Age 65 proposal from another board

[Andy]

I was asked by someone from another board to post this here:



All,

Age 60 is contentious; but it also has to be resolved. I propose the following reasonable compromise based on the following understandings.

• A snap change of age 60 to any other higher age is a windfall to those lucky enough to catch the extra ride
• A snap change of age 60 holds all pilots below the lucky few to a junior position for the full length of the extended age (5 years in the case of 65)
• Pilots who miss the date by just a day lose the whole benefit of the change
• Pilots already past age 60 also gain 0 benefit from the change

So here is the basic proposal:

• Set a moving retirement age soon starting at age 61 which will progress upward at a rate of three months per year until there is either no retirement age or a maximum age is reached. We'll call this age the "Cap Age"
• Allow any pilot under the Cap Age to return to work within the first year.
• All pilots must retire at the Cap Age

Here is an example using the following givens:

• Given: the proposed law goes into effect on Jan 1st 2008
• Given: the new Cap Age is 61 until Jan 1st 2009
• Given: the Cap Age will adjust upward by three months each successive Jan 1st until either the maximum Cap Age is reached (say 65) or until there is no practical Cap Age
• Cap Age Table:
  • Jan 1st 2008 -- Cap Age = 61
  • Jan 1st 2009 -- Cap Age = 61+3 months
  • Jan 1st 2010 -- Cap Age = 61+6 months
  • Jan 1st 2011 -- Cap Age = 61+9 months
  • Jan 1st 2012 -- Cap Age = 62
  • Jan 1st 2013 -- Cap Age = 62+3 months
  • Jan 1st 2014 -- Cap Age = 62+6 months
  • etc. until max reached or until no limit...

Frank turns age 60 on Dec 25th 2007 and because the law has not taken effect, he retires on that date. {I'm sure some form of bridge provision would be negotiated to mitigate the extreme hassle of retiring just to "unretire" five days later.} On Jan 1st of '08 Frank returns to work and continues to work until he reaches the Cap Age of 61 on Dec 25th 2008. On that Date Frank retires.

Bob turns age 60 on Nov 15th 2008. The Cap Age is still 61 at this point; but Bob's going to turn age 61 on Nov 15th 2009 which carries him through the 61 + 3 month year (see table above) and into the 61 + 6 year, therefore Bob works the extra six months and retires on May 15th 2010.

Let's not forget Sally who happens to turn 60 on Jan 1st 2008. The Cap Age is 61 in that year making her new date Jan 1st of 2009; but wait, she now hits '09 giving her the 61+3 Cap Age. She turns 61+3 on about 1 April '09 and she retires on that date.

Now this kind of proposal if not perfect; but it does smooth out transition years and it is MORE inclusive of pilots that fall just on the wrong side of the magic date.

Standing by for incoming...

Let's keep it civil please.

 

[Andy]

It's similar to my previous proposal: http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=88857

However, after seeing how we've got a whole bunch of pilots who have already turned 60 and see this as an opportunity to get back into flying, I think that we need to push for a very slow phase in; where it increases by 3 mos/year. That way there is no huge windfall for a small group of pilots and it would not be worth lawsuits to try to come back for only 3 additional months.b

 

[AA717driver]

Sounds like a good plan. TC

 

[Crandal]

Good plan. Try to tell that to MEC in each airline, where most of the pilots are senior and they don't want to listen.

Just remember, it's always about me, me, me, me. Even SWAPA, gave up on its members, that is junior guys/girls.

Like it or not, APA is the only one opposed in full force to the new NPRM 65.

 

[Yuppyguppy]

because it will dilute your pay and benefits....oh except for the geriatrics

 

[NoJoy]

Since the FAA does not want both pilots in the cockpit to be older than 60, the rule needs to be that a pilot cannot hold a CA postion at 60. Once they hit the golden year, they can go back to flying the right seat. This will help solve the problem of two pilots in the cockpit older than 60, and keep upgrades from stagnating at each airline. A compromise if you will.

 

[m80drvr]

Since the FAA does not want both pilots in the cockpit to be older than 60, the rule needs to be that a pilot cannot hold a CA postion at 60. Once they hit the golden year, they can go back to flying the right seat. This will help solve the problem of two pilots in the cockpit older than 60, and keep upgrades from stagnating at each airline. A compromise if you will.

This is the best proposal and the most "fair" for all concerned. Remember we have to keep that "experience in the cockpit", god knows an 8 year FO with 10,000hrs is just plain DANGEROUS.

 

[afhercdriver]

Hmmm?

Since the FAA does not want both pilots in the cockpit to be older than 60, the rule needs to be that a pilot cannot hold a CA postion at 60. Once they hit the golden year, they can go back to flying the right seat. This will help solve the problem of two pilots in the cockpit older than 60, and keep upgrades from stagnating at each airline. A compromise if you will.

On the surface this sounds really good. It looks to me like this would protect everyone who is already an F/O. It would still probably slow down hiring. Anyone?

