AGE 65 now LAW!!!

[Charlie Brown]

you are a crybaby

And you are a ************.

 

[zonker]

Amusing reading the various takes on the age 60 rule. However, the bottom line is that the age 60 rule was unjust from the day it was put into effect. Bad from various aspects. We lived with that law and some of us profitted from that law over the years, getting promotted at the expense of people forced out before their time.

Just because we all "knew the rules", doesn't mitigate the fact that the age 60 rule was capricious and discriminatory.

Slavery was made legal by a bad law. It persisted for years and even the Blacks "knew the rules". Many people profitted from slavery and many people came to accept it as the norm. However, in the final analysis, it was a bad law and it was finally terminated.

Yes, there will be pilots who suffer from this "emancipation" from age discrimination, just like the slave traders who were furious that their livelyhood had been taken away. I don't think anyone with any sense wept buckets of tears for the slave traders who profittd from "bad law"...I don't think anyone should spend too much time crying for those pilots who were hired early and retained because people were being forced out only because of age and now are "on hold".

Next question: when will they get rid of the age 65 rule?

Slavery laws are comparable to Age 60 laws. Brilliant work, professor.

This shows you the level of intelligence we are dealing with here.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Actually, slavery was never codified, was it? It was practiced because it was not illegal.

 

[PCL_128]

but Prater may get to hear something other than applause next time I see him.

He won't care. I think he's proven once and for all that what the membership thinks is completely irrelevant in his mind.

 

[Mooneymite]

Slavery laws are comparable to Age 60 laws. Brilliant work, professor.

This shows you the level of intelligence we are dealing with here.

Slavery was discriminatory.
The age 60 rule was discriminatory.
Laws enforcing slavery were bad laws.
The age 60 rule was a bad rule passed for bad reasons.
Slavery was eventually abolished.
The age 60 rule was eventually abolished.
Those who profited from slavery were bitter.
Those who profited from the age 60 rule are bitter.
Everyone is ultimately better off without slavery.
Everyone is ultimately better off without the age 60 rule.

Thanks for elevating me to full professor!imp:

 

[Patriot328]

This will only slow things down temporarily for the young guys - like myself (29) -

This doesn't just "slow things down temporarily" for the young guys. If you are not a captain and you want to retire at age 60 (it's a choice now, right?) you just lost 5 years of captain pay differential (and B-fund contributions and all the interest it makes).

You're writing a check for $300,000 - $700,000.

If you want that money back (make it up), you need to work for another 2-4 years past 60 (depending on where you work). Basically, you are working an extra 2-4 years for the same amount of money you would have made before. 2-4 years of work for FREE to pay for today's senior pilots.

 

[Lear70]

Mooney, I supported age 65, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

To attempt to somehow correlate slavery, a practice that was inanely cruel, capriciously split families, contributed to devastating the entire country with war, and regularly ended in said slave's untimely demise with a law that made someone leave the cockpit while they were still able to fly is a flawed argument.

I know it's dramatic and "sounds" good, but you really should pick a discriminatory practice that is more in line with the consequences suffered as a result of said law.

Just a thought... Your mileage may vary.

Kudos to the guys who are willing to go back to the right seat from square one, but like others said, I believe you're in the minority, and I know the lawyers were on the phone first thing this morning trying to get the pilots who retired in the last year or so while this change was being considered their jobs back as CA's.

I'll put a C-note on it (not that I can afford it these days, but it's a pretty safe bet)...

 

[Caveman]

This doesn't just "slow things down temporarily" for the young guys. If you are not a captain and you want to retire at age 60 (it's a choice now, right?) you just lost 5 years of captain pay differential (and B-fund contributions and all the interest it makes).

You're writing a check for $300,000 - $700,000.

If you want that money back (make it up), you need to work for another 2-4 years past 60 (depending on where you work). Basically, you are working an extra 2-4 years for the same amount of money you would have made before. 2-4 years of work for FREE to pay for today's senior pilots.

I've been reading your recent posts about your upgrade being delayed for 5 years. The problem with your conclusion is it assumes ZERO growth. If you had ZERO growth with age 60 in place you wouldn't be upgrading anytime soon either. The main reason anybody has upgraded in the last 50 years is growth, not forced age discrimination.

Anybody with an ounce of intelligence knows that this new law will affect the industry. The question is how much and in what ways. IMO, it will be negligible. Some immediate upgrades will be delayed a bit. For everybody else there will be a slight shift until things get settled into the new equation. Any CBA changes will be the sole responsibility of the interested parties. Don't want it changed? Don't agree to a change.

If, and that's a big if, it plays out like the doom and gloom crowd thinks it will I still support the change because it was the right thing to do. Robbing a man of his livelihood based soley on an arbitrary birthday is wrong. Yes, 65 is wrong too, but it's better than where we were. I'm in favor of abolishing all mandatory retirement age laws.

Part of the problem with the age discrimination proponents is that they stereotype everybody that supported this change as geezers nearing retirement. You could not be more wrong. A lot of us are younger than 50 and a lot of us are still FO's. The difference is that we know right from wrong.

 

[Mooneymite]

Perspective of years.

Mooney, I supported age 65, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

To attempt to somehow correlate slavery, a practice that was inanely cruel, capriciously split families, contributed to devastating the entire country with war, and regularly ended in said slave's untimely demise with a law that made someone leave the cockpit while they were still able to fly is a flawed argument.

Not to belabor the point, but I specifically chose an issue which everyone sees clearly in retrospect (slavery) and point out certain similarities with a current, controversial issue (age 60). Co-pilots having to remain co-pilots an extra 5 years is not slavery, but while everyone can see that slavery was discriminatory with 147 years of perspective, they seem to have a blindness to current discrimination right in front of their nose.

People strongly argued the merits of slavery at one time. Today, it is not even discussed. The court of public opinion is closed. I suspect in time, people will see the age 60 issue as clearly as they see the slavery issue today. I doubt that many of those who support this discrimination so passionately today will be proud to admit to their grandchildren in 2087 that they ardently supported age discrimination in 2007.

 

[Patriot328]

I've been reading your recent posts about your upgrade being delayed for 5 years. The problem with your conclusion is it assumes ZERO growth. If you had ZERO growth with age 60 in place you wouldn't be upgrading anytime soon either. The main reason anybody has upgraded in the last 50 years is growth, not forced age discrimination.

Anybody with an ounce of intelligence knows that this new law will affect the industry. The question is how much and in what ways. IMO, it will be negligible. Some immediate upgrades will be delayed a bit. For everybody else there will be a slight shift until things get settled into the new equation. Any CBA changes will be the sole responsibility of the interested parties. Don't want it changed? Don't agree to a change.

If, and that's a big if, it plays out like the doom and gloom crowd thinks it will I still support the change because it was the right thing to do. Robbing a man of his livelihood based soley on an arbitrary birthday is wrong. Yes, 65 is wrong too, but it's better than where we were. I'm in favor of abolishing all mandatory retirement age laws.

Part of the problem with the age discrimination proponents is that they stereotype everybody that supported this change as geezers nearing retirement. You could not be more wrong. A lot of us are younger than 50 and a lot of us are still FO's. The difference is that we know right from wrong.

The amount someone is affected by this will depend on what carrier they are at, what their age is, and what their seniority is. Every person will be different. If you work at a young carrier where there are no retirements in the foreseeable future and you're moving up the list because of growth, you will not notice it as much (at least now, but you will still notice it later on).

If you work for a carrier that has some growth but most of the movement is done by retirements, you will notice it immediately and effects will be real.

Was age 60 discrimination? Yep, so is 65. So is 23 for an ATP, 16-17 for a drivers license, 56 for controllers to retire. As people get older, their skills deteriorate. Each person is different and some go quicker than others, but what age do you stop flying? How will you know it's time to quit? Should a professional pilot quit flying before they become a danger, or after they become a danger? How will you tell?

