Age 65 Retirement? No Way!

[FurloughedAgain]

The following was sent from an email group that some of the furloughed USAir guys use to keep in touch with each other. I think, if enacted, the change to the age-60 retirement would have far-reaching consequences on our careers. I thought it was worth posting here, and sharing with all of you.

Newsflash Email
September 9, 2002

Ladies & Gentlemen,

There is a very strong movement among the senior pilots at US Airways and the other major airlines to aggressively campaign the US senate to eliminate the mandatory age-60 retirement.

They feel that the senior end of our membership has had its
retirement severely impacted by the recent restructuring agreement and that they need more time to repair their retirement.

In an e-mail message circulating throughout the pilot group a
spokesman states:

..."the senior end of our membership has probably seen its best 36 months of final average earnings, and seen their 401ks deteriorate. Some in this group will retire with lessened pension benefits and retirement for them will not be as envisioned. Their contribution to this TA has not been prominently recognized."

In another paragraph they call the ALPA support of age-sixty
retirement "instituational age discrimination".

...It is time to be fair to this group. It is time to end
our mandatory retirement at age 60. This regulation is as anti-labor today as it was in 1959.

Lets talk about what is FAIR for just a moment. Changing the age-sixty retirement now, in the most catestrophic period in airline history, will have the effect of keeping the over 7000 furloughed ALPA pilots -- including over 1300 at US Airways -- furloughed for a further 5 years! Once again we are faced with the challenge of protecting our careers from the "I've got mine" attitude that seems so pervasive.

We were reminded over and over again during the furloughs that this (the airline) is not a socialist work-program. They told us that there were no guarantees when we were hired and that it was foolish of us to expect "no furlough" or "min block hour" agreements to protect our jobs. They ignored our requests for a lower pay-cap. They continue to fly 85 hours, use negative bank, and answer their phones when the company calls for a priority trip assignment.

They have made it VERY clear that THEIR careers and THEIR sacrifices are more important than ours. They, after all, are
the "real" US Airways pilots.

Now they fight for legislation that will allow them to continue to
fly -- keeping their furloughed ALPA brothers on the street even
longer.

Well, I dont agree with it. Just as we were not guaranteed
continuous employment ... so too were they not guaranteed a 7 figure retirement. While their sacrifices to US Airways should certainly be recognized (and I believe they were in the recent agreement where the retirement formula itself was not changed one BIT), I firmly disagree with a change that will keep pilots unemployed longer. THAT, my friends, isnt "fair"

The first step to stopping this campaign will be Monday, September 9th. Senate Bill 361 will be called up as an amendment to the Homeland Security Bill currently being debated on the floor of the Senate.

I encourage you to call both of your Senators, who can be reached through the Capital Switch board phone number 202.224.3121. Tell them to vote AGAINST the amendment introduced by Senator Frank Murkowski (Alaska) to increase our retirement age to 65.

Fraternally,
*******
"Dont Tread On Me"

 

[Boeingman]

I really wouldn't worry about this. Every year some group of pilots are trying to change this and every year they fail

I personally never (even as a new hire) felt the age 60 mandatory retirement was fair. It is pure and unadluterated age discrimination.

With the gutting of mainline fleets and the eventual return of pilots, I would think it would be better to extend the retirement age so when people get back they will have more time for earnings in their career. However, I think it will be years before the guys on the street return. Aside from a lousy economy, management industrywide are trying to change the face of the airlines (RJ's replacing larger aircraft).

I plan on early retirement since I am make a great deal more money with my business. So please, don't anyone waste any flames about some senior guy trying to stay on longer.

 

[KingAirer]

Is the age requirement for ATP (23) unadulterated age discrimination too?

 

[Boeingman]

Is the age requirement for ATP (23) unadulterated age discrimination too?

I don't know you tell me? How about drinking age? State drivers license requirements?

I don't put the two in the same type of "discrimination". You're not forcing someone to end their career with your above example. Yet, I think 23 is is an arbitrary and capricious figure.
It should be based on experience alone. But when has the FAA ever done anything that made sense?

 

[KingAirer]

Thanks for your cool headed response, and i agree with you that either age requirement is unfair in many and even most cases. However, i think there needs to be some age requirement for both so even if they change the age to 65, there will still be people saying discrimination.

 

[JohnDoe]

Quote from Boeingman:

"...I would think it would be better to extend the retirement age so when people get back they will have more time for earnings in their career."


If the retirement age is increased by 5 years, a likely scenario is that alot of guys may never make it back to their airline....especially those of us that only have a 7 year hold on our senority number......


And I'm not trying to flame....just bringing to light some possible consequences.

 

[Boeingman]

Quote from Boeingman:

"...I would think it would be better to extend the retirement age so when people get back they will have more time for earnings in their career."


If the retirement age is increased by 5 years, a likely scenario is that alot of guys may never make it back to their airline....especially those of us that only have a 7 year hold on our senority number......


And I'm not trying to flame....just bringing to light some possible consequences.

Good point. I never thought about a hold on a number that may expire.
It is definitly a double edged sword with no perspective being right for everyone.

 

[Boeingman]

even if they change the age to 65, there will still be people saying discrimination.

You got that right. If the age was raised towards the medicare and SS benefit ages, there would be a little less consternation.

I do think that a greater number of guys would medical out the closer they get to 65. I was told our medical retirements now are nearly equal to actual retirements per year.

 

[tbkane]

Pulled this down off the ALPA national website, it looks like they are trying again!!! You can go to the website get the address and send negative letters also.



This is good news from Senator Murkowski's office. His Senate Bill S.361 will be attached to the Homeland Security Bill. It will take an effort to get it through. Now's the time to start calling, faxing and writing to your Senators to encourage inclusion of the Age 60 S.361 in the Security Bill.

Time is of the essence!

Call!

Write Letters!

Encourage friends and family to call!

Go the the letter writing section on the Homepage of this site for phone # and letter writing info.
Please check the following sites for more information for changing this discriminatory rule:

www.apaas.org click on "current"
www.ppf.org

 

[TurboS7]

Thanks I will call them and tell them to vote for the amendment. I have no desire to stop flying at age 60, it is discrimination, if a pilot passes the medical they should have the right to fly. Besides the customer wants to see some gray hair in the left seat and not some young hotshot.