Age 63????

[SLFLYHI]

No flame intended. Fact, the 12 year F/O upgraded to Captain same aircraft gets the same pay per hour as the 59 year old Captain that has 35 years service. That happens to be the ALPA standard contract. No extra high pay for the old guys. Sorry

Ok, this is getting fun now. Obviously FoxHunter, you've been at this a while. I on the other hand, have only been at it a short time. So, tell me why any airline would want to keep top end guys making 12-yr CA pay, working 12 days a month, when it can train new guys to make 1-yr CA pay and make them their b*tch on reserve with 11 days off. Seems to me the company gets a lot more for their $$$ by getting rid of the top end guys and bringing up the list.

If you can answer this one, you're smarter than I am. Although I'm an idiot for getting into this business in the first place, so outsmarting me shouldn't be that difficult.

 

[InclusiveScope]

Mr. FoxHunter,

Whatever floats your boat my friend,. I as well as many others do not wish to have to fly for compensation after the age of 60, pretty simple. You must have very little to do to occupy your time when you are off. Most that are in the 50 to 60 range look forward to being able to retire and enjoy the "good life" that they worked so hard and for many years to be able to obtain. You have no idea how happy it makes me feel that you run 25+ miles every week! ! . "wow", you must be in some awesome shape, I also assume you are able to defy the aging process with such a dedicated workout routine?. I am glad you got to where you are today by "luck" as you put it, fortunately I have needed very little thus far and won't be looking to get "lucky" anytime soon. Sometimes it is better to be good versus being lucky.

3 5 0

350,
You are truly a jackass my friend. Luck has a lot to do with this business and the luck is running out even for those who have been lucky. I have 25 years to go until 60 and I am opposed to the age 60 rule. While I am planning to retire before 60, I am not counting on it. Plan for the worse.... hope for the best. This is hypocritical ALPA politics at it's finest my friend.

 

[FoxHunter]

Ok, this is getting fun now. Obviously FoxHunter, you've been at this a while. I on the other hand, have only been at it a short time. So, tell me why any airline would want to keep top end guys making 12-yr CA pay, working 12 days a month, when it can train new guys to make 1-yr CA pay and make them their b*tch on reserve with 11 days off. Seems to me the company gets a lot more for their $$$ by getting rid of the top end guys and bringing up the list.

If you can answer this one, you're smarter than I am. Although I'm an idiot for getting into this business in the first place, so outsmarting me shouldn't be that difficult.

Very simple. All union contracts usually have pay rates year 1 thru 12. In the case of FDX it is actually year 1 thru 15. The year 1-12 or 1-15 refers to the time at the company. The new Captain that checked out yesterday but was hired 12 years ago was and still is on 12th year Captain pay. At most Majors all Captains are on max pay, 12th year. There are some cases that a new Captain starts over at 1st year Captain pay, but that is unusual, with carriers such as Evergreen or Kallita. With UAL, DAL, CAL, UPS, FDX, USAIR, and most of the others there has never been a guy on year 1 Captain pay. Again the year pay refers to total service, not time in seat.

When the senior guy retires it actually cost ever company a lot of money. When MD11 Captain retires at FDX, they have to train his replacement, in some cases a DC10 Captain, Then they have to train his replacement, could be a A300 Captain, his replacement has to be trained, a 727 Captain, who is replaced by a MD11 F/O and the list goes on. One guy retires and the airline has to train 10 pilots, very complicated, and very expensive. In each case most, if not all, are getting the same rate of the guy that retired or replaced.

 

[SLFLYHI]

.

When the senior guy retires it actually cost ever company a lot of money. When MD11 Captain retires at FDX, they have to train his replacement, in some cases a DC10 Captain, Then they have to train his replacement, could be a A300 Captain, his replacement has to be trained, a 727 Captain, who is replaced by a MD11 F/O and the list goes on. One guy retires and the airline has to train 10 pilots, very complicated, and very expensive. In each case most, if not all, are getting the same rate of the guy that retired or replaced.

Great arguments, to be sure. You certainly are well versed in these subjects. 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. As you know, system bids & vacancies have as much to do with the company's status (growing vs. contracting, new aircraft, etc) as anything.

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!)

