AGE 65 now LAW!!!

[SuperFLUF]

First, those who planned to retire at 60 can still retire at 60 with zero loss to their pensions or bridge medical until their CBA's are renegotiated.

Until the contracts are negotiated, they remain in force, and if they say you are entitled to retire at age 60 with those benefits, you keep them. Period.

If you negotiate those benefits away in your next CBA, that's your own fault.

Secondly, those who want to work to 65 don't see it as a wash, they see it as a win. They were fighting for the increase, why would they see a victory as a wash?

Some people want to work until , others just wanted to work until they had Medicare and Social Security.

It's not rocket science.

No its not rocket science. Its just some simple principles of financial planning. The time value of money invested makes a big difference in retirement funds. Just do a google search on time value of investing and you will find a plethora of info on just how big a difference it makes.

The majority of airline pilots now rely on DC and 401k plans that acrue based on career earnings not final average earnings and longevity like a pension. Those who planned to retire at 60 will lose retirement money as well as career earnings.

I am still planning to go out the door at 60. My earnings will now be less due to delayed upgrade and advancement. That results in less money in to my retirement plans over my career and less growth of the money invested. As well as less $$ for my family now. If I want to have the same money at retirement it would require a huge sacrifice of take home income now which penalizes my family disproportionately. So I will just take the hit equally between take home and retirement. If I have to pay even more for disability for the next 30 years and go without retiree bridge medical that's even more of a hit.

For those who want to stay to 65, they will still end up with less retirement than they would have had at 60 under the previous rules but since they want to keep working, its a wash.

So while I will just for the sake of arguement agree that age 60 retirement was not "fair". Do not try to tell me that this change is "fair" to those who were planning on retiring at 60. Its not. But apparently "fairness" is a one way street (recieving not giving) for some.

Perhaps it is rocket science for some. That would explain why they didn't have their eyes open about retirement planning (and over reliance on a pension) when it counted.

 

[Quimby]

Congress, Pilots Celebrate Passage of Law to Increase Aviation Safety
Monday December 17, 7:21 pm ET Law Halts Early Termination of Most Experienced Pilots
WASHINGTON, Dec. 17 /PRNewswire/ -- Congress and commercial airline pilots will come together tomorrow to celebrate the enactment of legislation that will increase aviation safety by changing federal rules that prematurely force our safest pilots to retire. The legislation also treats our pilots with equity in the wake of the 2006 ICAO age change to the new world standard of age 65. The event will be held Tuesday, December 18 at 2 pm in 2253 of the Rayburn House Office Building.
Summary HR 4343 -- the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act of 2007
H.R. 4343 requires the FAA to sunset the current age 60 rule and raises airline pilot retirement age to 65 immediately upon the President's signature. The legislation;
-- Requires ICAO split cockpit restriction (one pilot under 60 if one is over 60) for International flights, but not for domestic flights; split cockpit provision automatically sunsets if ICAO changes its rule. -- Allows pilots over 60 to be employed as new hires without credit for prior seniority or benefits prior to the date of rehire; does not permit pilots over 60 to return to previous positions with seniority or benefits unless they are still employed as a flight deck officer. -- Contains liability protection for airlines and unions from and employment-related lawsuits that might arise from implementation. -- Permits legacy carriers and their unions to work out any inconsistencies in their pension plans that might arise from the new age. -- Includes safety provisions that would require all first officers over 60 to have a first class medical and may require some first officers over the age of 60 to have an additional line check or simulator check. -- Requires GAO to do a study on the safety impact of the new age limit within 24 months. Contact: Scott Brenner 202-222-8825

it's all about safety.....riiiiiiiight.:laugh:

 

[Lear70]

SuperFluf, I'm not disagreeing with a "fairness" argument, I simply misunderstood what you meant.

What I now understand you are saying is that pilots who are nowhere NEAR retirement AND were planning on retiring at 60 AND who were planning on upgrading sooner and being able to invest that money are the most upset.

I thought you were talking about guys who were close to retirement and were worrying about their retirement benefits going away...

I supported the change because it's the right thing to do. I'm 36 and it WILL affect me and make me either save smarter or work longer. I just want the option when it comes down to retirement time...

That's selfish on my part I guess. Flying 10 days a month on cherry-picked trips sounds kind of a nice way to ease into retirement at my own pace after 60... your mileage may vary. :beer:

 

[SuperFLUF]

Lear, most likely by the time we reach age 60 the max limit will be beyond 65 or perhaps based on some sort of reliable testing with no age limit. (sim checks that are basically the same over an entire career and the current FAA medicals are not reliable) To this I am resigned and accordingly trying to plan for an ever diminishing retirement.

 

[§kyye Candy]

Sorry... that is not how democracy in our republic works...

A small clique of organized and unorganized pilots basically beat out the apathetic majority.

APAAD formed a small organized group and politiked congress.

ALPA surveyed its members: a minority particapted. A majority of the minority wanted the change.

They [the boomer crowd] may be in the minority in pilot groups, but the problem is they are NOT in the minority in congress. And we all know how self-centered the old folks on the Hill can be! God forbid that group doesn't get their parents' AND kids' interests all for themselves...

I hope all the pilot groups are planning on fighting this HUGELY in the upcoming contracts. What a travesty.

 

[Patriot328]

They [the boomer crowd] may be in the minority in pilot groups, but the problem is they are NOT in the minority in congress. And we all know how self-centered the old folks on the Hill can be! God forbid that group doesn't get their parents' AND kids' interests all for themselves...

I hope all the pilot groups are planning on fighting this HUGELY in the upcoming contracts. What a travesty.

Exactly. Did anyone really think the hill would think twice about approving legislation that says "old people don't get old".. Anything other than that would imply that they, too, could be too old for their jobs.

 

[§kyye Candy]

-- BREAKING NEWS --

Rumor has it that there were, coincidentally, 12 browlifts, 16 age spot procedures and at least 23 memory enhancement service appointments all rescheduled on the day of the vote in D.C.

Fortunately, there shouldn't be a direct impact to the plastic surgery industry due to the increased income potential for the boomer flying crowd and their dependants.

:smash: