Age 65 and the "F" word.

[PsubS]

My point is: 65 is less safe than 60, should not have happened and created a surplus of pilots.

Golly, missed the scientific data on this one. How do you justify your "point?"

Oh, nevermind. This argument is like politics and religion. We'll never change anyone else's mind, will we? Everything here is posted simply to vent and/or bitch.

And you guys are really good at it!

 

[bigtexpilot]

Yawn.
Pilots are still discriminated against due to their age. That hasn't changed. You get to claim no high ground there.

Save the "You're the greedy one for wanting the exact same deal I got." It's just lame.
Greed is wanting MORE than the other guy got, not the EXACT SAME.
Greed is making sure the other guy won't get what you got by taking it from him.
Be sure to call up some furloughed guys and tell them how greedy they are.

Seeing how you're 45, do you also conveniently stand squarely on the Left Seat side of the line?

I don't know what the left side of the line means. I do think that your logic about the greed thing is a bit flawed.

 

[bigtexpilot]

Golly, missed the scientific data on this one. How do you justify your "point?"

Oh, nevermind. This argument is like politics and religion. We'll never change anyone else's mind, will we? Everything here is posted simply to vent and/or bitch.

And you guys are really good at it!

I agree.

 

[Hamburger]

I don't know what the left side of the line means. I do think that your logic about the greed thing is a bit flawed.

Left SEAT side of the line... It means that if you were a Captain when it went down, you won the lottery and your winnings are coming directly from pocket the guy sitting next to you.

How is it flawed?
Please explain how wanting nothing more than the exact same opportunity is Greedy? Where I come from, equality is the opposite of greed.

It is very clear how demanding more than those who went before you had and taking it from those who are coming after you is Greedy.

 

[Flopgut]

Golly, missed the scientific data on this one. How do you justify your "point?"

Oh, nevermind. This argument is like politics and religion. We'll never change anyone else's mind, will we? Everything here is posted simply to vent and/or bitch.

And you guys are really good at it!

There was nothing that said 65 was safer than 60, and it got changed. Everything suggests better duty/rest rules will be more safe, and it is shelved. Why? Because in the case of 65, the old pilots saw gravy. And in the case of duty/flight time, old pilots get nothing. So they don't care.

My point is, and you really need to read the article, Babbitt is signalling that duty time should not cause recalls, hiring or any increase for pilots!? On top of this, he won't rule on the 18 or so pilots who were over 60 at the time the rule changed at CAL who weaseled back to the line. You can have your emotional investment in 65 being right, but at some point you have to acknowledge the BS.

I don't care how/why the recalls happen. As long as they happen. Are you against a change to duty time that increases the number of pilots? Do you think pilots who were clearly outside the exact parameters of the rule change criteria should be allowed to fly? You got any ethics, standards or rules you want to follow at all? It's not just about 65 at this point.

 

[Mr.B]

I'm 45 and I stand squarely with a pilots right to not be discriminated against due to their age. It should never have been a rule to begin with. The change in the rule just happened at a bad time. Speaking of greed and sense of entitlement. Your tone says it all.

I could give a rats arse how old you are or where you stand.

 

[Mr.B]

You aren't in the "we" part of the word "we're". You are a "you" guy. This all worked out well for you so you're cool with it.

The fact that furlough numbers so closely match the number staying past 60 (at almost every airline with furloughs) proves that the profession was more resilient than we might have all guessed. There have been more recessions that have not produced furloughs through the years. A healthy commitment to seniority principle and fraternal brotherhood is what made it work then. We see now, absent those past traits at the forefront, the profession suffers.

Very well said sir.

Fact remains NO 65, no furloughs

 

[Chairman]

Simple math, an article(2007) Kit Darby wrote that UAL would be retiring 430 pilots a yr for the foreseeable future. Parked 100 a/c's. Then 4 yrs of retirements, 430 X 2007,2008,2009,2010=1720 pilots. 1431 have been furloughed, that is a shortage of 289. These numbers indicate UAL would still be hiring. I can see a correlation between 65 and furloughs!

