Age 63????

[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.

 

[pilotyip]

age 60 PFT

What is the connection of age 60 and PFT?

 

[LarryinTN]

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

Where do you get this from?

Why would Congress give airline pilots an exception to the early retirement penalty which applies to everyone else? The way the IRC is written now the penalty only applies for those who retire prior to the FAA mandated retirement age. Short of that, early retirement penalties applies to anyone who retires prior to their social security retirement age which, for many of us, is 67.

 

[BIGBROWNDC8]

Hey 46Drvr,

Semper Fi to a fellow Marine... Next, Check the pay scale at UPS, Im at the bottom, I still make less than I made at the rejional that I worked at B4 I came here so sell the whole "your making the bucks" idea to someone who might believe you. As far as this Ive got mine and Ive forgotten where I came from Bull $hit, Its comeplete Bull$hit. Ive helped far too many Guys from my old units, mostly Helo guys. If anyone has got the Ive got mine, now Fcuk off attitude, its the old guys who have there comfortable left seats and are willing to screw most the industry to keep what they have. Most the pilots force gets screwed because of a few special interest Ole timers.

Im guessing that you probably retired from the USMC, If so, that was your decision to stay for the retirment and therefore lessen the time you would spend at the Commercial airlines.

If you want to fly after age 60, GO TO NETJETS!!!!! Leave the industry alone.

 

[ultrarunner]

I heard that ALPA has reversed its position on the age 60 subject and that it will go to 63...due to UAL guys losing a lot of money now.......supposedly a done deal for jan. 1, 2005......sucks if true.

Right...Congress is going to hold a special session just for these UAL guys......thanks for clearing that up.

 

[philo beddoe]

I really don't like it when people put words in my mouth.

I NEVER SAID that the age 60 rule caused furloughs.

WHAT I SAID was that raising the age abruptly would be a career windfall for those near the to[ of the list, while almost cetainly prolonging the furlough period.

In other words, pilots who would have been recalled would essentially be 'subsidizing' the ones at the top. (Not a perfect analogy).


Second, consider the war we would have over the effective date.

Suppose the reg change goes into effect Jan 1, 2005.

Imagine the smug looks on the faces of the guys who turn 60 in Jan or Feb as they give 'happy retirement' parties for the guys who turn 60 in Dec.

Oh, retroactive, you say?

Just how far back are you willing to go? Retired within the last 6 mo? Year? 2.5 yrs?

The system is broken. "Fixing" it will break it even more.

Leave it alone.

 

[FN FAL]

What is the connection of age 60 and PFT?

It's just the attitude of these guys that are wanting to get into the majors, whining about this age 60 thing.

They aren't happy with the bed of crap their brothers left them at the regionals..."the stepping stone" to the majors. Alot of the ones whining would or did sell out their brother at each step of the way to log time, to log multi time, to log turbine time, log jet, and to log 121. Now they see a reduced potential of getting hired because of all that has gone on in the industry with the downturn and they are stuck in their "stepping stone" jobs.

Add in the potential that a wrong (ie; age descrimination) is attempting to get righted and all of the sudden they are upset because their perception of the age 60 rule as government mandate for "ENTITLEMENT" to someone else's position at an airline is changing.

Not all 121 jobs are at majors or the traditional regionals and not everybody needs to go at 60.

The barking little dogs seem to forget that the quality of life at the industry was brought up by those old timers bargining for better pay and QOL issues, and now they are being despised by the very group of people that brought on the race to the bottom...those that would work for free almost, at the "stepping stone" level. The increase in the age 60 retirement age benifits all the want to stay...not just the ones that aren't in the system yet.

I guess what I was really saying was, where the hell do these people get off thinking the age 60 rule was a government mandate towards entitlement to someone else's position at an airline.

Age 60 mandatory retirement is age descrimination, plain and simple.

 

[pilotyip]

Nice touch FN FAL

Good answer, the age 60 guys help build the industry, but the young guys are aaying "Get the heck out of the way and my seat" Alot of this carpping will go away when hiring gets into its stride in June of 2007.

 

[Xfr8dog]

Well this thread started because a fella said it was 63 coming Jan 1st '05.

Is the 63 rule still being talked about?

 

[skyking1976]

Hey Big Brown DC8. I think you have been in the dark for too long. Please ignore the profile here because I'm using my son's user name. I've been at a regional for 27 years. I do have a retirement plan here unlike a lot us at this level. I don't know how you can make the statement " because some guys failed to plan well enough for their retirement" when nobody planned on the tsunami that is engulfing the airlines today. I feel that starting your career at 40 has put you at a disadvantage as far as history and reality is concerned. Those of us at the regional level that have retirement plans or a 401K are lucky, just as you are lucky to have the position with UPS. However, the vast majority of people working at this level have nothing in the way of retirement or any next egg once age 60 rolls around. In short, I believe your position on this thing is nothing short of myopic. I will be 60 in April. I think I have planned well enough to see my through the years to come, but another three years would make life a little easier for me. The problem with all the comments I see on this post is that they come from people who are dissimilar in who they work for. Is it really such a bad thing to let people go beyond 60? Especially those who don't have a formal plan in place? The pilots at USAir, UAL, Delta all had perfect plans for retirement. Things and times change. They certainly have for those people. Lets face it, the only thing a lot of us will take away from the career is some $ and hopefully a lot of good memories. Yes, you are lucky that your career is, for now, spelled out for you and that your attainment of age 60 will see you nicely out the door. Why do you bedgrudge others without this benefit? Seems like you beat your own drum here.

 

[CatYaaak]

I say let the old codgers fly! Babysitting them as their minds deteriorate and preventing them from busting their (and as a consequence...our) a$$es keeps us from getting complacent in the cockpit and our skills sharply honed.

And letting them stay in the cockpit until 63 means keeping them off the roads for another 3 years except to and from their domicile airports. There's nothing worse than getting stuck behind a recently-retired airline pilot pathetically driving around with nothing to do every day except try to find the cheapest, afternoon senior citizen's buffet in town.

And why do these morons sit motionless at a red light, staring straight ahead like zombies for long, long minutes, and then just as the light turns green and the traffic is supposed to move, these oxygen stealers crawl along at a snails pace, ONLY THEN deciding to begin swiveling their gray heads from side to side like drunken elephant seals, gawking and examining with great intent to the expense of everyone else behind them who actually has something to do and places to go, at every sight that can be found at every average street corner in America..i.e...NOTHING! Newsflash! The word "intersection" is just another word for "crossroad". "CROSSROAD!".....as in.... "CROSS THE G$&#^#@ED ROAD BEFORE I GET AS OLD AS YOU!"

SO TURN ON THOSE FRIGGIN' HEARING AIDS AND LISTEN UP YOU PITIFUL GEEZER ROADBLOCKS! SO YOU FLEW AIRPLANES....SO WHAT! BIG DEAL! NOBODY GIVES A RAT'S BUTT WHAT YOU DID IN YOUR PRIOR LIFE! THIS ISN'T "TAXIING" ANYMORE...IT'S CALLED "DRIVING"....OKAY????....YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BREAKAWAY THRUST, SO MOVE YOUR DEPENDS-SWADDLED A$$. AND IF YOU CAN'T DO THAT, SPARE THE REST OF US THE MISERY OF EXPERIENCING THE MANIFESTATIONS OF YOUR DOTAGE AND GET IT TO A NURSING HOME WHERE IT BELONGS!!!