Age 65 2007

[Aplus9]

Oh shut up.... those senior pilot didn't have pensions and retirements yanked from them... or lose up to 60-70% of their pay. This isn't about money, it's about discrimination. I for one completely support it.

You contradict yourself.......definitely about money.

 

[munson]

Kassel737 wrote:

"Oh shut up", that's not very nice. I guess these old farts never paid any attention the histories of Pan Am, Braniff, Eastern or countless others. Maybe these guys should have saved more of their money instead of buying boats, harleys, oversized houses and having five wives. I have heard to many stories while flying with capts of how they mismanaged their lives. Do I feel bad for these guys who made a a ton of money and squandered it away? HELLL NO. Move along.

Hopefully your stupidity does run in the family.
Do you honestly believe that these pilots could have looked into to the future to forecast their carrier's demise? That they could mysteriously predict the fall of stocks and bonds? That they could tell when their marriage will go bad; a child is born with a crippling disease or mental retardation; a spouse dies of a long term fight with cancer and leaves the family finances shattered; a tornado wipes out their home and all possessions? Or foretell when they would be hit with a 35 -50% pay cut or a loss of pension?
"I've heard many stories"... most of which are BS. Do you believe that people will mismanage and destroy their lives deliberately?
Please keep in contact, so that when you reach the age of 60, you can tell this forum how great and successful your life turned out.

Stop, I think I'm gonna cry...welcome to LIFE my friend. I am sorry for the guys that ONLY have this job going for them. Do you really think another 5 years is going to make a difference?

 

[Andy]

Do you honestly believe that these pilots could have looked into to the future to forecast their carrier's demise? That they could mysteriously predict the fall of stocks and bonds? That they could tell when their marriage will go bad; a child is born with a crippling disease or mental retardation; a spouse dies of a long term fight with cancer and leaves the family finances shattered; a tornado wipes out their home and all possessions? Or foretell when they would be hit with a 35 -50% pay cut or a loss of pension?

Warbirdfinder, I'm 46 years old. I've been around and followed commercial aviation for 40 years.
Any pilot who has not prepared for the financial demise of their carrier - and I'm including FedEx and UPS - has been totally oblivious to the business. Any airline on top of the world today can easily be chapter 7 material in a very short period of time.
More airlines have folded than there are flying today. The odds are heavily stacked against a pilot to be at an airline that is healthy for his entire career and retirement. This is a highly leveraged business with razor thin margins. It only takes one bad CEO for your airline to be in trouble. Two in a row and you'll be lucky to make it out of chapter 11. Three? Forget it.

This industry is feast and famine; if you've been around it longer than five years, you've seen both. Big pay raises followed by big pay cuts. If you aren't saving money during the good times for the lean times, you're setting yourself up for failure. Reminds me of this tale from Aesop: http://www.fortunecity.com/millenium/sherwood/504/ants.html

As far as the financial markets, they fluctuate. Hence the need for diversification. As one approaches retirement age, their portfolio should be more heavily weighted with conservative investments, such as a laddered portfolio of T-bills.

Those that fail to plan plan to fail.

 

[AvroGuy]

The quick and easy fix to this, all Part 121 pilots that reach the age of 60, can elect to retire or move to the right (FO) seat. The upgrades will not be effected. The 60 year olds continue flying (earning a paycheck).

s

My question is for the guys flying with FEs. When a captain moves from the left to the FE seat does his payscale reflect. I would think it does but you never know when the union and managment are involved. I ask because of something a FEDEX FE said to me one time. "I get more senior in the company but more junior in the airplane." He is a DC-10 FE.

 

[skiandsurf]

s

My question is for the guys flying with FEs. When a captain moves from the left to the FE seat does his payscale reflect. I would think it does but you never know when the union and managment are involved. I ask because of something a FEDEX FE said to me one time. "I get more senior in the company but more junior in the airplane." He is a DC-10 FE.

This is where the union would have to figure out a "fair solution". Here is my opinion only....Since they claim that it is not about money, but about being able to work and fly.....They go to the bottom of the seniority list. They start at year 1 payscale. Do you think that they will negotiate an embarrassing first year payrate if they know that they will be there one day? I think not. As the airlines contract and lifestyles favor the most senior pilots, maybe they will now try to level out the playing field.