Not saying it was not a factor but parking 94 737's and 6 747's by managment did more to put guys on the street than age 65. It happend deal with it. I guarentee most will enjoy the top end when they get there. They lost pensions, and I will spend this decade furloughed....Guess we have have time to make up. Had age 65 happened 10 years earlier when everyone was hiring 1000 pilots a year it would not have been noticed. It just happend while capacity was being reduced and oil going through the roof. Good thing I have 34 years left to recover!

Chairman

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

The problem with the "get out of my seat crowd" is they never learned respect for anyone but themselves. They would kick their own grandmother out of her house just to have a place to live. It was Granny's turn to leave since she had lived too long, so kick her into the street.

That's why bad Karma is striking back.

 

[xrated]

The problem with the "get out of my seat crowd" is they never learned respect for anyone but themselves. They would kick their own grandmother out of her house just to have a place to live. It was Granny's turn to leave since she had lived too long, so kick her into the street.

That's why bad Karma is striking back.

I'm going to assume you mean the "get out of my seat crowd" are the over 60 captains that refuse to relinquish their seats to the F/O's that rightfully deserve that seat just like said captains had years ago???

And I'm going to assume that the "bad Karma" you speak of is the fact that some of those same Captains may medical out before they make 65. Or maybe some of those Captains will pass away at age 65 1/2 and would have missed 5+ years of retirement. Is that what you're saying Undaunted????

And while you may think given the opportunity, the "get out of my seat crowd" would kick Granny out of her house, we all know Granny would be taken care of in a nice nursing home. The reality is Granny has no respect for her young and just decided to throw them in a dumpster and let them fend for themselves. As long as she can afford bingo at the local lodge, who gives a ratts a$$ about them.

As I see it, every airline pilot who is currently flying past age 60 should personally thank every furloughed pilot at his/her airline. Those who selfishly fought for it......I'll just bite my tongue.

 

[Hamburger]

The problem with the "get out of my seat crowd" is they never learned respect for anyone but themselves. They would kick their own grandmother out of her house just to have a place to live. It was Granny's turn to leave since she had lived too long, so kick her into the street.

That's why bad Karma is striking back.

You are correct. We do have self-respect. A lesson we learned by witnessing your lack of it.

You don't want us to have the Exact same opportunity you did. You're taking from us so you can have more. You can spin it any way you like, it won't change the fact.
If there is Karma, it will manifest itself in a heart attack at work. Fly till you die......management's wet dream.

Here's your spokesman....King of the dirtbags.

 

[waveflyer]

I actually don't have a problem with changing the age rule-
I DO have a problem w/ HOW it was done.

Bottom line is that airlines hired directly bc of attrition that immediately stopped- leading to immediate furloughs at almost every airline.

Everyone ought to have a problem with that.

 

[bluefin]

Not saying it was not a factor but parking 94 737's and 6 747's by managment did more to put guys on the street than age 65. It happend deal with it. I guarentee most will enjoy the top end when they get there. They lost pensions, and I will spend this decade furloughed....Guess we have have time to make up. Had age 65 happened 10 years earlier when everyone was hiring 1000 pilots a year it would not have been noticed. It just happend while capacity was being reduced and oil going through the roof. Good thing I have 34 years left to recover!

Chairman

The numbers add up, regardless of parking aircraft, the number supposed to have retired would have been more than the number furloughed. It has *()(ed all of us. When I started I had 35yrs that number keeps getting smaller with each furlough regardless with 65.

 

[BrickTop]

The most critical element that all you of are disregarding about retirement is NOT number of pilots to be retired but CAPACITY to be replaced. This industry is in a continuing CAPACITY decrease and regardless of the number of pilots retiring in coming years, the amount of positions being replaced are not 100-100. I am most willing to wager the notion of mass retirement is a a falacy and we should all be assured the next 15 yrs will resemble the industry of the 80's. I would not expect any major movement for at least the next ten years.

 

[The Prussian]

Not saying it was not a factor but parking 94 737's and 6 747's by managment did more to put guys on the street than age 65. It happend deal with it. I guarentee most will enjoy the top end when they get there. They lost pensions, and I will spend this decade furloughed....Guess we have have time to make up. Had age 65 happened 10 years earlier when everyone was hiring 1000 pilots a year it would not have been noticed. It just happend while capacity was being reduced and oil going through the roof. Good thing I have 34 years left to recover!

