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.

 

[Draginass]

There's plenty of gray hair among the pilots in their 50's and 40's.
Changing the age 60 rule in a profession that is designed around an age 60 retirement will only clog up the advancement and drive up costs of salaries.

Maybe we can make exceptions for those who can manage their money or personal life and have 4 ex-wives to support plus their two mansions, Caddie's and Lexus', all on borrowed money.

Flying is a good profession, but not good enough to want to do it past retirement age. RETIRE, get the heck out of the way and give someone else a chance.

 

[csmith]

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.

You're right, it is discrimination. The world is full of discrimation. Society is about the good of the many outweighting the good of the few. This is what entails age 60. Like it or not, the vast majority of pilots have a health deterioration as they near 60. Some drop dead at 45. Some pilots are still in their prime at 60. The only solution, without affecting safety, to changing the age 60 rule is to make the medical a REAL medical. I'm talking a complete overhaul of the flight physical system. Blood work, treadmill, catscans, the "finger", coughing--the whole 9 yards. An enormous expense every six months so that we may fly past 60. This is the only way to ensure we have healthy pilots flying the airplanes. The days of old doc whats-his-name, who will mail you your medical if you can't make it in, would have to come to ann end. I daresay this would take care of the attrition problem everyone is describing. Take a look at your carrier's seniority list sometime and see where all of the sick leaves of abscence are occuring.

Then we need to abolish the drinking age, class seniority no longer can go by age, minimum ages for certificates no more, minimum age for presidency--gone. If we aren't going to discriminate, we need to go all of the way. Speed limits, drinking while driving, operating under the influence are all forms of discrimination depending on your point of view

As somebody who has liberal thoughts on many issues, this society is getting rediculous with its WIIFM.

 

[surplus1]

You're right, it is discrimination. The world is full of discrimation. Society is about the good of the many outweighting the good of the few.

I always marvel at how those who find themselves among the many are willing to espouse this viewpoint until they themselves are numbered among the few. At that point, their perspective remarkably seems to adjust itself.

This is the only way to ensure we have healthy pilots flying the airplanes.

It's just amazing the vast number of aged pilots who endagered the world by dying at the controls prior to the time that Ellwood Quesada established this unnecessary and stupid rule.

Oh well, It was new so it must have been progress.

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

Personally, I hope the government raises the retirement age. Maybe by then I'll finally have enough hours to meet the minimums to qualify !

 

[Timebuilder]

Here's where I am in regard to this thread (apologies in advance to the posters who think I have to have some 121 time in order to be relevant...):

ATP at age 21. Like it or not, you're a legal adult for all purposes. How they picked 23 is a mystery.

Increase the medical requirement for the First Class from "alive" to "vital". I go to a doc who already subjects me to a very high standard, short of a stress test. (He's also a cardiologist) Since the electrocardiagram only shows the electrical waves of the heart's neural nodes as they polarize and de-polarize, the EKG is a poor determinant of heart health. A yearly stress test is a good idea after 60.

When "age 60" was established as a rule, 60 was truly "OLD". Now we have folks who are 70 and 75 who are healthier than those 60 year olds back when the reg was written. Every time I think about Al Haines, I think this rule is a bad idea. His long life of experience is what saved many people in that airplane. If the rule had been age 55, he would have been retired.

I like the idea of a healthy, experienced captain at the controls, as opposed to a guy who is there because he was born five years later. Sooner or later, this rule will fall. It may take another 15 years, but it will fall.

 

[surplus1]

Personally I don't have an axe to grind about whether they change the rule or not. What bugs me is the phony statements about why we have the rule and why we can''t change it.

The FAA says they can't change it because the have no evidence to prove that over 60 is safe. That's BS. They had no evidence to prove that over 60 was unsafe, when they made the rule in the first place and since they wont let you fly over 60, they will never have evidence to prove anything. Double speak

The truth is this rule had nothing to do with safety when it was established and it has nothing to do with safety now. Sixty was an arbitraty number picked by Quesada and the normal procedures for establishing rules were not followed.

Originally, the rule was opposed by ALPA. That didn''t work so ALPA lobbied for and got some special legislation passed and then changed "spots" and started supporting the rule.

Today, this rule is about money, not safety. If they would just say that and stop the safety BS I'd be happy. It's just amazing that a guy in perfect health is forced to stop flying at age 60, but another guy at age 55 can get a quadruple bypass, get his medical back and fly for 4 more years.

Typical government and union hypocrisy. Politics and major airline pension plans. By the way, don't buy any tickets on European airlines. Most of them have pilots over 60 so this must all be unsafe.

