AGE 65 Rule

[daysleeper2621]

Why do pilots want to increase the Age 60 rule? I've heard that it's being discussed in Congress right now and will probably pass, but why in the world would anyone want it to? If the retirement is changed to 65 then all that will happen is the most senior pilots making tons of money will simply stay at the top for 5 more years and every airline will remain pretty stagnant until they reach age 65 and begin retiring. Those who are furloughed since 9/11 will remain furloughed and those trying to go to a major from a regional will be stuck in their current position for 5 more years. And what do you think management is going to do when it's time to create new contracts with the pilot groups? They're going to DECREASE the pay scales since pilots can't argue that they need to be paid enough money to be able to retire at age 60 anymore and since they will be paying the most senior pilots their huge salaries for five more years. I would like to hear the positives that could come out of this new law if it passes because I just don't see any.

 

[Rotorhead1]

How little you know

First of all don't think all Pilots who reach the age of 60 want to retire. There are many pilots who enjoy their jobs as pilots and hope that the Age 60 rule is changed. I know what you want is for the Old Pilots to retire so you can finally get a flying job but you are going to have to get alot more hours and experience than you have now. I recommend you try to find a job as an Instructor Pilot and build some hours or join the military. I hope to be around for a while and hope the Age 60 rule will be lifted.

 

[charlie2]

I believe that over the last three decades or so the average life span for a man has increased quite a bit. I would think that not only is the life span increasing but the health of older men is also getting better. So if in the 1960's the retirement age for an airline pilot was 60 (presumably for health/safety reasons) then to me it makes perfect sense to increase this age. By how much I don't know but as painful as it is to us I really think it needs to happen.

 

[Birddog]

No matter what age is settled on, the debate will only subside for a while. In about 10 years or so, people will want to raise it again to 67, or 68, or 75. What is needed is real, objective tests of ability and performance verses age. Some people may be forced out at thier prime, but others are definately past ripe. Arbitrarily picking an age is the wrong way to decide.

 

[goofyleftwich]

you are a Fing idiot if you are in favor of raising the mandatory retirement age..........period

 

[Birddog]

you are a Fing idiot if you are in favor of raising the mandatory retirement age..........period

Maybe, but the issue will not go away without a fight, so be prepared to back up your opinion with some useful facts. I wouldn't count on ALPA to save the day on this one either.

 

[disillusion]

Why do so few want to change the rules in the middle of the game because they did not plan for retirement or lived above their means. We all love flying but I also have a life outside flying and will happily retire at 60 and make a slot for another pilot to fulfill his dream. I am not sure but, I believe controllers have a mandatory retirement too. Do you want a 70 year old controller vectoring you to the ILS in ATL on a bad WX day.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

No matter what age is settled on, the debate will only subside for a while. In about 10 years or so, people will want to raise it again to 67, or 68, or 75. What is needed is real, objective tests of ability and performance verses age. Some people may be forced out at thier prime, but others are definately past ripe. Arbitrarily picking an age is the wrong way to decide.

Thank you. At least there's one other person out there with some common sense.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Do you want a 70 year old controller vectoring you to the ILS in ATL on a bad WX day.

I don't care how old the controller is. I want him/her to be FIT FOR THE JOB! Age is meaningless. Let's abolish a mandatory age altogether and establish a real form of measure for capacity to perform one's job.

Are you happier having a 47 y/o controller who is unfit for duty for whatever reason than a 70 y/o fit controller?

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

you are a Fing idiot if you are in favor of raising the mandatory retirement age..........period

Very nice supporting data for your opinion.

 

[stonewall]

"Fit for Duty?" Please.

I've seen more 300# captains in Hartsfield than I can shake a stick at. Hell, I KNOW they can't make it out the **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** window in an emergency egress.

"Capt, you're fired because you're fat and ugly." I'd like to see what ALPA says about that. ALPA says "we want it based on ability," yet defends to the hilt anyone fired for incompetence. Another case of having it both ways for ALPA. An arbitrary age is much easier than slugging it out in court battle after court battle over who's "fit to fly."

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

An arbitrary age is much easier than slugging it out in court battle after court battle over who's "fit to fly."