Chairman

The Chairman gets it.

And oh, by the way...we're in the biggest recession since the Great Depression.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Personally, I retired at age-60 and I'm quite happy I did so. My health is good and I'm enjoying my life away from the issues and stress of airline work. Therefore, I would think those who were (and still are) part of the "get out of my seat crowd" have no issues with pilots such as me who retired "early." That fact notwithstanding, every pilot should have the right to work until they feel they should retire. In the years before the change in the rule, hundreds and hundreds of pilots in the 11th hour of their careers found themselves to be the victim of drastic changes in the long promised and legally contracted pensions. Some of these people lost everything through no fault of their own. These people were victims of the same problems that affect the younger pilots now. Yes, I'd like to see more of the public flying so the industry can hire more pilots. Yes, cut-throat Internet pricing is a problem that killing profits and causing drastic cost saving methods. Yes, I'd like to see the end of outsourcing and the many other problems that have ruined airline careers; but, forcing the senior pilots out at the top when they need to work just so the younger pilots can get on the bottom was not the way to improve the industry. The fact is that the industry is better off with a higher retirement age for pilots than a lower one.

I must ask this: Would the industry be better off with a retirement age of age-55, or how about age-50 or age-45? What is the ideal age for mandatory age?

Personally I would think the longer a person has the option of working, that's the best for everyone. While you may think you want to "retire" at age-55 or 60, and that is currently everyone's option, that fact is that when a person gets to that age they may NEED TO WORK longer for many reasons, primarily financial but also for other personal reasons too.

 

[Dan Roman]

The Chairman, the Prussian, Undauntedflyer gets it (and others).
Most of the F/O's I know are very pragmatic and reasonable and seem to be taking the whole age 60 rule in stride. My guess is the ones who can't get it in perspective are among the weaker F/O's who constantly complain about everything and never look at themselves as a source to make things better.
This career will do nothing but through curveballs at you, some good and some not good. Some people deal with adversity better than others, but the people that whine and cry the most have the most problems.

 

[steveg]

Or maybe they are crying because they are out on the street worried about how to pay bills and feed their kids.

What an Ass you must be.

Age 65 only helped a small minority of pilots and you know it. It's still an age cutoff, no different than 60. All it does is FORCE the younger to work longer. You talk about adversity and character? Please, this industry is lost partly because of the absolute lack of character that guys like you and the others you mentioned have.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Age 65 only helped a small minority of pilots and you know it. It's still an age cutoff, no different than 60. All it does is FORCE the younger to work longer. You talk about adversity and character? Please, this industry is lost partly because of the absolute lack of character that guys like you and the others you mentioned have.

OK. So how about you answering the question I've asked and please state your reasons. Here is the question, again:

I must ask this: Would the industry be better off with a retirement age of age-55, or how about age-50 or age-45? What is the ideal age for mandatory age?

And if you will, please say what is the problem with this line of thinking as I stated in my prior post.

Personally I would think the longer a person has the option of working, that's the best for everyone. While you may think you want to "retire" at age-55 or 60, and that is currently everyone's option, that fact is that when a person gets to that age they may NEED TO WORK longer for many reasons, primarily financial but also for other personal reasons too.

 

[Plug]

Self Serving, Get Out Of My Seat Crowd?.......I have to laugh at this. I'd say 99% of those on the Master Scab List, you know the ones who crossed pickets lines at UAL, CAL, etc. are also 55 and up now and reaping the benefits of age 65. The "get out of my seat crowd" has done nothing but wait for our opportunity to move up through attrition just like everyone else. Many of us chose our respective carriers based on projected retirements at age 60. There are multiple factors that have stalled our careers and age 65 is one of them. As pilots we have no control over the economy, oil, etc. Some may even argue we had no control over the age change but we certainly had some jump on the support band wagon all for their own self serving needs. So you over 60 folks can point at us "whipper-snappers" and we'll point right back at you "gummers." Meanwhile airline managements are stroking each other over the un-rest amongst the pilots. Fact is we are all selfish so lets just call a spade a spade and move on, no group is better than the other as we all have our faults.

