AGE 65 Rule

[Purpledog]

Here we go again. If you young guys want to someday get hired or upgrade, vote no on the ALPA poll, I think it closes Apr 29. With pension reform making it's way thru congress right now, hopefully the pensions will one day return for those airlines who have lost. For those not familiar with the reform, they are trying to allow airlines a longer period to pay into their plans instead of the unattainable 3 years now. This industry is cyclic and things will get better. Hopefully you all won't have doomed yourselves into working until you're pushin' daisies. This subject was beat to death a couple times in earlier threads.

 

[Flechas]

I know, that's why I said as far "as working is concerned", on the other hand I whant the age 60 to stay because I want things to move.
That's why I'm not even stressing about it, I'll be happy with either decision.

 

[AV8OR]

This oughta tell ya something about ALPA's position...

All the ALPA furloughees, ya know the young guys who don't have a job... the ones not running ALPA, they've been excluded from the ALPA opinion poll on this issue. Hmmm wonder why? "ALPA speaks for me, and they tell me what to say."

 

[FoxHunter]

Here we go again. If you young guys want to someday get hired or upgrade, vote no on the ALPA poll, I think it closes Apr 29. With pension reform making it's way thru congress right now, hopefully the pensions will one day return for those airlines who have lost. For those not familiar with the reform, they are trying to allow airlines a longer period to pay into their plans instead of the unattainable 3 years now. This industry is cyclic and things will get better. Hopefully you all won't have doomed yourselves into working until you're pushin' daisies. This subject was beat to death a couple times in earlier threads.

Yep, great reform. Just look forward to companies like UPS and FedEx with strong earnings being able to reduce the amount contributed to your pension plan. Yes, their earnings will look better, but your pension security will be weaker. No Purpledog, I would much prefer that pension be funded under the current rules.

 

[Purpledog]

Yes, their earnings will look better, but your pension security will be weaker. No Purpledog, I would much prefer that pension be funded under the current rules.

Although the current rule works for us, it doesn't for pax carriers. I would much rather pax carriers retain their A plans so we don't stick out like sore thumbs when the pax A plans have all but disappeared. I am for the funding level to be dictated by contract vice legislation. Our pilot groups (FDX/UPS) are in a position of strength to mandate via the next contract that they remain fully funded or close to.

 

[FoxHunter]

Although the current rule works for us, it doesn't for pax carriers. I would much rather pax carriers retain their A plans so we don't stick out like sore thumbs when the pax A plans have all but disappeared. I am for the funding level to be dictated by contract vice legislation. Our pilot groups (FDX/UPS) are in a position of strength to mandate via the next contract that they remain fully funded or close to.

Hate to burst your bubble. Companies fund pensions according to the law. Do you really think FedEx or UPS will agree to fund a pension over and above the law? Hell, it was ALPA that pushed for the reduced funding requirement. BTW "A" plans have all but disappeared. No, if this ALPA pushed change actually happens, your pension and my pension will be far less secure. Yours probably less secure than mine because a lot will happen between the time I get mine and you get yours.

 

[§kyye Candy]

Here we go again. If you young guys want to someday get hired or upgrade, vote no on the ALPA poll, I think it closes Apr 29. With pension reform making it's way thru congress right now, hopefully the pensions will one day return for those airlines who have lost. For those not familiar with the reform, they are trying to allow airlines a longer period to pay into their plans instead of the unattainable 3 years now. This industry is cyclic and things will get better. Hopefully you all won't have doomed yourselves into working until you're pushin' daisies. This subject was beat to death a couple times in earlier threads.

Great, more time for the airline management to cut and run with your $. With all due respect PurpleDog, doesn't this song and dance (by mgt.) start to look kind of cheesy after a while? Especially when they are still sporting those multi-million dollar bonuses... and then cutting out early to move on to the next victim - er, I mean airline.

As far as the ALPA poll... not everyone is a member of ALPA. Am I incorrect in assuming you need to be represented by ALPA in order to vote?

Last but not least, what is the definition of "young guys" exactly? By the time the majors finish with revamping the scope clauses (giving all the lines away to the NEW midsize regional carriers a la RJ service) and the "newhire" FO's (who are now hiring in around age 40 or so) finally make it in the door, how much time is there left to have any semblance of a real career? Doesn't it occur to anyone that the reason the mgt. likes this scenario is because they avg. length of pilot employment with a major carrier winds up being decreased significantly, which means less total funds they have to pay out at retirement?