Congress completely disregard the rule making process the FAA had set up to change the rule because of a loud minority of pilots wanting to continue to hold their seats. This ruling sets a bad precedent of congress bypassing the FAA and changing rules on their own. What's the next thing they want to change?

 

[SSDD]

So the FAA is now the good guys? They all of a sudden have the wisdom and the willingness to make rules that make this industry safer? You had a good thing going there until the last paragraph.

 

[whymeworry?]

Past in three days with no votes against. My ? is where all the oppostion came from the last few years and/or who just caved when it was time to vote.

It wasn't actually voted on. The bill was introduced in a session where if nobody objects it passes. Why do you think it passed unanimously? Most congressmen and senators were all out x-mas shopping.

Seriously, though. It was never voted on. Think about this the next time any issue affecting us goes to congress.

 

[Hamburger]

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

Not the results of the polls I read. PRAETOR wanted it and conducted a sham "blue ribbon" push poll that didn't even ask the question:
"Do you want alpa to support or oppose the change?"

 

[Hamburger]

I've been reading your recent posts about your upgrade being delayed for 5 years. The problem with your conclusion is it assumes ZERO growth. If you had ZERO growth with age 60 in place you wouldn't be upgrading anytime soon either. The main reason anybody has upgraded in the last 50 years is growth, not forced age discrimination.

If you honestly think attrition plays no part in career advancement regardless of growth, you are a fool.
ZERO Growth and 500 pilots retiring means they need to hire 500 more to replace them. It is very simple math.
If every pilot who's retired in the last 10 years were still on the property, you think you'd have a job?

 

[Hamburger]

I just retired in September, am in great health, was a check airman and miss the cockpit. I look forward to coming back as a First Officer flying with many of the Captains that I helped train. This way I won't be taking an upgrade or seniority in any way from anyone.
I applaud the new ruling.

Try saying that to the face of the Regional guy sitting in the Pool.

 

[maximizer]

this news didn't even make the drudge report...or any other place

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Fact is that most guys and gals would love to retire at 60. But, when many do the math, they will stay until 65. With the money that is to be made in each of our final five years. Why would one not stick it out where you are going to make the best pay and have the best trips possible. It would be stupid for one to quit. If there was really a reason to leave early we would have tons leaving at 55 up to yesterday. It sucks, but it is now the standard.
What we all need to do is stop looking at this from a personal perspective, and look at it as a group. The way we are all dealing with this is issue is the same way that we pilots deal with all issues. How is it good for ME, not WE. That is why there is no true effectiveness of the unions these days. No one is looking out for the gander, just each goose.
Lots of stated that because of this many like myself will not upgrade for five extra years. This is true, lets get unified on how we will make this better for everyone. Not just me or you. But for the gander. Not all will be happy, but we need to learn to keep out disagreements between us, and not air the dirty laundry where the enemy (management) can see it and learn what out weaknesses are. We never see them doing that, so that we can gain from it, do we?

 

[Flopgut]

I doubt that many of those who support this discrimination so passionately today will be proud to admit to their grandchildren in 2087 that they ardently supported age discrimination in 2007.

Your thesis is a real stretch. Matter of fact it's bullsh!t.

A far better comparison to the feelings surrounding this issue is the sentiment held toward replacement workers. Traditional advancement will halt and instead a small, unduly privleged group will reap a benefit they had NO claim to.

Seniority seized outside the collective bargaining process in a union environment. No one will ever be ashamed of standing against seniority aggression.

 

[Soulfly]

Would someone explain how AGE 65 is not age discrimination.
If AGE 65 supporters want some credibilty then you have to call a spade a spade.
AGE 65 is just as much age discrimination as 60 or 62 or 68.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Would someone explain how AGE 65 is not age discrimination.
If AGE 65 supporters want some credibilty then you have to call a spade a spade.
AGE 65 is just as much age discrimination as 60 or 62 or 68.