 

[CitationLover]

andy,

that is what the social security administration did when they raised the ss normal retirement age from 65 to 67 so there is a precedent here.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/nra.html

as far as those over 60 going to the right seat ALPA will NEVER allow this. they want the CA's 2% and not the FO's 2%. economically to them, it doesn't make sense.

 

[NoJoy]

Yes it would slow down hireing. For every pilot who does not retire, it will be one less pilot the company needs. At the same time, it would promote growth from within, because now the companies need to fill CA postitions. I do not favor changing this age rule one bit, but I think that this is the is a descent compromise for those who want to keep flying and those waiting for upgrade.

 

[seefive]

I agree with the idea of moving over 60 guys to the right seat is something that should be considered. A possible, reasonable compromise.
From an economic standpoint, i believe many people are missing one of the biggest problems. If the age shifts to 65, most companies will not agree to providing a B fund in future contracts. The B fund was developed because of the need to retire pilots early, if you will, at age 60. If pilots are now allowed to fly to 60 and have pensions, well funded 401Ks, the airlines that still provide B funds will try to eliminate B funds. Mark my words. This is a huge issue along with the potential to force pilots to work past 60. Along with stagnation and reduced hiring.
The older guys could care less what the cost to others is.

 

[sandman2122]

I like what someone proposed earlier: All over 60 yr old pilots must move to the right seat.

It won't stagnate left seat expectations by younger F/O's and will abide by the ICAO policy that one of the front-seaters has to be under 60 - it would also eliminate any problem scheduling over 60 yr olds on the same bid award or last minute trip.

Since we ALL KNOW this matter is about discrimination and NOT money, offer a type of pass over pay for + 60 yr old F/O's........

 

[Jim Smyth]

Sounds like a good plan. Lets make it retroactive back to 1959!

 

[NoJoy]

Nice try!

 

[Falconjet]

On the surface this sounds really good. It looks to me like this would protect everyone who is already an F/O. It would still probably slow down hiring. Anyone?

Just the proposed change to the rule has ALREADY slowed down hiring at FedEx, straight from the SCPs mouth.

This is just the beginning of the hose job if this goes through.

FJ

 

[Osmosis]

If a compromise were possible, this would be reasonable. Unfortunately, I don't see many in favor of this going for it, because why should they compromise? With the NPRM announcement, they are getting their cake, and soon will be eating it, too. I am still in shock that a vocal minority has won over the majority. And as many proponents to this rule change probably see it, only a minority of their people will lose out, and we already know how they feel about their fellow pilots.

I am sure this has been questioned, but with the NPRM announced and soon coming, how do I protect myself and other fellow pilots from not being punished when I/we don't want to fly at age 60? Maybe we should change our fight to that. Are we strong enough as opponents to Age 60 changing to at least grandfather those of us that don't want to die in the cockpit and protect our retirement. I would really like to be drinking beer on the porch at 60 and laugh when a plane goes by that 60 some year old is flying, knowing I didn't get penalized by making the choice to enjoy life.

 

[Huck]

Since the FAA does not want both pilots in the cockpit to be older than 60, the rule needs to be that a pilot cannot hold a CA postion at 60. Once they hit the golden year, they can go back to flying the right seat. This will help solve the problem of two pilots in the cockpit older than 60, and keep upgrades from stagnating at each airline. A compromise if you will.

I propose a slogan:


RSO: RIGHT SEAT ONLY

 

[Purpled]

So the announcemnt of the NPRM already has people comprimising? Come on, hold the line and stand firm. The only way to make it fair to 'everyone' is to keep it as is. These comprimises sell-out the furloughees and potential new-hires. Don't do it.

 

[AA717driver]

So the announcemnt of the NPRM already has people comprimising? Come on, hold the line and stand firm. The only way to make it fair to 'everyone' is to keep it as is. These comprimises sell-out the furloughees and potential new-hires. Don't do it.

The seduction has begun. That is the sound of the ladder being pulled up by the junior guys at every major... TC

 

[Purpled]

The seduction has begun. That is the sound of the ladder being pulled up by the junior guys at every major... TC

Yes, they are in 'protection mode' after being attacked by the senior guys. I hope the reaction is one that will benefit the profession as a whole, including furloughees etc. Perhaps it will be so when the emotional dust settles.

 

[SOVT]

How about this for a compromise; raise the retirement age to 65 BUT establish a fund to compensate any pilot that retires at age 60 for his/her lost wages. We could restrict the payout of these funds to those who have been in this industry for twenty years or more, lost their pensions thru bankruptcy, involuntarily not have had more than 24 months of Captain seat time and have two or more furloughs under their belt. You know, those of us that have been hammered by this industry for a decade or two.

The federal government could fund this proposal thru the implementation of a gross payroll tax on anyone who checks out as a captain after the effective date of the legislation. I would guess that an above the line tax surcharge of about 10% ought to do it.

The beauty of this proposal is that it would allow those who have been severely affected by the bad times in this industry to have a decent retirement and at the same time allow you young guys the Captain’s seat you so desperately crave, albeit with a small financial penalty.

C’mon be willing to compromise, step up to the plate, pony up a little cash and you guys can have my seat. Hell, give me the pension I was “promised” (back then that was kind of like the age 60 rule) and I will gladly retire today.