In my theory, the upgrades will continue. The company wont be stuck with 60 year olds that have 4 weeks vacation and 6 months of sick time. It will be as if they hired a new guy off the street. Remember, he doesnt have to take the companies offer, he can go the way of the current guy.....done, gone, Walmart greeters. Or they can stick around doing what they "really love to do". Remember, its not about the money, its about age discrimination. The only ones that will be effected will be the guys trying to get that "big. lucrative job". (that is no longer).

Again, this is just my quick fix to a more complicted problem.

 

[NoJoy]

If the age 60 rule is discrimination, then why in the heck would one work for a company that blatently discriminates? Everyone knew the rules of 121 flying before they got into this gig-don't go changing the rules just because the cards delt were not a full house. $

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

Have any of you ever flown with 59+ year old regional pilots on a consistent basis? Not everyone in this fight is a 777 captain at united or cal doing six flights a month. The regional guys are doing this in a day, in and out of the same weather system, airport delays, and ten minute quick turns. You can't tell me there isn't a level of safety that needs to be addressed in situations like this. However, if the rule changes these pilots are going to be out there on a daily basis like a time bomb ticking...

Quack,

Exactly my point. So many people like to say it’s all about the money. A lot of it is, buts not all. Not everyone above age 60 will be flying in a nice comfortable 777 with breaks every 3 hours. Now imagine the poor out of shape 64 ¾ year old pilot flying some RJ or narrow-body five legs a day with the weather down to mins. Tell me how safe that operation is going to be. Age 65 will be needlessly putting the public safety at risk. We should not tolerate a greedy few putting our lively hoods in jeopardy. An accident at an airline changes everything especially those of the legacies who are on the financial edge.

Age 65 – good for a few, bad for many.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[skiandsurf]

If the age 60 rule is discrimination, then why in the heck would one work for a company that blatently discriminates? Everyone knew the rules of 121 flying before they got into this gig-don't go changing the rules just because the cards delt were not a full house. $

Its easy to have your view, when you are 25-35 yrs old. Believe me, when you get to 50, and your company has taken away everything that you were promised and planned for, your opinions will change like these other guys.

The only "fair" way to take care of this, is what I have proposed.

Its kind of odd that my dad (73 yrs old) can hold a first class medical, and fly a 737 on contract for the government, but cant fly 121.

 

[Joe Schmo]

I find myself financially discrimanted making less the 40k a year, while the US standard is much higher that this. Maybe the discrimination lies in the fact that the top 10%-15% of pilots in this country, in regards to age, seniority, and expierence, makes the majority of airline pilot salaries. Obviously a more expierenced pilot should be compensated better, but maybe collectively both young and old pilots of this country might want work together to force a bill that would set a standard minimum and maximum salary for pilots in conjunction with the age 65 rule.
This would mean that those age 60 pilots would be afforded another 5 years to work, however at a reduced salary. The surplus would then go to bottom so that new airline pilots just starting out would not be compensated less than the indusrty based minimum.

 

[pilotyip]

Remember we have over age 60 121 pilots flying is this country up until 2000. It was done under the conversion of Part 135 scheduled commuter to 121 airlines in 1996. The last guy retired in March of 2000 at the age of 69. There were no instances of crew performance failures for over age 60 121 pilots during the transisiton period, and they were flying demanding trip in 29 seat turbo props on 6 leg a day schedules.

 

[pipe]

Its easy to have your view, when you are 25-35 yrs old. Believe me, when you get to 50, and your company has taken away everything that you were promised and planned for, your opinions will change like these other guys.

The only "fair" way to take care of this, is what I have proposed.

Its kind of odd that my dad (73 yrs old) can hold a first class medical, and fly a 737 on contract for the government, but cant fly 121.

If you EVER believe a promise from corporate America - jokes on you.

Until someone shows me how a 25-35 yr old pilot is ever gonna see one red cent of Social Security, I don't care to hear one frigging word about how the old guys have a "gap" at retirement. I see a gap coming for me too - it will go from retirement until they shovel dirt on me.

