Age 65 and the "F" word.

[steveg]

No, that's the problem with the argument justifying the change. The extra 5 years only happen ONCE. That 5 years is RIGHT NOW. For me, it's 5 years of furlough, stagnation, etc. The only people that get 5 more years of Captain pay, are already captains. It does not benefit everyone in the same way. It's only a benefit for the select few, it's 5 more years of furlough and stagnation and no captain pay raises for everyone else.

 

[Mr.B]

No, that's the problem with the argument justifying the change. The extra 5 years only happen ONCE. That 5 years is RIGHT NOW. For me, it's 5 years of furlough, stagnation, etc. The only people that get 5 more years of Captain pay, are already captains. It does not benefit everyone in the same way. It's only a benefit for the select few, it's 5 more years of furlough and stagnation and no captain pay raises for everyone else.

Yup...its a "windfall"

 

[Patriot328]

.....

 

[Patriot328]

You just proved my point.Age 65 = bad if I do it,ok if you do it.

You said:

"As stated before, the over 60 guys progressed and gained seniority, from Age 60 retirements, during their careers and suddenly gained another 5 years at our expense."

Didn't YOU also gain another 5 years at top of scale ? Isn't it a wash-you didn't upgrade as fast,but you did stay a captain longer ?

You seriously believe that? Really? Not even CLOSE! Everyone is basically stuck where they are from 2007 until 2012... If you are a captain, then you get an "extra" five years as a captain.... If you are an FO, that's what you are getting.. if you are on reserve, same thing.. if you are furloughed.. well it will be five years before you get back in the game..

Not everyone gets to "stay a captain longer". The sh*t rolls down hill and everyone is stagnated, from the most senior captain at the oldest legacy to the most junior CFI looking for a regional position.

Now of course, the 5 year stagnation isn't absolute as companies will still grow and shrink (mostly shrink it seems) during that time and people can move up and down a little, but to say everyone gets an extra 5 years as a captain is complete bullsh*t... People are on furlough for five years waiting to get their careers going again.

 

[BoilerUP]

Don't people understand Time-Value of Money?

 

[kwick]

Don't people understand Time-Value of Money?

Don't people understand that pilots aren't second class citizens.

Pilots should be able to work as long as they are physically able.
Just like doctors and lawyers.

Thank God Sully was there instead of a marginally qualified guy.

 

[BrickTop]

Retirement and job replacement are a fallacy at the Major Level. Major Airlines are only continuing to shrink and downsize their fleets. Jobs at the Major Level will not be a par for par replacement. The best most should hope for is growth at the regional level as Mainline operators continue to grow shared risk operations. With a severely depressed economy and virtual meetings taking a massive leap in popularity I would expect Air travel to remain at its current capacity. And capacity is what determines job replacement during retirement surges. In short I think people are far to optimistic that there is a retirement wave to be seen that will offer movement for many stranded in the seniority lists.

 

[BoilerUP]

Don't people understand that pilots aren't second class citizens.

Of course they're not - but that doesn't change the fact that young pilots who face 5 years of career stagnation will never come close to recouping their lost wealth due to TVM, even with "more time as a Captain" as Bluestreak claimed.

Pilots should be able to work as long as they are physically able.
Just like doctors and lawyers.

They already can - just not at an air carrier.

Thank God Sully was there instead of a marginally qualified guy.

Not sure what that has to do with a discussion about retirement age...but humor me and let us all know what your definition of a "marginally qualified guy" would look like in context of this thread.

 

[fullsail]

You just proved my point.Age 65 = bad if I do it,ok if you do it.

You said:

"As stated before, the over 60 guys progressed and gained seniority, from Age 60 retirements, during their careers and suddenly gained another 5 years at our expense."

Didn't YOU also gain another 5 years at top of scale ? Isn't it a wash-you didn't upgrade as fast,but you did stay a captain longer ?

Absolutely not. Your original point was that I need to fall on my sword at Age 60 just because I was against Age 65. I clearly stated the reasons why Age 65 was bad for me. I clearly stated I would be happy to retire at Age 60 if it meant I would not be furloughed right now. Turns out, not getting paychecks kind of sucks. I wrote my Union and all my Senators during the rule change etc. and lost. You won. I don't give a damn if you retire on your 65th birthday. Nor should you give a damn if I retire on my 65th birthday. The game has changed just as you wanted. If I was a real d*ck, I would be pursuing Age 70 trying to change the game again.

The "just think you get another 5 years at the top of the payscale...isn't it great!" argument is totally flawed. First of all, I am not benefiting from Age 60 retirements anymore as the Age 65 guys were during their careers. The rule changed right? Secondly, That's 17 years from now for me. I could be without a medical or dead by then. I just didn't want to be furloughed now. You can't even predict 17 months in this business. Hell, we might even agree on that. Good day!

 

[livin'thesim]

Greedy old men.

And the point about career expections is quite valid.

Standard calls, old timer.