So we should just do what's easiest, regardless of how archaic some rules might be. Few worthwhile endeavors are easy.

 

[Flechas]

"Fit for Duty?" Please.

I've seen more 300# captains in Hartsfield than I can shake a stick at. Hell, I KNOW they can't make it out the **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** window in an emergency egress.

"Capt, you're fired because you're fat and ugly." I'd like to see what ALPA says about that. ALPA says "we want it based on ability," yet defends to the hilt anyone fired for incompetence. Another case of having it both ways for ALPA. An arbitrary age is much easier than slugging it out in court battle after court battle over who's "fit to fly."

He has a good point, ALPA would not let anybody get fired for not being fit, so having an age restriction is peobably the best way to do it, otherwise it would become a pain in the ass for everybody.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

He has a good point, ALPA would not let anybody get fired for not being fit,

People lose their medicals everyday and there's nothing ALPA can do about it. We're not talking about firings based on some chief pilots' reaction to a situation. Make the medical screening more comprehensive with some high-tech motor skill testing and your problem is solved. Make it so there's no gray area. Don't tell me it's not doable.

 

[Flechas]

People lose their medicals everyday and there's nothing ALPA can do about it. We're not talking about firings based on some chief pilots' reaction to a situation. Make the medical screening more comprehensive with some high-tech motor skill testing and your problem is solved. Make it so there's no gray area. Don't tell me it's not doable.

I guess you are right, and it is doable, as long as everything is determined based on the medical.
As far as working is concerned I'm all about changing the age limit, I would not know what to do if I didn't have a job, and 60 is becoming younger everyday.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Hey Flechas, what happened to that cool avatar you had with the big belgian-looking beer?

 

[Flechas]

This one is just temporary, because of this

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=52777&highlight=penguins

 

[slowto250]

Why do so few want to change the rules in the middle of the game because they did not plan for retirement or lived above their means. We all love flying but I also have a life outside flying and will happily retire at 60 and make a slot for another pilot to fulfill his dream. I am not sure but, I believe controllers have a mandatory retirement too. Do you want a 70 year old controller vectoring you to the ILS in ATL on a bad WX day.

You are correct. FAA is considering raising the mandatory retirement age for controllers (currently set at 56 ). Like pilots, I suspect most of the controllers nearing retirement are very close to being at the top of their game. Rather cruel, but as in life, just when you finally get it all figured out....it's too late !

The current standards ARE far too arbitrary. Reaction times and other physiological minutae don't tell the whole story. Hell, I don't need to be as quick on the draw as I was 10 years ago, as hopefully I fly a little smarter. Think proactive, not reactive.

I fly with a couple of guys who are a little long in the tooth. I find that what makes them less proficient is their diminished analytical thinking, not razor sharp reflexes. As others have already stated; it varies widely from one to another.

I'd sooner embrace a mandatory retirement age for drivers. They pose a bigger threat in my estimation. Have you negotiated the blue hair traffic maze in south Florida lately ?

 

[Flechas]

There you go, those penguins were not too popular!!

BTW Huge, In june I'm gonna try the advice you sent me a while ago.
I may even have a few additions.

 

[§kyye Candy]

I believe that over the last three decades or so the average life span for a man has increased quite a bit. I would think that not only is the life span increasing but the health of older men is also getting better. So if in the 1960's the retirement age for an airline pilot was 60 (presumably for health/safety reasons) then to me it makes perfect sense to increase this age. By how much I don't know but as painful as it is to us I really think it needs to happen.

Over the last three decades or so the average career PAY has changed too. For a 121 pilot it has substantially DECREASED. Which of course paves the way perfectly for scope changes, etc. "After all..." the airlines will argue, "now that you have more TIME over your career to make money.... do we really need to have this sort of pay structure?" Then they have the pilot group right where they want them for even further concessions.

On the other hand, the guys who have had a nice long career already, who have reaped the rewards of the industry in it's heyday and sold out all the younger guys coming in as jr. FO's through their contract negotiations, probably want to see a little bigger pension check. Right... go ahead... raise the age.

 

[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.