 

[Whine Lover]

" Most of the F/O's I know are very pragmatic and reasonable and seem to be taking the whole age 60 rule in stride."

I'm sure that's how I would come across also....while sitting in the right seat at the beginning of a 3-4 day with an old guy sitting next to me.






YKW

 

[BoilerUP]

...and to think Boomers claim Generation Y is the "me generation"...

 

[Plug]

Undaunted,

Why does the age need to change at all? If it ain't broke don't fix it. I'm pretty sure the folks occupying airliner flight decks today were hired under the age 60 rule. That is why many of us got started as early as possible to maximize our gains knowing full well that the clock was running. Sure the argument can made that now we get an additional 5 years but I would have preferred that 5 years and then some on a boat somewhere with an umbrella drink of sorts and not in the pointy end of an airliner taking in 98 times the UV that I would on said boat. Just my opinion though.

 

[Plug]

" Most of the F/O's I know are very pragmatic and reasonable and seem to be taking the whole age 60 rule in stride."

I'm sure that's how I would come across also....while sitting in the right seat at the beginning of a 3-4 day with an old guy sitting next to me.






YKW

Certainly makes the trip a lot easier, I just ain't having cold beer with guy!

 

[steveg]

It shouldn't have changed to begin with, there's your answer. They way it was implemented only helped a minority. It was devastating to the rest of us.

 

[Long Time Gone]

For those of you whining about the Age 65 Rule, just make sure that you retire at the age of 60, regardless of the rules. We wouldn't want you to work an additional 5 years while making additional money in the seat that your seniority and career have allowed you to. Those extra 5 years may mean extra retirement savings for you and your bride to enjoy, or extra money in the pockets of your kids when you're gone. However, please make sure that you worry more about some 25 year old kid who you don't know from Adam and was just furloughed as opposed to your own family and well being.

This may have already been addressed here, but after reading only the first 6 or 7 posts, it had to be said.

 

[steveg]

You are missing the point. My extra 5 years of work because of 65 are going to be spent on furlough, not enjoying 5 years of left seat time like the guys right now.

 

[Dumb Pilot]

...and to think Boomers claim Generation Y is the "me generation"...

Oh give me a break! Pilots are w*************************, this is a fact of all generations so don't lie to yourself by saying that your particular interest in this is one of public safety and the science of aging, if the airlines where hiring 80 pilots a month a la pre 9/11 this issue wouldn't even be discussed, this issue is about personal progression as all pilots just think about themselves, if you want a better example that pilots just think about themselves I provide ALPA's leadership as an example.

 

[BoilerUP]

For those of you whining about the Age 65 Rule, just make sure that you retire at the age of 60, regardless of the rules. We wouldn't want you to work an additional 5 years while making additional money in the seat that your seniority and career have allowed you to. Those extra 5 years may mean extra retirement savings for you and your bride to enjoy, or extra money in the pockets of your kids when you're gone. However, please make sure that you worry more about some 25 year old kid who you don't know from Adam and was just furloughed as opposed to your own family and well being.

What you're missing is after having one's career progression stymied for 5 years (due to retirements all but ceasing) because Farves changed the rules of the game after enjoying DECADES of career progression from Age 60 retirements above them, you'll HAVE to work those additional 5 years and you STILL won't make up financially for that lost time due to TVM.

 

[BoilerUP]

Oh give me a break! Pilots are w*************************, this is a fact of all generations so don't lie to yourself by saying that your particular interest in this is one of public safety and the science of aging

I never once said that.

this issue is about personal progression as all pilots just think about themselves

Yes, it is - its about MONEY.

Beyond such simplistic terms, its about a group of pilots who enjoyed the career & seniority progression afforded by age 60 retirements above them for their entire career who, facing their own retirement at age 60, started claiming discrimination and were successful in getting this rule changed under the ruse of "Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots".

Fair treatment my ass.

I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that life ain't fair, but there's no finer example of the self-serving "eat your young" nature of this industry than the gray-hairs who got their cake (age 60 retirements above them) and then ate it too (another 5 years at the top).