Not to be negative, but seems like the opportunities are already substantially diminished - for quite a long time, if not permanently. This is not indicative of the cyclical activity we have seen in the past.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Not to be negative, but seems like the opportunities are already substantially diminished - for quite a long time, if not permanently. This is not indicative of the cyclical activity we have seen in the past.

Yeah, and for all those out there saying "you've all known the rules, you should have planned better, etc, etc," Who the heck could have planned for what has happened in the last 4 years to this industry? Not that that really has anything to do with a silly, arbitrary number.
As far as apprentices not getting a vote, aren't some of the carriers out there opening up the vote to the new hires???

 

[AV8OR]

Yeah, and for all those out there saying "you've all known the rules, you should have planned better, etc, etc," Who the heck could have planned for what has happened in the last 4 years to this industry? Not that that really has anything to do with a silly, arbitrary number.
As far as apprentices not getting a vote, aren't some of the carriers out there opening up the vote to the new hires???

Not apprentices, furloughees, and it's ALPA that is not letting them take the opinion poll.

"for all those out there saying "you've all known the rules, you should have planned better, etc, etc," Who the heck could have planned for what has happened in the last 4 years to this industry?"

So.....what's happened in the last 4 years gives 60+ guys the right to stay on board a little longer? "It's about age discrimination, er...pension...uh salary, heck it doesn't matter we deserve it, and if you don't agree, you just don't appreciate the ones who built this company..." Whatever.

Yeah, I did the survey.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

So.....what's happened in the last 4 years gives 60+ guys the right to stay on board a little longer?

That's not what I said. But if you are blaming someone for lack of planning, I submit that everybody's planning took a nosedive after 9/11. I don't think what's happened in the last four years gives someone over 60 the right to "stay on board a little longer". I think that being fit to fly gives ANYONE the right to stay on board as long as they are fit. Boot the ones who aren't regardless of age. In your survey, did you not see a selection for that choice?
Tell me what could possibly be unfair about completely doing away with age, and bringing forth a more technically superior method of determining fitness for duty. You vultures out there might even move up faster if we got rid of the 50-somethings that shouldn't be near an airplane. I mean, that's all you care about right? When you'll get yours?
We have unfit people flying and fit people getting the boot. Lifestyles vary too widely these days to have this decision be based something as benign as age.

 

[AV8OR]

That's not what I said. But if you are blaming someone for lack of planning, I submit that everybody's planning took a nosedive after 9/11. I don't think what's happened in the last four years gives someone over 60 the right to "stay on board a little longer". I think that being fit to fly gives ANYONE the right to stay on board as long as they are fit. Boot the ones who aren't regardless of age. In your survey, did you not see a selection for that choice?
Tell me what could possibly be unfair about completely doing away with age, and bringing forth a more technically superior method of determining fitness for duty. You vultures out there might even move up faster if we got rid of the 50-somethings that shouldn't be near an airplane. I mean, that's all you care about right? When you'll get yours?
We have unfit people flying and fit people getting the boot. Lifestyles vary too widely these days to have this decision be based something as benign as age.

A. I'm not blaming anyone for lack of planning, I'm simply making the observation that ALPA is looking to remedy the misfortunes of some of the last few years by simply doing a 180 turn to benefit those at the top.

B.I've got no problem raising the age, after I retire. That way it only benefits those who start there seniority after the rule goes into affect. Doesn't affect those at 60 now or those getting there for 30 years. We all know that won't cut it though because this has less to do with equality and more to do with egallity.

C. "You vultures out there..." No need for names here. Everybody is looking out for their own interests, no doubt. But most of us on the lower rung aren't even using the safety argument. If we did, why not just make the seniority system totally obsolete. Everybody would be scored twice a year based on sim performance, line checks, medical evals and a fresh background check and then we'd re-align seats and equipment....based on "a more technically superior method of determining fitness for duty".....I think hear crickets chirping...

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Everybody is looking out for their own interests, no doubt. But most of us on the lower rung aren't even using the safety argument. ...

It's true, your argument is based on greed and envy. But speak for yourself. I'm on the lower rung, and safety is my argument. I won't dispute ALPA's motives with you, either. I don't think you are far off bat there. So just because ALPA might have questionable motives in changing the rule, we should toss out the idea of doing something more equitable for the pilot group? The point is, this has been talked about for years, and now with ALPA making some moves, regardless of their motivation, we should take advantage of that lobbying power and get to something FAIR.

If we did, why not just make the seniority system totally obsolete. Everybody would be scored twice a year based on sim performance, line checks, medical evals and a fresh background check and then we'd re-align seats and equipment....based on "a more technically superior method of determining fitness for duty".....I think hear crickets chirping...

Dude, those aren't crickets you hear. I think that's the lunatic that's in your head.

