Age 65 and the "F" word.

[xrated]

After reading about AA and its impending furloughs, (due to at least some extent, if not totally, age 65) I was wondering if you guys/gals had the numbers handy for your airline. I'm talking about total on furlough and total number, as of mid January 2010, of pilots over age 60.

Maybe these numbers have been posted in the past, but I'm curious how much this age 65 thing really has on current furlough numbers?

 

[ATRCA]

At CAL is extremely close,

At one point the company had 147 on furlough and had announced an additional 146 with just over 300 gummers on property. The math is fairly easy. The second 146 was never furloughed but COLA's and other LTRF programs were used to mitigate those numbers.

There is no question beyond even the remotest shadow of a doubt that age 65 has caused furloughs and significant lost wealth by the bottom 3rd of just about every list. To deny it is simply to foolishly ignore the facts....

 

[Mr.B]

There's no doubt that the 65ers screwed up countless lives. Their greed and the impotence/apathy of the unions has been most damaging. And to think terrorists and management was all we had to once worry about.

 

[aa73]

AA has over 300+ gummers and is expected to have over 600 by the end of 2010.

 

[rider850]

65er's

600 is my number. I would rather flame management. They have Bonused themselves on us for 10 years. There on the hook for this furlough. Easy to throw blame at 65ers. No way,did they have to furlough 200 pilots. When was the last time Arpey took a pay cut?

 

[Mr.B]

600 is my number. I would rather flame management. They have Bonused themselves on us for 10 years. There on the hook for this furlough. Easy to throw blame at 65ers. No way,did they have to furlough 200 pilots. When was the last time Arpey took a pay cut?

All you say is true and I would much prefer to lay the blame squarely in the lap of the greedy robber barons.

However, had the 65ers moved as had their predecessors before them, there would be no furloughs. Period.

 

[Metro752]

All pilot groups should have an LOA in which those over 60 are furloughed first before any junior pilots. It is only fair, you know, career expectations and all. 30-40 years and they knew they would retire at 60.

 

[xanderman]

While it was championed by ALPO and SWAPA the age 65 legislation moved through congress at lightning speed due to one reason. The PBGC would be (and I believe it currently is) insolvent. This is typical govmit maneuvers. Why deal with it now when we can blow it off on another administration/congress 5 years down the road. Never mind what the potential consequence might be. Now here we sit with a 10%+ unemployment rate... Trippin' over dollars to pick up dimes guys!

 

[CaptSeth]

I'm confused. Are they geezers or gummers? Gummers is a new term to me.

Selfish bastards all.

 

[jenks]

I blame the U.S. Goverment for not implementing the age 65 change in a more responsible way. I made my career decisions with one set of rules and 3 days after I started class at CAL the rules changed! I would not be furloughed if the retirement age was still 60 or if the rule would have been implemented in a fair way. I don't blame the "gummers" , but i wish they would start retiring before there is a CAL/UAL merger. If that was to happen before we get back on property, there would be 147 ruined careers as a result of the age 65 rule.

 

[BoilerUP]

Gummers
Geezers
Grandpas
Farves/Urbans
Flushbacks
Herpes
etc etc

 

[Turtle21]

I don't like 65 any more than the next pilot

but you can't blame furloughs on pilots, no matter what their position on the list. Furloughs are furloughs... 65 certainly has an impact of where the furlough starts on the list, but it didn't cause furloughs. Its simple math, but for 65 there would be more guys below me to absorb the negative impacts of the furlough... and I being a good pilot with deep ALPA roots, would love to have more guys lower than me on the ladder. :blush:

 

[jenks]

but you can't blame furloughs on pilots, no matter what their position on the list. Furloughs are furloughs... 65 certainly has an impact of where the furlough starts on the list, but it didn't cause furloughs. Its simple math, but for 65 there would be more guys below me to absorb the negative impacts of the furlough... and I being a good pilot with deep ALPA roots, would love to have more guys lower than me on the ladder. :blush:

Do the simple math. Furloughs, in most cases, since Dec 2007 is a direct result of age 65!

 

[FlyinGuy]

Management caused the furloughs.....65'ers made it happen sooner.

 

[bluefin]

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!

 

[Metro752]

If you are over 60, you should be getting the furlough notice first. Go on a fishing trip with that wide body pay, and buy some souvenirs for the grand kids.

 

[jenks]

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!

That is why I said IN MOST CASES! Look at the other majors who have furloughed. You will find age 65 is the reason. United, mabye not so simple.

 

[Flopgut]

Has anyone read the article in January's Air Transport World that interviews Captain Babbitt? I have the magazine, the article is not online. Can anyone with better search abilities find it? It is very disturbing. Babbitt speaks to flight and duty time and how the costs to airlines are too high blah, blah, blah. Then he sums up the sentiment with a statement that sounds like he thinks flight and duty time should be changed in a way that ASSURES no need for more pilots!! My point is: 65 is less safe than 60, should not have happened and created a surplus of pilots. Duty time changes would be more safe, should happen, and will generate recalls but since it's not something that will put dollars directly into old pilots' pockets it's not getting pushed.

65 is just one part of what the old timers have in store for us. The greed knows no bounds.Babbitt and Prater need a reminder of what measures the union and the profession took to help both of them when they were in career turmoil. Both of them owe us all better than what they're pulling. The "experienced pilot" legislation needs to be revisited stat and the retirment age made 62 or 62.5 now until pilot unemployment is under control.

 

[The Prussian]

Thank goodness it's only the effects of age 65 that we're having to deal with. Can you imagine if this had combined with a recession or something???

 

[Hamburger]

I don't recall pilots organizing and lobbying for a recession.