Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Age 65 and ALPA

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Gearup727

Active member
Joined
Oct 30, 2002
Posts
28
Do we really want ALPA representing us on the upcoming age 65-rule change? Like most pilots I pay my dues and let ALPA take care of my interests. I think on this issue we will come up short by doing that. I’m no expert on the history of ALPA but I know there is a strong thread of ALPA taking care of the most senior among us at the cost of the junior pilots. Here at Fedex our union has started to make inklings about no one being left behind. What does that mean; allowing already retired pilots come back at their previous seniority? The junior pilots are many and the super senior pilots are few. It may be time to wake up and take care of yourselves; you know the age 60 guys are totally alert on this and are communicating with the ALPA leadership. You may be about to get screwed by the FAA or Congress and again by the senior leadership at ALPA. Wake up pay attention!! We are many, they are few. We must be heard or we are going to get f on this; if they bring back the over 60 guys. Do it for your family. Its time for you to pay attention to ALPA and what they are up to which may be screwing you!!
 
Last edited:
What I find interesting is many pilot cry out that ALPA is regressive, old school and still living in the pre-deregulation era. that ALPA doesn't think out side the box...

But when it comes to Age60, pilots want ALPA to be exactly that....


Times change, industries evolve.. We have to roll with the changes and find new and innovative ways to keep up and get ahead....

If Age 60 can change and the pilots stay protected..is there an issue? IOW is there a win-win in this?
 
Agreed let's burn Herndon and Mass Ave to the ground!

Melodramatic much?

Over 70% of the FedEx pilot group wants ALPA to maintain the current Age-60 policy. Despite this overwhelming majority, the FedEx leadership is supporting the Prater position on this issue. Demanding that your leadership represents the will of the pilot group is not "burning down Herndon." Your position on this issue continues to baffle me.
 
PCL, not only does the FDXMEC support Prater on the issue, they are also not so subtly sending the message that if changed they will also support retroactivity on the issue.
 
PCL, not only does the FDXMEC support Prater on the issue, they are also not so subtly sending the message that if changed they will also support retroactivity on the issue.

Captain Webb, as a member of the Executive Board, will be voting on whether to change our policy on this issue in just one week. You guys need to make it abundantly clear to him and the rest of the MEC that there will be consequences for not carrying out the will of the majority. Time is running out.
 
Captain Webb, as a member of the Executive Board, will be voting on whether to change our policy on this issue in just one week. You guys need to make it abundantly clear to him and the rest of the MEC that there will be consequences for not carrying out the will of the majority. Time is running out.

Do you honestly think that we haven't done that? It has been shouted from the mountains right to his face. He doesn't care. He disagrees with the majority and he stated that to a room full of about 300 pilots that if he gets recalled over the issue so be it.

I think he will definitely get recalled, along with the rest of the LEC members who all agreed to support his stance instead of the majority opinion.

Time will tell.

FJ
 
FJ, if you don't pony up and run for block rep I probably will. Dammit--I am trying to do a lot already in my life, but the ony way to keep ALPA our union is to get more involved.

I think we've got a solid union. I think our leadership is out of touch with the masses. As Rez says...burning down the house is not the plan. On the other hand, just because our MEC says its "right" doesn't make it so. So--its time for us bitchers to step up. MAN I hope somebody else will run--I've got a horse farm and a side biz to run--but if it takes one of us to make a statement so be it.
 
Can someone tell me why raising the retirement age is bad, other than the ridiculously selfish reason that it will delay YOU'RE upgrade/transition/hiring? What a bunch of selfish pr*cks.
 
Can someone tell me why raising the retirement age is bad, other than the ridiculously selfish reason that it will delay YOU'RE upgrade/transition/hiring? What a bunch of selfish pr*cks.

Age 60 works.

Age 65 is [perhaps] unsafe. The change is not based on it being either more or less safe. Bad policy.

Age 65 may not work. Three recent on-duty heart attacks at CAL. It might need to be changed back to 60 or have to include more restrictive medicals.

Collective bargaining. We are approaching a time when ingredients are in place that we could see broadbased increase for every pilot. This change will sabotage this to a large degree. Consider: What if the change was to phase in age 55? What better argument would there be for improved salaries and retirement dollars? Can you imagine what some of the more successful brands would be able, or have to, provide for their pilot employees? Can you imagine a better arguement for Social Security age criteria changes? Now, age 55 is a very unlikey scenario, but the point is: age 65 does the opposite!
 