 

[kwick]

APA gave us the "B" scale, now they're against the age 65 rule. Guy's, this is a great deal for everybody, if you look down the road a few years. Think long term. As much as you might be against this right now, it probably will mean about a million dollars to you, if you consider you're 401k's or retirement plans and insurance coverage. I'll bet you a domestic beer that when you're 50 or 55, you'll be for this. I know you might not believe this now, but I think you will. Just consider the possibility.

 

[Huck]

Guy's, this is a great deal for everybody

With all due respect, it's a great deal for everybody that's in a captain's seat when the rule changes.

For everybody else it is less money, less B fund, less bidding seniority and a chance to die/get violated when the 64 year olds can't cut it when the sh!t hits the fan. The money I make from 60-65 (if I'm one of the ~66% who can keep their medical that long) will be after my kids are out of the house and through college and my house is paid off - i.e. I won't need it then.

My company has already slowed hiring down, Kwick.Talk to some furloughees about this and they're not going to be too excited either. And take a look at the time value of money. Thanks

 

[Purpled]

APA gave us the "B" scale, now they're against the age 65 rule. Guy's, this is a great deal for everybody, if you look down the road a few years. Think long term. As much as you might be against this right now, it probably will mean about a million dollars to you, if you consider you're 401k's or retirement plans and insurance coverage. I'll bet you a domestic beer that when you're 50 or 55, you'll be for this. I know you might not believe this now, but I think you will. Just consider the possibility.

This is only a great deal if you are 58 or older and want to fly past 60 in your current seat. It is a screw job for everybody else.

5 more years of being junior, 5 more years of not being a captain, 5 more years to put fatigue on your body. 5 more years to get hired at a major if you're not there yet.

That's not even considering that the companies will play this off as '5 more years of income for you' and your compensation will be affected. Don't even think about negotiating The IRS might have its eyes on your b-fund too. This is a BAD IDEA that we will rue years from now if it manages to go through.

The 58/59 y/olds have nothing to lose and are willing to ruin the job to get what they want. They are truly worthy of the title- the Greediest Generation.

 

[Jolly Roger]

This is only a great deal if you are 58 or older and want to fly past 60 in your current seat. It is a screw job for everybody else.

5 more years of being junior, 5 more years of not being a captain, 5 more years to put fatigue on your body. 5 more years to get hired at a major if you're not there yet.

That's not even considering that the companies will play this off as '5 more years of income for you' and your compensation will be affected. Don't even think about negotiating The IRS might have its eyes on your b-fund too. This is a BAD IDEA that we will rue years from now if it manages to go through.

The 58/59 y/olds have nothing to lose and are willing to ruin the job to get what they want. They are truly worthy of the title- the Greediest Generation.

Well said!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Benhuntn]

that sounds like a lot of hooooie to me you should work for the govt not flying airplanes....get over it change is here.

 

[Purpled]

you should work for the govt not flying airplanes.

You mean like for the FAA?

P.S. What's hooooie?

 

[Flopgut]

APA gave us the "B" scale, now they're against the age 65 rule. Guy's, this is a great deal for everybody, if you look down the road a few years. Think long term. As much as you might be against this right now, it probably will mean about a million dollars to you, if you consider you're 401k's or retirement plans and insurance coverage. I'll bet you a domestic beer that when you're 50 or 55, you'll be for this. I know you might not believe this now, but I think you will. Just consider the possibility.

Looking "down the road a few years"..... This will be the same rationale mgts will use to decline giving a raise to, or even insist on a paycut from pilots. (other airline workers will be able to better bargain outright for more)

Your looking down a shorter road than many of us. It's going to take 2 contract cycles, and a decade+ to get through this.....

 

[Flopgut]

How about this for a compromise; raise the retirement age to 65 BUT establish a fund to compensate any pilot that retires at age 60 for his/her lost wages. We could restrict the payout of these funds to those who have been in this industry for twenty years or more, lost their pensions thru bankruptcy, involuntarily not have had more than 24 months of Captain seat time and have two or more furloughs under their belt. You know, those of us that have been hammered by this industry for a decade or two.

The federal government could fund this proposal thru the implementation of a gross payroll tax on anyone who checks out as a captain after the effective date of the legislation. I would guess that an above the line tax surcharge of about 10% ought to do it.

The beauty of this proposal is that it would allow those who have been severely affected by the bad times in this industry to have a decent retirement and at the same time allow you young guys the Captain’s seat you so desperately crave, albeit with a small financial penalty.

C’mon be willing to compromise, step up to the plate, pony up a little cash and you guys can have my seat. Hell, give me the pension I was “promised” (back then that was kind of like the age 60 rule) and I will gladly retire today.

This is a good idea.

 

[Thedude]

C’mon be willing to compromise, step up to the plate, pony up a little cash and you guys can have my seat. Hell, give me the pension I was “promised” (back then that was kind of like the age 60 rule) and I will gladly retire today.

So are you saying ther has never been bad times in this industry before? That this industry isn't cyclical? Hmm Pan Am, Braniff? You didn't learn anything?