Unlike the "old guys", I am acknowledging that and planning for it. I will not whine as I approach mandatory retirement. I have seen what corporate America is about and I am not blind. I am also not obligated to save you at my personal expense. As a matter of fact, I will already be doing that by paying into SSA to cover the mess that the previous (your) generation allowed their government to put it in.

PIPE

 

[DustyBottoms]

Oh shut up.... those senior pilot didn't have pensions and retirements yanked from them... or lose up to 60-70% of their pay. This isn't about money, it's about discrimination. I for one completely support it.

It's hard to tell if you're being sarcastic. Stating that the pilots of yesteryear had the luxury of pensions and retirements while the guys/gals flying now had it yanked from them, and then arguing that your reasoning is discrimination is funny stuff.

 

[skiandsurf]

the mess that the previous (your) generation allowed their government to put it in.

PIPE

I dont know that "my" generation allowed this. I am only 42. Still a few years away from 60.

My proposal, allows those that want to continue flying past 60...to continue (as a new hire FO). How many would do that is the question. When UAL had the FEs, some of the guys went to that seat. Most rarely worked (with all the vacation and sick time they had). This would allow those that want to keep flying the oppportunity to do so. The upgrades would still be happening. The off the street new hires would still be getting hired. (remember, you are not quarunteed anything from corporate america).

The airline keeps there costs down.
The pilots can keep flying (working) if they so desire.
The upgrades will not be effected.
The new hires (from the street) will still be getting hired.

 

[ABXbooger]

How about this...we all stop wasting time writing on FI.com and spend that time continuously writing all of our legislators and ensuring that our union monies are not spent supporting this. Even talking to Southwest guys, the majority there DO NOT want this, yet their union is spending their money pushing this. I am going to ensure the people at my company who don't want this make it VERY clear to our union.

Let's get as organized as the vast minority pushing this is...

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Compromise solutions regarding the implementation of increasing age 60+ pilots abound and many viable options are possible. The age 65 crowd is not trying to do the right thing concerning discrimination. The age 65 crowd is trying to simply create a windfall for themselves.

APAAD is not concerned about age 65 passing for another four years. Paul Emens needs the near retirement pilots to retire, improve his seniority, and then force the rule change so he can sit on top for another five years.

The age 65 crowd is the most vial, selfish, self serving, discriminator type of pilot possible other than a scab. The age 65 pilot wants what they want regardless of safety, discrimination, or ICAO policy.

The age 65 crowd will not compromise, we must not in support of age 60. Senator Inyofe has introduced the same bill Stevens did last year. The bill has no compromise or fairness in an age extension. Do not compromise the age 60 position the opposition is not willing to negotiate.

 

[pipe]

Compromise solutions regarding the implementation of increasing age 60+ pilots abound and many viable options are possible. The age 65 crowd is not trying to do the right thing concerning discrimination. The age 65 crowd is trying to simply create a windfall for themselves.

APAAD is not concerned about age 65 passing for another four years. Paul Emens needs the near retirement pilots to retire, improve his seniority, and then force the rule change so he can sit on top for another five years.

The age 65 crowd is the most vial, selfish, self serving, discriminator type of pilot possible other than a scab. The age 65 pilot wants what they want regardless of safety, discrimination, or ICAO policy.

The age 65 crowd will not compromise, we must not in support of age 60. Senator Inyofe has introduced the same bill Stevens did last year. The bill has no compromise or fairness in an age extension. Do not compromise the age 60 position the opposition is not willing to negotiate.

You're right. Did you write?

PIPE

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Compromise solutions regarding the implementation of increasing age 60+ pilots abound and many viable options are possible. The age 65 crowd is not trying to do the right thing concerning discrimination. The age 65 crowd is trying to simply create a windfall for themselves.

APAAD is not concerned about age 65 passing for another four years. Paul Emens needs the near retirement pilots to retire, improve his seniority, and then force the rule change so he can sit on top for another five years.

The age 65 crowd is the most vial, selfish, self serving, discriminator type of pilot possible other than a scab. The age 65 pilot wants what they want regardless of safety, discrimination, or ICAO policy.

The age 65 crowd will not compromise, we must not in support of age 60. Senator Inyofe has introduced the same bill Stevens did last year. The bill has no compromise or fairness in an age extension. Do not compromise the age 60 position the opposition is not willing to negotiate.