Can someone tell me why raising the retirement age is bad, other than the ridiculously selfish reason that it will delay YOU'RE upgrade/transition/hiring? What a bunch of selfish pr*cks.

Mr. Vastly Underemp,

So tell us what's unselfish about those who want the change (mostly pilots age 55 and older) who are trying to extend their most profitable and highest earning years. They enjoyed seniority movement which was augmented by Age 60 and now want it changed to suit themselves (a.k.a., having their cake and eating it too). Do you really think these guys are fighting for some "righteous" cause?
 
Mr. Vastly Underemp,

So tell us what's unselfish about those who want the change (mostly pilots age 55 and older) who are trying to extend their most profitable and highest earning years. They enjoyed seniority movement which was augmented by Age 60 and now want it changed to suit themselves (a.k.a., having their cake and eating it too). Do you really think these guys are fighting for some "righteous" cause?

Count me as one of the "selfish" that want it to change. I am not 55+ (43 actually)I see pilots forced to retire for absolutely no good reason. Yes, there are those who should go well before the current age limit, but that is a different issue. I simply believe that it is a bad rule that never should have existed in the first place. If this rule did not exist today, there would be no good argument to have it enacted. That alone is a good enough standard to do away with it. Will it have a negative economic impact on some/many? Of course it will but that is no excuse to keep a bad law (abolition of slavery had a big impact on the economy of the south). If you fighting to keep it around because of all of those furloughed, nice gesture, but it would be more effective to have pilots not work extra, or even work less. Maybe ALPA should go back and fight to get the third pilot back in the 737.
 
I am not 55+ (43 actually)

You're one of the few who can truthfully say they're fighting for a principle. The rest are really out for a cash grab, under the guise of "age discrimination."

Of course it will but that is no excuse to keep a bad law (abolition of slavery had a big impact on the economy of the south)...Maybe ALPA should go back and fight to get the third pilot back in the 737

Do you really think it's fair compare the Age 60 rule to the horrors of slavery or even a token third pilot on a 737?
 
Maybe ALPA should go back and fight to get the third pilot back in the 737.

A bit melodramatic, Chest?

SWA is a superior company. However, a lot of APAAD support came from SWA...arguably because the 401k/profit sharing plans at your company, while a great vessel for guys who've been there since the early 90s won't quite stretch for some of the older hires who joined your team since then.

The ability to walk away "complete" at 60 was a major attraction of this career field to a lot of people. Right or wrong, everyone who was in the industry prior to the law change has had their career advance as others ahead of them have stepped aside. In what other industry are we so proud of negotiating away a "Perk" or a safety latch depending on which way you look at it?

What is irritating are not only the career setbacks, but the "moral high ground" taken by those pro-change dispite the benefits. At Fedex, they are calling it "protecting seniority..."

I think the winning side needs to extend an olive branch--perhaps a tweak up in the payrates of those trapped 5 more years in the right seat. That opinion seems to be waaaay in the miniority at our place.

Either way--my crew has told me to shut up and color. And a lot of other folks. So I expect there to be some new faces involved in the union in future years...

Things change. Buggy whips and saddles are now novelties, not transportation staples. Ever try finding a manual typewriter at the store lately? Things change. Age 60 is going away. We'll all adapt. But the change will be a lot smoother if those on the "winning" side quit telling us how "right" it is as they bury their little trotters in the trough.
 
I am wondering why there is a fight to increase the age only to 65. Forcing a pilot to retire at 65 is just as arbitrary as forcing a pilot to retire at 60? Any argument against keeping Age 60 could be made against an Age 65 rule....If the arguments against an Age 60 rule are genuine, wouldn't it be consistent to argue that there should be no mandatory retirement age?
 
Isn't it wishful thinking to believe ALPA has any say in this. It is a political decision. If foreign 65 year old pilots are allowed to fly passengers from New York to anywhere else in the world how can any US politician deny the same right to a US pilot.

How can you make the argument that 65 year old US pilot is less safe than say a 65 year old Egyptian pilot?
 
How can you make the argument that 65 year old US pilot is less safe than say a 65 year old Egyptian pilot?