 

[BIGBROWNDC8]

Finally I have some re-enforcements on this thread. There for a while I was the only pilot that is against changing the age 60 rule.


I agree with most everything they have said about why not to change the age 60 rule. Guys that want to change it, need to get a life. Something other than aviation. Most the responses for change site all these failing airlines as reasons for changing the rule, Its BS. What about all the guys that retired in 1999 or 2000. Nobody complained then about their retirment funds. In the end its just plain selfishness. This will hurt far more people than it will help. Its all about the money here not the law or whats right. Selfish, greedy, Lifeless people, only looking out for themselves much like a scab, willing to step on whomever they can to benifit themselves. If your investment took a dive then thats your fault. Next time diversify your porfolio, invest in property, gold or other metals, etc. They hold there value.

 

[FN FAL]

These same guys that will tell you that the changing of the rule to 63 or 65 will end up costing the company in higher wages, are the same guys that will tell you that it is more cost effective to hire younger pilots because they will stay longer, thus creating a more cost effective use of the company's training money.

Do you see the dichotomy here?

 

[46Driver]

I agree with most everything they have said about why not to change the age 60 rule. Guys that want to change it, need to get a life. Something other than aviation. Most the responses for change site all these failing airlines as reasons for changing the rule, Its BS. What about all the guys that retired in 1999 or 2000. Nobody complained then about their retirment funds. In the end its just plain selfishness. This will hurt far more people than it will help. Its all about the money here not the law or whats right. Selfish, greedy, Lifeless people, only looking out for themselves much like a scab, willing to step on whomever they can to benifit themselves. If your investment took a dive then thats your fault. Next time diversify your porfolio, invest in property, gold or other metals, etc. They hold there value.

What's that I hear? "I'm onboard, pull up the rope." You got on at UPS, you are making big money, and you want everyone to retire at age 60. Most of the people are not as fortunate as you - they want to retire early but cirmcumstances dictate otherwise. I don't think many want to keep flying past age 60 for fun, of course it is about money and being able to retire - just like you.

 

[350DRIVER]

I didn't mention AirTran, Frontier, AWA plus others because they don't have an defined benefit pension.

Sorry your so misinformed.

I am well aware of that, you made the first part up so I was only suggesting that you make the second part up as well. Obviously if you were able to read my posts then you would realize that I didn't make any notions that I was implying anything directed to those at DAL, UAL, NWA, Airways,. I guess it was just convenient for you to throw words out of my mouth.. . You should realize that "mismanaged" funds could cover a wide area outside of what one get's through his airline.

Don't convince me, it is pointless, convince those who have the power to change this which hopefully will not happen and once again history will repeat itself.


3 5 0

 

[philo beddoe]

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.

Considering the amount of money these senior captains have been making all these years, they should have saved up enough by now to keep them fed and clothed.

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.

 

[350DRIVER]

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.

Considering the amount of money these senior captains have been making all these years, they should have saved up enough by now to keep them fed and clothed.

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.

Some very good points Philo, they can't have everything and it would be no fair to those forced out in recent times. This is one of the reasons that I am confident this will not pass. People scream "age discrimination" with regards to the 60 rule. Ok... what would it be IF it was to 63?. No longer age discrimination? I beg to differ on this one..... They are one in the same minus three years. If you want to make those happy then have no mandatory age, the only answer to these problems. Will it ever happen when no age is applicable? I think when the day hell freezes over is when this truly becomes a reality.

People seem to continue to buy into propaganda and think that these senior captains rely on there captain pay to be able to live, false in more ways than one. The more senior captains I know fly as a "hobby" and use the money made in this arena on expensive toys. I was just talking to a senior Airways check airman who joked around about his next big purchase. Why? Because on the side he has many commercial realestate properties that he owns and builds on. I am sure those at Airways know Captain Whitman, he is somewhat of a legend for what he has been able to accomplish on the side... He needs not a single dime from Airways, he is a millionaire 5 times over again. Is he in the minority? I think not, many of these senior folks have a rather impressive and well diversified portfolios. Just because you are a captain does not mean that is your number 1 provider of income.


If you are smart, young, invest, etc, then there is no reason why you should need to worry about how good of shape you will be in the day that you choose to retire. Think outside the box.

3 5 0