Age 65 and the "F" word.

[surfnfly]

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.


I would bet that most of the kids getting furloughed (many for the 2nd time) are far from 25 more like 35-45 with familys to try and support. I am tired of hearing I lost my pension I must work but then hear them talk about their second home and boats, motorcycles, etc. Granted some of the dumb ones that are poor financial planers need to work but the majority of the 60+ crowd are just greedy and padding their accounts at the expense of the junior. We will never see the type of money these guys made even with an additional 5 yrs. The real kick to the nuts is once furloughed today there are hardly any jobs to find in any field let alone aviation.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

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).

Everybody has good and bad luck. Some of the old guys got a break and some of the young guys got hosed. That's all there is to it. Get over it. Maybe your day will come some day.

I'm still waiting for mine.

I got hosed but maybe I'll strike it rich when my ship comes on.

 

[Metrojet]

Ok have to ask this one speaking of greed. Are the 300 plus over the age of 60 also allowed to fly and pull their pension money at the same time like they are doing at Us Airways while we have pilots on furlough? Our guys do and they will let you know when you fly with them.

And don't forget about the Age 62+ Captains = PBGC + SS + MIL RET and Widebody Captain pay rates.

Just about being at the right time and the right place.

 

[Mr.B]

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.

Kinda ironic coming from a guy whose job was created to get around the Japanese pilots union. (Dont bother, I had the briefing).

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

I must ask this again because no one will answer. How about an answer from the "Get out of my seat crowd."

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?

 

[Pocono Pilot]

I must ask this again because no one will answer. How about an answer from the "Get out of my seat crowd."

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?

That's cause nobody cares about what you think grandpa.

Go get someone to change your diaper.LOL

 

[Metro752]

Who here has MC Hammer Syndrome?

 

[thor2j]

The real bottom line to this whole thing is how Prater and ALPA national sold its members out. The majority (means 50%+1) did not want the rule change. Yes it probably would of happened, but it could of been delayed for years or even better, phased in. Instead that POS prater sold his salary paying members out!

 

[likeitis]

I must ask this again because no one will answer. How about an answer from the "Get out of my seat crowd."

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?

How about 56 like the controllers. Seems retarded to me that people are allowed to fly the planes past 56 but somebody sitting in a dim lit room looking at a screen needs to retire at 56. No disrespect to controllers but if they have a cardiac all that needs to be done is a 911 call.

 

[Dumb Pilot]

Kinda ironic coming from a guy whose job was created to get around the Japanese pilots union. (Dont bother, I had the briefing).

This post by Mr. B is the perfect example as to the hypocrisy of this thread, what he didn't say is that a little over two years ago he was actively pursuing this contract, I personally gave him infomation about this job in the open forum and in PM's and now he is pointing fingers, the only reason that he is not here enjoying the job created to bypass the" Japanese pilots union" as he says is because ANA rejected his application.

By the way Mr. "B" I want to be the first to congratulate you on your command there at UAL, I know it is a little premature but hey, 12 years pass by very quickly when you are working in such a great working environment as UAL. Sorry ANA took a pass at you "B" we are having a great time, wish you could be here

 

[Plug]

I must ask this again because no one will answer. How about an answer from the "Get out of my seat crowd."

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?

Many have answered your question, however, you just don't like the answer you're getting.

In case you missed it........since most active/furloughed airline pilots were hired under the age 60 rule there was no need to change it. We all knew what we were getting in to when hired on.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

How about 56 like the controllers. Seems retarded to me that people are allowed to fly the planes past 56 but somebody sitting in a dim lit room looking at a screen needs to retire at 56. No disrespect to controllers but if they have a cardiac all that needs to be done is a 911 call.

Well how about age-40 for mandatory retirement?

That would certainly create lots of jobs.

Is that what everyone wants?

 

[kwick]

Many have answered your question, however, you just don't like the answer you're getting.

In case you missed it........since most active/furloughed airline pilots were hired under the age 60 rule there was no need to change it. We all knew what we were getting in to when hired on.

Do your homework.

Management at AA, the same people that created the "B Scale, " in an
effort to screw the pilots, proposed the "Age 60 rule. " There was no
age rule until your buddies at AA came up with it.

Only a management clown, or some young guy without a clue, would
want to bring back the "B Scale" or the "Age 60 rule."

 

[john cocktosen]

Well how about age-40 for mandatory retirement?

That would certainly create lots of jobs.

Is that what everyone wants?

The actual age is not the problem. The problem is knowing when to hang it up. Lets face it. The blue hair, good ol' boy club ensures that you old farts will pass checkrides with safety being the last consideration. It's just like taking the keys from grandpa. Will he stop driving on his own or kill 5 people at the farmers market.
When I see that I'm pared with a geezer I know it's time to work double time, so that my ticket doesn't get pulled, or god forbid he drives us off the runway in a nasty crosswind. I do my best to maintain a professional attitude. All while listening to stories about flying the 72, racing his Porsche, and traveling to Europe, while I am about to lose my house.