The FAA could simply prohibit foreign flight crews from operating within US airspace if any of them are over 60 years old ;)
 
The FAA could simply prohibit foreign flight crews from operating within US airspace if any of them are over 60 years old ;)

No, the FAA cannot prohibit foreign crews from operating within US airspace with pilots over age 59. There is that little problem of being a member of ICAO, actually a founding member.:rolleyes:
 
No, the FAA cannot prohibit foreign crews from operating within US airspace with pilots over age 59. There is that little problem of being a member of ICAO, actually a founding member.:rolleyes:

The FAA has the right to govern their sovereign airspace as they see fit, even as a member of the ICAO. Thankfully, they're not obligated to adopt all the ICAO's policies, otherwise you'd be told to "line up and wait after the landing aircraft" (verses "hold short for landing traffic") here in the US ;)
 
I fly for an airline that has just appproved age 65.

We fly to New York and as far as I know there are no restrictions on over age 60 pilots flying that route.
 
The FAA has the right to govern their sovereign airspace as they see fit, even as a member of the ICAO. Thankfully, they're not obligated to adopt all the ICAO's policies, otherwise you'd be told to "line up and wait after the landing aircraft" (verses "hold short for landing traffic") here in the US ;)

To be more exact the FAA had no say on the issue. The White House directed the DOT and the DOT directed the FAA. Even the FAA has to answer to it's boss.:rolleyes:
 
To be more exact the FAA had no say on the issue. The White House directed the DOT and the DOT directed the FAA. Even the FAA has to answer to it's boss.:rolleyes:

Ok, fair enough. To rephrase things, the US Government has control over its own airspace and could thusly prohibit age 60+ overflights and inbound flights if it so desires, regardless of the ICAO.
 
I fly for an airline that has just appproved age 65.

We fly to New York and as far as I know there are no restrictions on over age 60 pilots flying that route.

True, but the original point was that the US Gov't could impose restrictions if it wanted to.
 
Do you really think it's fair compare the Age 60 rule to the horrors of slavery or even a token third pilot on a 737?

I totally agree that there is no comparison of these two injustices. Just in the argument to keep them on the books based on the adverse effects on some.

CR
 
A bit melodramatic, Chest?

SWA is a superior company. However, a lot of APAAD support came from SWA...arguably because the 401k/profit sharing plans at your company, while a great vessel for guys who've been there since the early 90s won't quite stretch for some of the older hires who joined your team since then.

It will as good if not better (401k is available in the first year) than those hired in the early 90's with the same amount of time before retirement.

The ability to walk away "complete" at 60 was a major attraction of this career field to a lot of people. Right or wrong, everyone who was in the industry prior to the law change has had their career advance as others ahead of them have stepped aside. In what other industry are we so proud of negotiating away a "Perk" or a safety latch depending on which way you look at it?

Advancement is not an entitlement. Several things other than this rule change will have much more of an effect on one's advancement. I don't buy the safety argument but I could live with a transition period of 60+ in the right seat if that is what it took to get things changed.

What is irritating are not only the career setbacks, but the "moral high ground" taken by those pro-change dispite the benefits. At Fedex, they are calling it "protecting seniority..."

Seniority based advancement is one of the biggest problems in this industry.

I think the winning side needs to extend an olive branch--perhaps a tweak up in the payrates of those trapped 5 more years in the right seat. That opinion seems to be waaaay in the miniority at our place.

Perhaps. I don't think anyone will be delayed by 5 years due to this change. Not all will stay past 60, many if not most won't stay until 65 due to a myriad of reasons.

Either way--my crew has told me to shut up and color. And a lot of other folks. So I expect there to be some new faces involved in the union in future years...

Unfortunately, most union representation tends to better represent those with advanced seniority better than those who are junior. We will all get there and spend a fair amount of time as a senior pilot. That works only if your carrier is growing, and nothing lasts forever.

Things change. Buggy whips and saddles are now novelties, not transportation staples. Ever try finding a manual typewriter at the store lately? Things change. Age 60 is going away. We'll all adapt. But the change will be a lot smoother if those on the "winning" side quit telling us how "right" it is as they bury their little trotters in the trough.

Both sides should take a deep breath. It probably won't be as bad as one side thinks, and likely will not be as beneficial as the other side believes. I am sure that there will be unintended benefits and consequences that no one has imagined yet. Those on the "winning" side in any contest should at least act with the respect, dignity, and humility that we would wish from our children.
 
I'd just like to be able to leave ALPA without losing my job! They sure don't care what myself or the majority of ALPA pilots think...and why should they, they get my money automatically and there isn't a thing I can do about it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We're takin' it back...from the next generation". Capt John Prater, ALPA president.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom