Age 65 Stinks

[UndauntedFlyer]

Ok UFlyer I'm a junior guy, furloughed twice now 5.5 years the first time and probably looking at another 5 years on this one. That's 10+ years on the street. IF I ever make it back to the cockpit, I will be nearly 50 years old, after I was hired at 35. Does this sound like a great career to you? And you think I am screwing you? I'm the one in the "street" as you say, NOT the senior guys! They're still flying the 777. Face facts UFlyer, the senior guys won the "war" on this one. Please spare me the additional 5 years argument! Yeah like that's going to make this 10+ years of furlough time all better! Prater didn't want to retire, I didn't want to be furloughed again. He had the power to do something about it, I did not.

We do not have to kiss your A$$ for all of eternity just because you lost your pension. Some of us junior guys have had a pretty crappy go of it also. You should be commended for walking the line but, did that last for 10 years? That doesn't count for anything?

Of course, while you think I have it so great and you have it so bad; the fact is that I was furloughed several times in my career, and for several years each time. And now, because of the "get out of my seat crowd" I'm "furloughed" forever with no chance of recall. So please, don't come to me or others who have been in this business for a while with your bleeding heart story. You and your friends did everything you could to steal the jobs of others. In the end you failed and now you're paying the price for what you and your colleagues did. While I wish I had some sympathy for your situation, in fact, because of what you’ve done, I have none. Having sympathy for you would be like a former slave having sympathy for his former “Master’s” loss of his cotton plantation.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

If he were in my shoes he'd be doing the same thing. So would Undaunted for that matter, who BTW is on my ignore list now.

What? Are you confused by the facts as they were presented? No reply generally means you have no answer.

 

[fullsail]

Of course, while you think I have it so great and you have it so bad; the fact is that I was furloughed several times in my career, and for several years each time. And now, because of the "get out of my seat crowd" I'm "furloughed" forever with no chance of recall. So please, don't come to me or others who have been in this business for a while with your bleeding heart story. You and your friends did everything you could to steal the jobs of others. In the end you failed and now you're paying the price for what you and your colleagues did. While I wish I had some sympathy for your situation, in fact, because of what you’ve done, I have none. Having sympathy for you would be like a former slave having sympathy for his former “Master’s” loss of his cotton plantation.

UFlyer, very interesting post. So let me ask you this: The new retirement age as we all know is 65. In seventeen years, provided I make it back, I will turn 65 and retire. At that precise moment have the young guys really "stolen" my job? Will I have been royally "screwed" by them? Should I be allowed to continue beyond 65 because I am the "real Captain?"

In addition, when you made Captain for the first time was it not because someone retired? So, you too, UFlyer, "stole" the seat from the "real Captain" who was forced to retire due to age 60. Or, were you at the forefront, right then and there, pushing for 65 so the "real Captain" could keep his job enabling you to remain the "real First Officer?" Now that would be very hard to believe wouldn't it?

 

[jbDC9]

What? Are you confused by the facts as they were presented? No reply generally means you have no answer.

This is pretty ironic coming from you, considering your dodging questions on this matter a couple of years ago when the change was about to happen.

You blather on and on about how you "earned" that left seat and it was rightfully yours. Okay, fine. Were you born into that seat? No? How'd you get there? Oh, right, senior guys ahead of you retired so that you could move up to your lofty, God-given Left Seat. Don't forget, it wasn't that many years ago that you were a card carrying member of the "get out of my seat" crowd, just waiting for your chance to move up. I don't think you've even once acknowledged the fact that you moved up the list thanks to the Age 60 rule.

Care to respond, or will you dodge it like you have every other time it's been brought up over the last few years? Yep, that's what I thought.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

This is pretty ironic coming from you, considering your dodging questions on this matter a couple of years ago when the change was about to happen.

Care to respond, or will you dodge it like you have every other time it's been brought up over the last few years? Yep, that's what I thought.

First, let me say that you certainly have me confused with someone else. No one on this board can say I have failed to speak my opinion or answer questions on this subject. In fact, just the opposite is true. Now others, like FLOPGUT and ANDY will fail to answer questions as poised by me. My questions are just too hard for them to answer in fairness. Like my question that is asked in this post. They will hide and not answer as hey have said on this board that they will not reply to my questions. That is their right when they have no answer.

So to continue, I would like to comment that I have never been and advocate of age-60 or age-65. My view now and always has been that if a person can pass their physical and the checkrides they're good to continue flying. Now, if a particular airline wants to provide a retirement package that allows a person to retire with pay at about 90% to 100% of final average salary, then I would have almost no problem with a mandatory retirement policy at that airline. But, there should not be any kind of public law forcing such a retirement because then, as was the problem before, that would be OK for only those airlines that could financially support such a plan and not for the other airlines with no such plan. In the end, that was the situation we had before. A/A was about the only airline left with a real 90% to 100% retirement package for their pilots, and all the rest had only a defined contribution plan created in the 11th hour that left many pilots way short of the financial ability to retire. For various financial reasons, an ever increasing number pilots, into the thousands, as the bankruptcies continued, found themselves with no financial ability to retire. In other words, the promise of retirement with 90% to 100% of final average salary, was gone. So the only result had to be elimination of age-60, and I expect that eventually there may very well be an elimination of age-65 for almost all these same reasons.

Now, you bring up the past and how pilots were promoted because of age-60. Let me say again, age-60 was wrong, just as slavery was wrong on this country and it took a civil war to eliminate that wrong. The wrong of age discrimination (age-60) has been eliminated, just as slavery has been eliminated. So it seems to me that by your way of thinking about how thousands had been benefited from age-60 in the past and therefore it should continue, right or wrong; that means that slavery should have been continued because so many plantation owners had benefited from it before 1865 and those that tried to grow cotton after that time were not benefiting from the same use of slave labor. I guess that was unfair to the plantation owners after 1865, right? That is what you are saying and I hope you understand that. I’m sure that even you realize the flaw in your argument.