You have not a clue as to what you are talking about.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

I am sure you don't know what your talking about and have very little airline experience regional pilot who must have started flying late in life.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

I am sure you don't know what your talking about and have very little airline experience regional pilot who must have started flying late in life.

You state that you know the motivation of everyone that is pro change. It is obvious that you do not. There are intelligent arguments on both sides of this issue. When you go into the ditch with name-calling those who disagree with you, you lose most, if not all credibility on the issue.

 

[warbirdfinder]

Joe Schmo wrote:

Obviously a more expierenced pilot should be compensated better, but maybe collectively both young and old pilots of this country might want work together to force a bill that would set a standard minimum and maximum salary for pilots in conjunction with the age 65 rule.
This would mean that those age 60 pilots would be afforded another 5 years to work, however at a reduced salary. The surplus would then go to bottom so that new airline pilots just starting out would not be compensated less than the indusrty based minimum.

Are you smoking that bad stuff from Nogalas?

 

[Bringupthebird]

If we have to, let's put it to a vote. You would lose....


Bye Bye--General Lee

You claim that Age 60 is a safety issue. Do you vote on all safety issues? NEXT!!

 

[Bringupthebird]

The only reason anybody would want to keep flying past 60 is because most of them have put their time in, and they're enjoying the benefits of seniority. That's it. Just remember, you are enjoying those benefits, thanks to this rule.........

Retire, you had your time at the saddle.

Retire? At 43? At the bottom of the list on reserve? That's gonna be a tough sell.

Won't everyone be able to enjoy those same benefits (except for the very old very junior F/O's)?

Oh, you mean you want it NOW and you'll use a discriminatory law to get it. Some of the "End Justifies the Means" stuff that used to be so popular.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Quack,

Exactly my point. So many people like to say it’s all about the money. A lot of it is, buts not all. Not everyone above age 60 will be flying in a nice comfortable 777 with breaks every 3 hours. Now imagine the poor out of shape 64 ¾ year old pilot flying some RJ or narrow-body five legs a day with the weather down to mins. Tell me how safe that operation is going to be. Age 65 will be needlessly putting the public safety at risk. We should not tolerate a greedy few putting our lively hoods in jeopardy. An accident at an airline changes everything especially those of the legacies who are on the financial edge.

Age 65 – good for a few, bad for many.

AA767AV8TOR

Wait a second, what about the perfectly healthy 64 year-old. Why should he be penalized? Are you concerned about him? Do you think he poses a safety risk? Why not focus the attention on medical qualification instead of age? And I'm certain that the bulk of the accidents in the futuer, as in the past will still be the result of pilot error, not pilot incapacitation, regardless of age.

 

[Falconjet]

Bird: Do you ever grow tired of listening to yourself?

FJ

 

[Falconjet]

To ME, it IS about Safety, PLUS it is about FAIRNESS. IF it is NOT about SAFETY, why the need to have a pilot younger than 60? To be fair, if there is a regulatory requirement to have a pilot under 60, than an over 60 pilot does not meet the requirement to be the PIC. Fine, over 60 guys go to the right seat. Oh, no, they don't like that idea.

Fairness: EVERY pilot in the last 50 years has benefited from the age 60 rule. Without retirements (or massive growth) there are no upgrades. The military is similar, except that it has an up or out pyramid as well as an age based pyramid. Even flag officers have to finally leave at a certain age. This is to allow those at the bottom of the pyramid the chance to eventually advance.

Since there is no performance based removal system from the top of the airline pyramid, the only way to make room for advancement for those at the bottom of the pyramid is to have an age based system to do so. Age 60 protects pilots and their passengers from the decline in mental and physical abilities that occur with age. Is 65 any better? No, it is still an arbitrary number that is there as a safety net. Will some folks retire before they have lost it? Yes. That is the price to protect the flying public from even one who makes a deadly mistake in a senior moment. The greater good is to protect the many.

In addition, there are still thousands of pilots on furlough who FINALLY stand the chance of getting recalled now that the economy and the industry are picking up. THESE are the guys who will get the dagger right in the middle of the back if the age changes. How about their lost pensions and furloughs? The old guys don't care about them, they just want to hang on as long as they can and screw the guys who have patiently waited for the industry to recover so that they could maybe get their chance at flying for their legacy again.