Maybe you can understand why some of us are a little pissed.

 

[ALGFLYR]

Age 65 did not cause furloughs - it just changed WHO was furloughed.

Think about this...

Hypothetical major airline:

1,000 pilots - 200 are over age 60.

Management cut back and decided to furlough 200 pilots leaving 800 active pilots on property. Certainly if age 65 had not happened, the bottom 200 would not have been furloughed.

Now if age 65 did not happen:

1,000 pilots - none over age 60.

The 200 pilot over 60 in the first example retired and caused the company to hire 200 new-hires to maintain 1,000 pilots.

Again management cut back and decided to furlough 200 pilots leaving 800 active pilots. However this time the 200 pilots furloughed in the first example are not furloughed, it is the 200 pilots hired below them due to the retirements.

So basically, age 65 did not cause furloughs. The junior pilots now furloughed or about to be furloughed would not have been furloughed if age 65 did not pass, but those junior to them would have...

 

[BoilerUP]

Is that what everyone wants?

No.

What everyone wants is for pilots to be bound by the retirement rule that was in place when we all were hired.

Instead, senior (old) pilots successfully lobbied in a post-9/11 environment to change the rule, providing them with a career windfall (enjoying a career of seniority advancement as pilots older than them hit 60 and retired, then post-change gaining up to 5 years more years at the top) at the expense of their juniors.

 

[Fubijaakr]

No, that's what YOU want. The rules changed. Everyone's career expectations got pushed back 5 years. Grow up, get over it.

 

[BoilerUP]

No, that's what YOU want.

And most of the people posting in this thread, and a majority of ALPA members...not that THAT means anything.

The rules changed. Everyone's career expectations got pushed back 5 years.

Did yours?

Grow up, get over it.

No "get off my lawn" too, eh?

 

[Fubijaakr]

Never mind.

 

[zonker]

Never mind.

No epaulets makes grandpa cry.

 

[The Prussian]

Instead, senior (old) pilots successfully lobbied in a post-9/11 environment to change the rule, providing them with a career windfall (enjoying a career of seniority advancement as pilots older than them hit 60 and retired, then post-change gaining up to 5 years more years at the top) at the expense of their juniors.

...and yet you fail to recall that junior pilots successfully lobbied in a pre-9/11 environment to delay changing the rule for over 20 years. Had this rule passed, as it almost did, back in '91(?), and on a couple of other occasions, this thread and this discussion would not exist today.

...and to top it off,...AA sure knows how to spread the blame, and distract the pilots into a "fist fight"...:erm:

 

[BoilerUP]

...and yet you fail to recall that junior pilots successfully lobbied in a pre-9/11 environment to delay changing the rule for over 20 years.

I fail to see how that has anything to do with the career windfall given to senior pilots by the passage of the "Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots" Act.

If the law had been passed in 1991, there would have been the same gnashing of teeth then as there is now...there just wasn't the internet for it to be so readily apparent

You're right though - had the rule been changed 19 years ago we'd all have adjusted as a matter of necessity...much as everyone will have adjusted by 2016, 19 years after this bill was signed by GWB.

 

[Flopgut]

...and yet you fail to recall that junior pilots successfully lobbied in a pre-9/11 environment to delay changing the rule for over 20 years. Had this rule passed, as it almost did, back in '91(?), and on a couple of other occasions, this thread and this discussion would not exist...:erm:

No, you'd just be crying for age 70.....

 

[Flopgut]

This is from ATW's January 2010 Perry Flint interview with Captain Babbitt:

Flint: "Can you provide an update on the status of the new flight and duty time regulation? The [ARC] made it's reccomendation in Sep. When might we see a NPRM?"

Babbitt: "We take those reccomendations and we have to convert them into regulatory language. We also have to do a cost benefit analysis. The we turn it over to the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. Eventually it goes before the Office of Management and Budget and then we put it out as an NPRM. I'm hopeful we can get it out in 2010. One of the issues we have run into has been that's it's a complicated cost benefit analysis because you essentially have to ask carriers to run these models in their software. You have to see what the cost side of it is, meaning if wew implement these changes, and do nothing else,would it in fact require more pilots?"



Clearly Babbitt doesn't want more pilots to have jobs. Pretty much the same sentiment the age 65 crowd holds on here.

Duty time changes could bring back furloughed pilots. In fact it could put everybody back where they should be. But just as it happens with retirement age change, there are those weakling members like Prussian, Undaunted, Kwick and Roman who will be happy to accept a partial improvement that helps their own needs in place of one that helps all. Retirement age change is no longer the problem. However, it is these same pilots who champion pulling up the ladder that continue to drag us down. They are the type members that think it's fine for Babbitt to shelve duty time changes since it won't upset their own lives.

 

[Caveman]

I asked a few questions about this in the other AA furlough thread. Since nobody answered I'll ask again here.

What if a pilot junior to you was awarded an upgrade ahead of you because he claimed he needed the money more than you did?

What if a pilot junior to you displaced you out of your seat because he claimed he needed the money more than you did?