 

[csmith]

Today, this rule is about money, not safety. If they would just say that and stop the safety BS I'd be happy. It's just amazing that a guy in perfect health is forced to stop flying at age 60, but another guy at age 55 can get a quadruple bypass, get his medical back and fly for 4 more years.

The really funny thing is the person "without an axe to grind", who digs the axe out of the shed anyway. Regardless, it IS about money, on both sides of the fence. It is about selfishness, on both sides of the fence. It is about greed, on both sides of the fence. Yes, there is a concern for sefety, but on only one side of the fence. Once again, on yet another issue, we see people claiming the high road for their own agenda.



CSmith

Doubts he will be on his death bed wishing he had worked more

 

[tbkane]

surplus 1

Do you ever agree with anyone?

 

[Timebuilder]

Once again, on yet another issue, we see people claiming the high road for their own agenda.

I'll be up front about it. My agenda:

The ability to fly if medically capable.

It has already been decided that age discrimination is against the law. As always, some powerful people think that we have to obey the laws, and they don't. For another example, because it suits the whim of Big Government, the military and several agencies (FBI, Air Marshalls, etc), can set an arbitrary cutoff age for hiring.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[csmith]

I'll be up front about it. My agenda:
The ability to fly if medically capable.

You need to be a bit more specific. There is no restriction to fly if you are medically fit. You just can't do it under 121. If this is what you meant, then my previous post stands.

 

[surplus1]

surplus 1

Do you ever agree with anyone?

Sure! I agree with me all of the time! (If you followed suit, you'd be ahead of the game). I agree with timebuilder a lot of the time, I agree with avbug most of the time, I agree wit rvrrat most of the time, I agree with enigma about 50/50, I agree wit fins, frequently, I agree occasionally with tim47sip and metrosheriff, I agree with FurloughedAgain most of the time, I almost always agree with all the ATC folks, I agree with most Comair pilots, most ASA pilots, lots of Eagle pilots, most SWA pilots, most UPS pilots, some Allegheny and Piedmont pilots, I agree with Boeingman occasionally and so on and so forth.

I almost never agree with the FAA, I used to agree with ALPA most of the time, under the present administration I don't agree hardly any of the time, sometimes I even agree with FlyDeltasJets but mostly I don't, I never agree with csmith.

You, I just haven't given much thought but I'm flexible. Do you have something to say?

 

[surplus1]

Once again, on yet another issue, we see people claiming the high road for their own agenda.

Seems I was wrong in the preceeding post. I do agree with you on something after all. I too have noticed you do that a great deal. Just never thought you'd acknowledge it. Guess I was wrong again.

Surplus1

 

[csmith]

Seems I was wrong in the preceeding post. I do agree with you on something after all. I too have noticed you do that a great deal. Just never thought you'd acknowledge it. Guess I was wrong again.

Surplus1

With you Surplus, it's always about WHO'S right or wrong. With me, it's about WHAT'S right or wrong.

I don't claim the high road, never have. I got into this business to make money, have a lot of time off, see places, and get out early. I played by the rules, and now others want to change them at my expense. That's fine. I will fight them on it, however, and I will call them on it when they claim it is more fair or just their way--aka the "high road".

Conflict between two people usually arises because they are alike and their personalities butt heads. I really don't care to start another long thread with you and your 3 part posts. Suffice to say, I see where you are coming from, and it ain't the high road.

CS

--the first step to recovery is admission

 

[NYRANGERS]

No on resolution 361

I suggest you call your state senators if you are opposed to increasing the retirement age. Just do a search on your state senators and you will get their e-mail and phone numbers.

When you call you will most likely get someone who will ask you if you are opposed or for the resolution.

Its only takes one minute and might help keep your career progressing.

 

[surplus1]

I got into this business to make money, have a lot of time off, see places, and get out early.

That Captain is perhaps the basic difference between us. I got into this business because I love airplanes and most of the people who fly them. When I first did it, I had no idea how much money I would make, did not care about how much time I would have off (I enjoyed being at work) and did not know what places I would wind up seeing. It really didn't matter much as long as I was doing what I love to do. That is an immense difference from your perspective.

As it turned out, I was very, very lucky. I got to fly some wonderful machines, made more money than my wildest dreams, met some of the greatest people on the face of the planet, was fortunate to fly all over every Continent except (far) Asia and Australia, and never once sat in the cokpit of an airliner whose empennage I could see while in flight. There have been up's and down's and furloughs and strikes, riches and poverty, and way too much politics. All in all, it's been one hel1 of a ride. I'd do it again in a heartbeat and can't remember even one day that I wanted to get out early.

