you will have additional upgrade and transition training costs. You can't get around it, unless you've figured out how to fly airplanes with empty seats in the cockpit. Those upgrade and transition training costs are over and above the annual recurrent training costs. Even if a captain upgrade just magically happened on the date an F/O would have been in annual recurrent training, the upgrade training, pc and IOE is more expensive than the f/o recurrent training and PC. Just as obviously, training a new hire is more expensive than not training a new hire. It may be that the company anticipates those costs, and budgets for them, but that doesn't make them any less real as costs. It's a bit like saying that my company loses 3 airframes a year to crashes, but we budget for it, so it doesn't actually cost us anything. A cost is still a cost, whether it's budgeted or not.


None of this means that I either agree or disagree with your position on the age 60 rule. On the contrary, questions of who will benefit financially and who will lose finacially should never come into discussions about the age 60 rule. The only factor that should ever be considered is safety. Is there a real, verifiable, safety problem with pilots over 60? If yes, keep it, if no ditch it. It's that simple. FAA has no business making or changing regulations based on whose wallet it fattens. Anyone who advocates retaining or discarding the rule based on how it will affect thier wallets is motivated purely by greed, not logic and fairness. The most obscene displays of naked greed are those who make no secret of fact that they support forcing pilots into retirement only because it enhances thier chances of a quicker upgrade and a bigger paycheck. It's a sad commentary on human nature. Those who favor age discrimination merely because it will benefit them personally are in no way different than those minorities who clamor for preferential hiring, or college admissions, or whatever form of discrimination, merely because it benefits them personally. It's all greed, in it's purest form, and it's all reprehensible.

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

It doesn't matter if you believe in it or not. The domino effect is there. If a captain leaves, you do in fact have to train at the very least, one person for each seat. In the very simplest example of a company with one a/c type with a 2 pilot crew, a captain leaving means that you have to upgrade one F/O to captain, and train one new hire F/O. At companies with multiple types and multiple bases, the chances get better that you will have additional upgrade and transition training costs. You can't get around it, unless you've figured out how to fly airplanes with empty seats in the cockpit. Those upgrade and transition training costs are over and above the annual recurrent training costs. Even if a captain upgrade just magically happened on the date an F/O would have been in annual recurrent training, the upgrade training, pc and IOE is more expensive than the f/o recurrent training and PC. Just as obviously, training a new hire is more expensive than not training a new hire. It may be that the company anticipates those costs, and budgets for them, but that doesn't make them any less real as costs. It's a bit like saying that my company loses 3 airframes a year to crashes, but we budget for it, so it doesn't actually cost us anything. A cost is still a cost, whether it's budgeted or not.

But, if you raise the age from 60 to 63, you are only delaying the costs. Instead of moving everyone up the ladder when Cap Ahab hits 60, everyone moves up when Cap Ahab hits 63. There will be a temporary downward spike in training costs for 3 years, but after that you had best budget what you were going to anyway.

 

[FN FAL]

AGE 60 GUYS: THE GENERATION THAT SOLD IT'S SOUL TO PAY FOR TRAINING CALLED, THEY SAID THEY WANT THEIR JOBS THEY WERE ENTITLED TO!

 

[A Squared]

But, if you raise the age from 60 to 63, you are only delaying the costs. Instead of moving everyone up the ladder when Cap Ahab hits 60, everyone moves up when Cap Ahab hits 63. There will be a temporary downward spike in training costs for 3 years, but after that you had best budget what you were going to anyway.

Absolutely, the best you could hope for is a 3 year (or whatever time period) reduction in training costs. I wasn't trying to suggest that changing the age 60 rule would result in sustained savings in training. I was only pointing out the fallacy in Time2spare's statements.