What if you were displaced out of the domicile you lived in to allow pilot junior to you to be there because he claimed he couldn't afford to commute any longer?

What if you were forced to retire because a pilot junior to you claimed he needed your seat and your paycheck more than you did?

The argument about changing the rules mid-game doesn't hold water. Contracts change and we abide by the new contract. FARs change and we comply with the new rules. Ownership changes and we deal with the consequences. None of us get to opt out and stay with the old contract or ignore the new FARs. Why is age 65 any different?

I don't dispute that moving the retirement age to 65 sucks if you are junior and waiting for an upgrade. Life's hard, then you die. I know some of you are angry and disappointed. Grow up. The rule applies equally to everyone. Nobody is being singled out. The timing was good for those nearing 60 and it was crappy for those of us way down the seniority list.

If I had my way I'd ditch the age 65 rule too. It's an arbitrary standard. You should be allowed to work as long as you want providing you're still capable and healthy.

 

[Plug]

Do your homework.

Management at AA, the same people that created the "B Scale, " in an
effort to screw the pilots, proposed the "Age 60 rule. " There was no
age rule until your buddies at AA came up with it.

Only a management clown, or some young guy without a clue, would
want to bring back the "B Scale" or the "Age 60 rule."

My buddies at AA? I don't think I know anyone there.....anyway your point is noted and so I did my homework.....here is what I came up with:

http://www.avweb.com/news/aeromed/181875-1.html

This just so happens to be written by a Check Airmen here at CAL on the 757/767. I think it is safe to say that any active pilot who lobbied for age 65 was hired after March 15, 1960. Just a guess.

Now as far as your B-scale comment.........I don't know where that came from......either way it has nothing to do with the point I've brought up and that is we were all hired under the same rules. The most coveted thing you have as an airline pilot is seniority. We all move up when someone at the top moves out. Really a simple concept.

 

[Plug]

...and yet you fail to recall that junior pilots successfully lobbied in a pre-9/11 environment to delay changing the rule for over 20 years. Had this rule passed, as it almost did, back in '91(?), and on a couple of other occasions, this thread and this discussion would not exist today.

...and to top it off,...AA sure knows how to spread the blame, and distract the pilots into a "fist fight"...:erm:

Hell....lets take it all the way back to the Wright brothers. Had those innovative bastards not come up with that crazy flying contraption this thread and this discussion would not exist!

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

What everyone wants is for pilots to be bound by the retirement rule that was in place when we all were hired.

How about ALPA being bound by their position on age-60 as it was when these "gummers" were hired? Let's see, that position was that there should be no age limit for pilots. ALPA and APA were historically against the age-60 rule. So you see the unions changed their own rules in the middle of the game. This change in union policy was driven 100% by the "get out of my seat crowd."

 

[Plug]

How about ALPA being bound by their position on age-60 as it was when these "gummers" were hired? Let's see, that position was that there should be no age limit for pilots. ALPA and APA were historically against the age-60 rule. So you see the unions changed their own rules in the middle of the game. This change in union policy was driven 100% by the "get out of my seat crowd."

Both true and false statements here.

ALPA opposed the age 60 rule but it was airline management that held 3 pilots hostage that got the rule made in back room deal. This all occurred in the 50's and the rule became effective in March 1960. If you research all laws and policy far enough you can probably find a sleezy back room deal involved, but the rules are rules. And in today's environment where every single active pilot was hired post age 60 it would be safe to say we all knew what the deal was. So age 60 was not devised by the "get out of my seat crowd" rather by the "I'm a cheap manager of an airline crowd."

 

[Flopgut]

I asked a few questions about this in the other AA furlough thread. Since nobody answered I'll ask again here.

What if a pilot junior to you was awarded an upgrade ahead of you because he claimed he needed the money more than you did?

What if a pilot junior to you displaced you out of your seat because he claimed he needed the money more than you did?

What if you were displaced out of the domicile you lived in to allow pilot junior to you to be there because he claimed he couldn't afford to commute any longer?

What if you were forced to retire because a pilot junior to you claimed he needed your seat and your paycheck more than you did?

The argument about changing the rules mid-game doesn't hold water. Contracts change and we abide by the new contract. FARs change and we comply with the new rules. Ownership changes and we deal with the consequences. None of us get to opt out and stay with the old contract or ignore the new FARs. Why is age 65 any different?

I don't dispute that moving the retirement age to 65 sucks if you are junior and waiting for an upgrade. Life's hard, then you die. I know some of you are angry and disappointed. Grow up. The rule applies equally to everyone. Nobody is being singled out. The timing was good for those nearing 60 and it was crappy for those of us way down the seniority list.

If I had my way I'd ditch the age 65 rule too. It's an arbitrary standard. You should be allowed to work as long as you want providing you're still capable and healthy.

You remember you wrote this when the economy improves, age 65 doesn't get changed to 70, and not one single pilot past age 65+1 day can get a job doing anything flying. What comes around goes around. It'll happen, then you'll get to show us all how to act.

Psst: Betcha cry like a wus...