I played by the rules, and now others want to change them at my expense. That's fine. I will fight them on it, however, and I will call them on it when they claim it is more fair or just their way--aka the "high road".

I think I've played by "the rules" too and I've also been stepped on by people that didn't. I really don't want to change them, certainly not all by myself, but I'm way past the simple and obedient acceptance of rules made by others for their benefit at my expense.

We are having this "dispute" because you believe that I do want to change the rulse and I believe that your group has already done that, at my expense and that of my fellows. Like you, I will fight for what I believe with anyone at all and never submit to intimidation or coercion. I do not accuse you personally of either, but I do accuse our union. I am just as determined to change that as you appear willing to prevent me. I am truly sorry it is that way, but it is.

Conflict between two people usually arises because they are alike and their personalities butt heads. I really don't care to start another long thread with you and your 3 part posts. Suffice to say, I see where you are coming from, and it ain't the high road.

Unfortunately, we seem to belong to a mutual admiration society. Since I don't know you I really can't tell how much we are "alike" but if what you write is the indicator, the similarities are limited. I'll not convince you of anything, your mind is made up and there is nothing I can do about it. My mind is still open however. If and when you come up with a better idea, I'm still willing to listen. However, as long as you believe that listening equates to doing things your way, never the twain shall meet.

Butting heads is a waste of time. Dialogue could lead to a mutually satisfactory solution (even if we shout sometimes). I can't force you to have dialogue and you obviously don't want any. That's up to you.

What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?

Fly Safe.

 

[csmith]

That Captain is perhaps the basic difference between us. I got into this business because I love airplanes and most of the people who fly them.

As expected, you've spun again. There is a big difference between aviation and the business of flying airplanes. Herein lies the crux of this BUSINESS.

There are people who will go to any lengths in order to fly these machines. They will spend endless time talking about it. They will spend endless hours at the airport. They will spend endless hours in front of their computer blanketing the world with their vast experience to whomever does and, whomever does NOT, want to hear it. You can reference it in the number and frequency of their posts.

As long as there are people out there with this attitude, downward pressure will continue to exist on labor. Of course the blame will be pointed elsewhere, but the simple fact is that there is someone, somewhere who will fly more cheaply than you. This is the stuff that steals your love for this business.

There are many other things in this world besides the airline biz. There is aviation, there is family, there are friends, there is a world to see. Too many pilots ignore the really important things in life and learn the all too harsh consequences of such behavior. Like I said, I got into this to get paid, get time off, and get a retirement. The love of aviation is dying quickly in the airline biz--too many opportunists just waiting to knock you off your pillar.

We are having this "dispute" because you believe that I do want to change the rulse and I believe that your group has already done that, at my expense and that of my fellows. Like you, I will fight for what I believe with anyone at all and never submit to intimidation or coercion. I do not accuse you personally of either, but I do accuse our union. I am just as determined to change that as you appear willing to prevent me.

Whatever. You just can't leave it out of any thread. You remind me of my father-in-law. You just have to hold on. A very miserable man he is.

I can't force you to have dialogue and you obviously don't want any.

Constructive diaogue means I lose money and you gain it, or you sue. Not constructive. Sorry. We are off thread and I am through with you. Sorry for the banter folks. I'll join you in another thread, another time.

 

[BigFlyr]

Surplus1,

You will be 59 one day and may be in the same situation as those US Airways pilots you describe. Now who is only thinking about "number one"?

The age 60 rule is age discrimination and whether or not the rule changes should have absolutely nothing to do with the state of our economy or industry.

I too stand to loose if the age limit is increased at this point in my career but one has to look at it from a non biased point of view.

 

[Timebuilder]

Indeed!

If there is a "high road", it is occupied by the idea that we are not above the law.

I don't have to point out that we once kept a good portion of the population from voting, do I? That was changed because it wasn't right.

So too, will the age 60 rule go the way of the dodo.

 

[TXCAP4228]

Why should a mandatory retirement FAR be about anything OTHER THAN the ability to do the job?

I truly have no axe to grind. Think about this in the context of ANY OTHER JOB.

There is no mandatory retirement age for football players, or supreme court justices, or movie actors. If they can continue to do the job then they should not be prevented from doing so.

To arbitrarily say in the law that you can't fly 121 after age 60 is the classic denial of opportunity. Let's be honest, its un-American.