 

[Purpledog]

That's a novel idea. Make the abolishment of the age restriction effective for anyone not currently on a seniority list. That would be fair and it would satisfy those who are playing the age discrimination 'smokescreen'. How about that "Duke"?

 

[AV8OR]

The point is, this has been talked about for years, and now with ALPA making some moves, regardless of their motivation, we should take advantage of that lobbying power and get to something FAIR.

Dude, those aren't crickets you hear. I think that's the lunatic that's in your head.

Fair is in the eye of the beholder my friend. It would be fair if it only affected those pilots hired after the rule change. It's not the possible new rule I have issue with, it's the lack of equity in how it's applied, and the unbelievable "We're just trying to rectify a travisty of age discrimination, and if you don't agree your just selfish." spin ALPA is putting on this push with my dues money. ALPA should just have the decency to admit that a variety of unforeseen circumstances have greatly depreciated the planned compensation and retirement of the upper seniority of the industry and so now,after an entire career of benefiting from this rule, we need to change it to make up the difference, sorry furlough-boy your just oughta luck. At least it would demonstrate some measure of integrity.

Last, that's twice now with the personal insults. It's below you, and me, and I'm done.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Fair is in the eye of the beholder my friend. It would be fair if it only affected those pilots hired after the rule change.

Oakie dokie.
Example A) Johnny PFT is 23 and gets hired next year at Mesa. 37 years from now, some rule (you don't specify what it will be) will apply to him.
Example B) Mike Military is 48 and just retired from the US Air Force. He gets hired by SWA and in 12 years, some rule will apply to him.
Example C) Aviator Crybaby is 40 and was hired 3 years ago at UPS. The rule will never apply to him.
That's fair?

Av8or, trust me. If I were launcing personal insults your way, they wouldn't be thinly veiled. My lunatic-in-the-head comment (ever listen to Pink Floyd?) is a sideways way of saying we both know you don't believe any of the absurd, sarcastic answers you flip in response to what I believe is a viable solution. If I thought you really believed that ridiculous drivel about sims twice per year, reassigning seniority twice per year based on a test score, etc., you'd hear a real insult. If I find that sort of defensiveness thin-skinned, is that also an insult?
My argument was actually one of the 5 or so options that ALPA offered as a change to the system in that survey. I believe it to be fair to everyone because it would apply to everyone at the same time. If you are on the lower rung, fine, you fly for as many years as you are fit to do so. If you want to fly longer, so be it. If for some reason, it took you an extra year or two to upgrade because of the change, BFD. If you are so worried about getting yours, then you ALSO have the option of sticking around a little longer....if you are fit.
As I pointed out. I agree with you about ALPAs motives being shaky, but I don't care, so long as something good comes out of this. To hope like hell that nothing changes just to spite ALPA is like drinking poison and hoping someone else dies.

 

[pilotyip]

How come it is fair to apply the age 60+ to pilots hired in the future, but when they lowered the retirement age in 1996 so all 135-commuter pilots now had to retire at age 60 it was applied instantaneously? Fair is in the eye of the beholder. Retirement = SS standard retirement age effective to all the day it is implemented. I determine that is fair.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

How come it is fair to apply the age 60+ to pilots hired in the future, but when they lowered the retirement age in 1996 so all 135-commuter pilots now had to retire at age 60 it was applied instantaneously? Fair is in the eye of the beholder. Retirement = SS standard retirement age effective to all the day it is implemented. I determine that is fair.

But is it safe?

 

[pilotyip]

sure it is

If we apply the same level of cognitive testing, it could be safe. Test for mental and cardiovascular, fitness, starting, like we do with the EKG. Start at age 40, then again at 45, then again 50 and every two years until 60, then every year until age 70, then every 6 months until age 80 and then daily after age 80.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

If we apply the same level of cognitive testing, it could be safe. Test for mental and cardiovascular, fitness, starting, like we do with the EKG. Start at age 40, then again at 45, then again 50 and every two years until 60, then every year until age 70, then every 6 months until age 80 and then daily after age 80.

Okay, YIP, I'm having a hard time connecting the dots between a "standard retirement age effective to all the day it is implemented" and this example you bring forth. Sounds like completely opposing arguments.

 

[pilotyip]

Hugh, No you have to think into the future, see the future and plan for it so we do not have to go through this age thing again. In the year 2067 SS retirement age will be raised to age 82.5 and by having to test every day, you will not be able to fly under part 121 because you are busy every day. Kinda like a “Safety Stand down” where we did not fly any airplane fleet wide that day and therefore there would be no accidents that day.