It is, but you are less likely to win a lawsuit now that it is 65. With it being 65, you will not have to pay a higher tax rate to withdraw from you retirement accts. 65 is where the playing field is level with the rest of America. This makes the case that much harder to win. Like many issues with pilots the public could care less and we will gain no-ones sympathy complaining about it. Where is my 100 round trip ticket?????

 

[ironspud]

I'm thinking that this should've happened on January 10 2008. Cause now I will have to fly with the biggest AH with a Captains hat for another 5 years...It's enough to make me retire early!!!

:uzi: imp:

 

[BeCareful!]

So the FAA is now the good guys? They all of a sudden have the wisdom and the willingness to make rules that make this industry safer? You had a good thing going there until the last paragraph.

Well, the FAA is a hell of a lot more qualified and trustworthy than the Gdamn Senate and W to do it!!!!!!!

You want the Senate imposing the next round of Duty Time restrictions on you? You think the airlines might be able to out-lobby you on that one?

 

[Caveman]

If you honestly think attrition plays no part in career advancement regardless of growth, you are a fool.
ZERO Growth and 500 pilots retiring means they need to hire 500 more to replace them. It is very simple math.
If every pilot who's retired in the last 10 years were still on the property, you think you'd have a job?

If you honestly believe that I said attrition plays no part in upgrades, you are a fool. RTFP.

As to your last question, yes I would still be employed. There are more people below me on our seniority list than have retired in the last 10 years.

 

[highflyer763]

Age 65 Rule

I'm curious as to how many FOs out there are truly upset with it. I just want to see what others think. I for one don't think it is a bad. I know it will delay a CAPT upgrade, but we will be employed for 5 more years. What does everyone else think?

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Does Bush even know what an airplane or n airline pilot is?

I am sure he does, since Frank Lorenzo is his family's expert adviser on commercial aviation. Everybody who voted for Bush can thank themselves for the results since he took the presidency. Use your own metric.
PBR

 

[olympus593]

Whatever, I'm done at 60 no matter what, my feet in the water and a drink in my hand. Y'all can raise it to 70 if you want, fly until you die...

 

[PCL_128]

I'm curious as to how many FOs out there are truly upset with it. I just want to see what others think. I for one don't think it is a bad. I know it will delay a CAPT upgrade, but we will be employed for 5 more years. What does everyone else think?

Why on earth would you want to be employed for 5 more years? Buy a boat. Take a vacation. Drive across the country in an RV. Do something other than flying airplanes until the day you die!!!

 

[olympus593]

Why on earth would you want to be employed for 5 more years? Buy a boat. Take a vacation. Drive across the country in an RV. Do something other than flying airplanes until the day you die!!!

PCL what your trying to say nicely is: get a life!!!

 

[Lear70]

People strongly argued the merits of slavery at one time. Today, it is not even discussed. The court of public opinion is closed. I suspect in time, people will see the age 60 issue as clearly as they see the slavery issue today. I doubt that many of those who support this discrimination so passionately today will be proud to admit to their grandchildren in 2087 that they ardently supported age discrimination in 2007.

If you say so.

I somehow doubt that, 80 years from now, people will even give age 65 a second thought, although the issue of slavery will likely be as vilified as it is now...

Hell, my 11 year old doesn't know what we're talking about, isn't old enough to support much of anything except for Hannah Montana, and likely will either be gone 80 years from now or, at 91, won't be able to tell you what she was doing at age 11.

Might be wrong, but I won't be here to worry about it anyway. Like I said, I agree with you on the subject, just disagree with your analogy; it's easier to debate someone with comparisons that are actually pertinent to the discussion, otherwise they tune you out.

 

[Lear70]

Why on earth would you want to be employed for 5 more years? Buy a boat. Take a vacation. Drive across the country in an RV. Do something other than flying airplanes until the day you die!!!

Why?

At that age, I want to have enough disposable income to buy a girl that looks similar to the sports chick in Olympus' avatar, and the only way to do that at age 60 is to be Arnold Schwarzenegger (whose wife vaguely resembles said sports chick), or still work to afford to keep my playtoy.

What... something wrong with that?