The fact is that age discrimination is wrong, and especially when it is used to deny a person his/her right to provide for his/her family. And such a view as to advocate the denial of that person’s right is thievery of basic human rights, equal to the wrong of slavery. That is a view of a “Sky Nazi:” "Get out of that seat old man, I want your job, your airplane, your girlfriend, and your money", and the law (the Gestapo) is on my side. Get out now!

Please, if you really believe that everything should be given up by the senior pilots to help the junior pilots, why don’t you just resign and choose another career so the pilots junior to you can move up? Certainly that would help them and you have had this dream job for long enough. Right? Or, if you will, just how long should a person be allowed to be an airline pilot? 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, how long?

So my question to you and to all the others from the “get out of my seat crowd” is this: Would you be in favor of an Age-40 rule? That would certainly help to allow everyone to enjoy their life’s dream of “Airline Pilot.” Wouldn’t that be fair to everyone and help with promotions? Please tell us all, what would be wrong with an Age-40 rule?

Answers to the above question by any FI member would be greatly appreciated! Thank you.

 

[Linedriver]

Why do you guys come back to aviation? Seriously, not trying to jump into the arguement here but why come back? After all the time away from home and then losing and getting your jobs back. Why not just do something else?

If there are furloughs at DL, chances are I won't be coming back. Money isn't here anymore and the time away from home is hard on a family. Just isn't worth it to me, especially over and over again. What a headache! It's no way to live.

Just my thoughts though.

 

[UALRATT]

This illustrates your fundamentally flawed thinking. Age 65 was a legislative response to allow the U.S. to remain a member of ICAO. Nothing more, nothing less. The "unions" had nothing to do with it.

Oh, and BTW, the pilots responsible for the worst U.S. aviation accident in the last 7 years were 47 and 24 respectively. Perhaps if there had been an experienced Captain on the flight deck 50 folks would have made it to BUF.

You are right yet so fuging WRONG. The 1947 Chicago Convention – Convention on International Civil Aviation, unlike treaties like SALT1, SALT2, 3rd Geneva Convention, etc. which all require mandatory compliance, leaves it up to its member States to adopt its recommendation and regulations for INTERNATIONAL air COMMERCE. As a result the FAA would violate this standard by prohibiting foreign pilots from operating within the United States but NOT by requiring its own pilots from flying beyond age 60. The Standard does not “require” States to allow any pilots to fly past age 60 but merely permits States to do so. ICAO made the change to harmonize its provisions with the regulations in force in many member States, and yes those States were in the majority of having laws that permitted their pilots to fly beyond 60. France along with several others upstanding member States maintains their regulatory standard at 60.

Now, the reason for the change is that the FAA could not answer the question of foreign pilots over the age of 60 operating in US airspace to the age discrimination crowd, the pathetic economic impact study of its effect on the pilots group (pensions were gutted, lets keep supporting piss poor management of our airlines bla bla bla), and the politicians who found a way to continue to pad the Social Security system. Then again quite of bunch of those politicians work till they die SOMETIMES at their desk. Neither ICAO nor the FAA has conducted any studies on serious safety implication. Said it was too expensive.

The United States continues to file differences with ICAO because ICAO Standards are not always appropriate or are in conflict with Federal Aviation Regulations with regards to demonstrating at least an equivalent level of safety. It is the RIGHT of the United States and a duty and responsibility of the FAA which is charged with maintaining the highest possible safety standards. That translates well to MY RIGHTS and that of the travelling public.

It’s about time that the mandate of SAFETY be removed from the FAA and granted to the NTSB. Let the FAA continue to line it pocket looking out for the economic interest for air commerce.

 

[jbDC9]

First, let me say that you certainly have me confused with someone else. No one on this board can say I have failed to speak my opinion or answer questions on this subject.

Nope, no confusion here. It's been you all along avoiding a particular theme that you'd rather not address. Your latest lengthy post is the same as all the others you've made... blah blah blah, slavery, Sky Nazis, get outta my seat crowd, Age 40 Rule. Whatever; you still avoided the basic question thrown at you time and again.

I'll repeat what I posted last night since you apparently weren't able to read or comprehend it.

"You blather on and on about how you "earned" that left seat and it was rightfully yours. Okay, fine. Were you born into that seat? No? How'd you get there? Oh, right, senior guys ahead of you retired so that you could move up to your lofty, God-given Left Seat. Don't forget, it wasn't that many years ago that you were a card carrying member of the "get out of my seat" crowd, just waiting for your chance to move up. I don't think you've even once acknowledged the fact that you moved up the list thanks to the Age 60 rule."

Now Undaunted, read that again, slowly... talk it out loud if you need to. Any response to this aspect of the Age 60 Rule at all? Could you at least just admit that you were once a 20-30 something engineer or FO just waiting for your chance for the left seat... waiting for your elders to hit 60 so you could move up and "steal" their seat?

No? Right, I didn't think so. You'll avoid it as you always do and make another rambling, idiotic post that really doesn't matter and tap dances around the subject.

 

[ROSWELL41]

Like typical airline pilots, we are worrying about yesterday's setbacks and not focusing on tomorrows threats. What are we going to do to stop Age 70 or no age limit? Just like guys said a 100 seat outsourced jet would never happen, there will be a push for increased age limits again. What are we going to do to make sure Age 70 doesn't happen?

 

[Flopgut]

What are we going to do to make sure Age 70 doesn't happen?

www.pilotpensionnow.com