AGE 65 Rule

[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.

 

[pilotyip]

wrong button

bye bye

 

[Freight Dog]

I said it before, I say it again... WRONG THING TO DO!

Hugh, check your retirement plan and see what kind penalties it carries for retiring early.


Wrong solution at the wrong time for the wrong problem, and all at the expense of furloughed/younger pilots.

 

[ABXbooger]

Some things that I think are very valid points:

1. I fly in the middle of the night, I DONT want to work past the current retirment age. The only people who will be able to enjoy the fruits of my labor are my widow and children...

2. If this bill does pass you had better believe that the penalties associated with retiring early (6% a year for me) will be passed along also. So even though I am astute enough to plan for my retirment, I will have to retire when I am 67! Or take a huge hit!

3. Have you people who are in favor of this thought about what will happen when you fail that checkride a year before your retirement? You will lose all that retirement you have worked for at that moment. Are you sure your mental and physical faculties will still be sharp? Care to wager several millions?

4. The airlines are absolutely stupid to help this. All I can say is I am glad I am not going to be paying their employee disability insurance.

5. Why is the head of the group pushing for this even concerned? He is an ex-SWA guy who is already retired? Does he have a dog in this fight?

6. As everyone knows, there are people who slip through the cracks that should not be flying NOW. Is that going to change? What happens when you fail one of these proposed psych tests? Are you fired? What happens when you can't retire for 5 more years? Who will be performing these psych tests? Company or FAA? Slippery slope indeed.

As far as I can tell, I would say about 10% of the people I talk with at work do not want this, even the older CA's close to retirement.

Yes, this could help some pilots, but I think it is unfair to force the rest of us to suck it up to help a small minority.

 

[Purpledog]

I think we lose 3% a yr if we go early. Thankfully all the older guys I've flown with recently are opposed to this (because they still have an A plan). Like it was alluded to before, this is purely financial. These same guys pushing for this change would have jack-slapped you if you proposed this on 9-10-2001.

 

[FoxHunter]

I think we lose 3% a yr if we go early.

You are correct at 3% per year with the pension plan at FedEx. At Tigers if you had 25 years service you could retire at age 50 with no reduction for early retirement. It all depends on your pension plan and contract.

ABXbooger,

If you fail a checkride now or age 64 you do not lose your pension. Once you are vested you are entitled to your pension no matter what has happened. That is unless your company has not funded it and has no way to fund it.

There is nothing that says that age 60 cannot be the normal retirement, again it is all in the contract. We have guys today that go to the back seat of the 727 and DC10 to age 75+ but age 60 is the normal retirement age.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

IHugh, check your retirement plan and see what kind penalties it carries for retiring early.

None. And by the way, how can there be a penalty for "early" retirement if there is no mandatory retirement age?

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

1. I fly in the middle of the night, I DONT want to work past the current retirment age. .

Then don't.

2. If this bill does pass you had better believe that the penalties associated with retiring early (6% a year for me) will be passed along also.

Bill? What bill? Please do send a link for us to view this bill you speak of.

6. As everyone knows, there are people who slip through the cracks that should not be flying NOW. Is that going to change?

That's the whole point. Fixing a failed medical screening process.

Yes, this could help some pilots, but I think it is unfair to force the rest of us to suck it up to help a small minority.

I think it's pretty unfair to me to have to sit next to some 54 y/o, obese, coughing, wheezing, walking cardiac arrest time bomb who can't remember an assigned altitude, speed restriction and heading long enough to read it back while there are healthy, competent dudes getting the axe for crossing an imaginary line. It's madness when we have the technology to eliminate such a problem.

I believe that if we unscrew the medical screening process and eliminate a mandatory out age, you'll see more under-50 dudes out than over-60 dudes staying.

 

[Scooby74]

Ya know, I was at the YMCA a couple of days ago and I struck up a conversation with a guy who was hammering the weights pretty hard. Great guy who was in great shape. I thought to myself this guy must be around 55 or 60. WOW, that's great....I hope to be......."Wait, you're how old....85." He was a pilot for Continental Airlines. He still holds a first class medical and fly's his cub out at Creve Core Airport every weekend with his 10 year old great grandson. There is no doubt in my mind that he would be fit to fly a 777 from Newark to Paris. I asked him his take on the age increase. He said, "Well, the last 25 years have been the best years of my life. If anyone still wants to fly after 60 because you love your job, there are plenty of part 91 gigs out there. Have at it. But life is to short to work until you die." This coming from a guy who was a professional pilot for 37 years, now 85 having the time of his life. WOW! If we were basing pilots longevity on how fit they are to fly, this guy would be on his 62nd year as a professional pilot. He would have around 55,000 hrs total time. That's nuts!

 

[Freight Dog]

None. And by the way, how can there be a penalty for "early" retirement if there is no mandatory retirement age?

Are you sure? Most contracts carry the financial penalty in terms of percentage of reduction of benefits. Your airline uses 2.00% multiplier for the A-plan, which I'm sure carries a significant hit if you retire before age 60.

The primary reason why we DIDN'T have mass retirements at AQ after bankruptcy - heavy penalties for early retirement unless you get medically retired, and only then you can collect everything up to date.

So what's the answer? Truck it til your quack AME tells you time to hang it up? Sorry man, not for me...

 

[FoxHunter]

He was a pilot for Continental Airlines. He still holds a first class medical and fly's his cub out at Creve Core Airport every weekend with his 10 year old great grandson. There is no doubt in my mind that he would be fit to fly a 777 from Newark to Paris. I asked him his take on the age increase. He said, "Well, the last 25 years have been the best years of my life. If anyone still wants to fly after 60 because you love your job, there are plenty of part 91 gigs out there. Have at it. But life is to short to work until you die."

You really don't think he was serious? He retired at a different time, pre Lorenzo, pre-airline failures, pre-pension failures. Nice that he was so lucky.

Can you really be serious and think someone want to give up a job that pays $20,000 per month for one of these 91 gigs that may pay $20,000 per year? If you are you are in need of some serious help!

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

- heavy penalties for early retirement unless you get medically retired, and only then you can collect everything up to date. ...

I don't think you've been reading what I've been writing.

- So what's the answer? Truck it til your quack AME tells you time to hang it up? Sorry man, not for me...

No, silly. Truck until YOU decide to hang it up so long as you are fit.

As for your company's retirement plan, that is completely independent of the law. Granted, some use the law as their basis, but with the age law eliminated (did you notice I didn't say raised?), obviously the retirement language would have to change...or not. But that's between your pilot group and your company. Retirement plans vary too widely (or don't exist at all) from company to company to make that part of this argument.

 

[dash8driver]

c'mon now freight doggy dog. we both know hugh is coming up on that number awfuly fast. we also both know that hugh is in top shape. he's been getting lots of excersize on his LBFM workout program. he's sure to be able to keep flying well beyond 60 as long as he has adequate access to LBFM facilities.

 

[Freight Dog]

c'mon now freight doggy dog. we both know hugh is coming up on that number awfuly fast. we also both know that hugh is in top shape. he's been getting lots of excersize on his LBFM workout program. he's sure to be able to keep flying well beyond 60 as long as he has adequate access to LBFM facilities.

True... true....

 

[Freight Dog]

You really don't think he was serious? He retired at a different time, pre Lorenzo, pre-airline failures, pre-pension failures. Nice that he was so lucky.

Can you really be serious and think someone want to give up a job that pays $20,000 per month for one of these 91 gigs that may pay $20,000 per year? If you are you are in need of some serious help!

Fox, Part 91 gigs we're referring to are jobs flying corporate heavy iron (Gulfstreams, BBJ's, etc.). Those pay equal to or better than majors these days, and they seem to like retired airline captains.

 

[FoxHunter]

Fox, Part 91 gigs we're referring to are jobs flying corporate heavy iron (Gulfstreams, BBJ's, etc.). Those pay equal to or better than majors these days, and they seem to like retired airline captains.

The good ones are few and far between, and the chance for an age 60 retired airline pilot getting one is about as good as winning the Power Ball Lottery. Your smoking some funny stuff if you believe otherwise. The best ones pay less than half of what I make today.

 

[M. St. Lawrence]

Agree with Birddog on selectivity with physicals, testing etc. Age and ability vary with individuals. FYI...the FAA official, Stakata, who mandated the age 60 retirement was 70 when he made it!!!

 

[LarryinTN]

None. And by the way, how can there be a penalty for "early" retirement if there is no mandatory retirement age?

The plan documents will specify a normal retirement age. Anything before that is "early" and a penalty is applied.

 

[LarryinTN]

I believe that if we unscrew the medical screening process and eliminate a mandatory out age, you'll see more under-50 dudes out than over-60 dudes staying.

Could be, but it's still the right thing to do.

 

[§kyye Candy]

Does anyone really think that the pay structure will stay the same for the next 20 years+ if they decide to increase the retirement age?

What makes you think any major airline is going to be willing to fork out 20K/month if they don't have to?

Believe me, they will find a way to make it beneficial to the airline's bottom line... which will no doubt mean the pay for everyone decreases significantly (again).

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Does anyone really think that the pay structure will stay the same for the next 20 years+ if they decide to increase the retirement age?

No.
Do you really think any pay structures will stay the same for the next 20+ years if they Don't?
Every contract will change every time they're up for negotiation (and a lot of times when they aren't). An abolishment of a federal mandatory out age for part 121 pilots won't change that. Certainly every pilot group and company would need to adjust accordingly. Certainly each group would move to make it most advantagous to it's cause as possible. This happens everyday at negotiating tables. So what? Each group will get what they negotiate regardless of age laws. There are companies that have over 60 pilots right now. Two prominent ones come to mind. Neither have furloughees. Both are hiring.