Of course there are economic issues on both sides. What the pro-change crowd refuses to acknowledge even slightly is the fact that a change to age 65 would be a windfall for them and a screw job for the junior and furloughed pilots. Their sheer arrogance and insistence that the industry will collapse if they are allowed to retire is appalling. They should be ashamed of themselves. Sure you are a better Captain now than you were 15 years ago, but the guy sitting next to you those 15 years is also better, and it is their turn to become the Captain now. It not like the 60 year old Captain is being replaced with a 23 year old Riddle grad. Give us a break.

Personally, all I want is a chance to upgrade based on the same criteria that they enjoyed for the past 50 years, and I am not a young guy. I might be able to hold a left seat in a widebody for 5 years. I don't want to have to fly to age 65 to get "MY" 5 years in the left seat. I'd prefer to be hitting the beach or a golf ball the day I turn 60, not trying to max my high 5.

More importantly, to ME, is that the fair and righteous thing for the most people involved is to keep the rule the way it is. Fair for the furloughees and to those at the bottom of the pyramid at every carrier.

I also realize that us wasting bandwidth here will not change anything to do with this legislation. The change will likely be forced upon us regardless of what the pilots want, and that is a shame. The pilots at ALPA at least, have stated loud and clear, however, that the majority of them are in favor of the rule remaining in place. That should give our union leaders clear and concise marching orders on how they should proceed on capitol hill.

FJ

 

[luckytohaveajob]

You state that you know the motivation of everyone that is pro change. It is obvious that you do not. There are intelligent arguments on both sides of this issue. When you go into the ditch with name-calling those who disagree with you, you lose most, if not all credibility on the issue.

Listen Chester Molester Rockwell,

The pro change crowd is not very complex. They are about selfishness plain and simple. If they had any ethical ground to stand on they would be the ones proposing viable compromise and considering their actions as they effect all. Instead this profession has been assaulted by tools like you that thinks working less is retirement.

So quit molesting this career with your crap Chester.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Bird: Do you ever grow tired of listening to yourself?

FJ

I get very tired of repeating myself, but the same misinformation seems to crop up over and over. If they would just change the rule already, then we could all move on to more interesting and less divisive topics.

 

[capt_zman]

Yeah, then you can turn your attention to the "retire the age 65 rule". Greedy liberal.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Listen Chester Molester Rockwell,

The pro change crowd is not very complex. They are about selfishness plain and simple. If they had any ethical ground to stand on they would be the ones proposing viable compromise and considering their actions as they effect all. Instead this profession has been assaulted by tools like you that thinks working less is retirement.

So quit molesting this career with your crap Chester.

You make me laugh and I pity you. It takes a big man to go name calling on an anonymous forum. I no longer expect you to understand as is obviously too complex.

Not everyone that is pro change worked for a legacy or SWA for the past 20 years. There are plenty of career regional guys that will benefit from this change as well as those that chose this career later in life.

It will slow advancement to the left seat and for some the opportunity to work additionally will outweigh the delay, and for some it will not.

The current proposal is a compromise: 65 rather than no limit, and the requirement to have an under 60 pilot in the cockpit (that should satisfy the it's all about safety anti-change folks). Nobody age 65 will fly for 5 years. As for the "you knew the rules" arguement, if you think any FAR is totally off limits for revision during your career, I can guarantee that you will be dissappointed sooner or later.

Is it unfair to change? Yes.

Is it unfair to keep the rule as is? Yes.

 

[BoilerUP]

The current proposal is a compromise: 65 rather than no limit, and the requirement to have an under 60 pilot in the cockpit (that should satisfy the it's all about safety anti-change folks). Nobody age 65 will fly for 5 years. As for the "you knew the rules" arguement, if you think any FAR is totally off limits for revision during your career, I can guarantee that you will be dissappointed sooner or later.

How about change the rule such that the PIC must be under 60 but that one could act as SIC until 65? That would be the most equal compromise; preserves career expectations of younger pilots yet keeps over 60 pilots flying and earning a paycheck for another 5 years.

Is it unfair to change? Yes.

Is it unfair to keep the rule as is? Yes.

That's kind of a quandry there, now isn't it?