Age 65 Stinks

[AA767AV8TOR]

In the meantime, if I go back or not, it makes no difference. If pilots at my company elect to stay for five years, I say more power to them. They've earned the opportunity to be there, they've been there longer, and unlike me, they can't simply go somewhere else and go to work. I can. In fact, I did. I'm working as a line pilot, mechanic, instructor, and check airman. I've got other jobs waiting for me, and whether I go back or not, I'll work, I'll stay busy, and I won't look over my shoulder and cry about what's fair and not fair. You should do the same.

Glad to see you such a talented and valued individual. Many find themselves in very different shoes. Loaded up with debt and virtually no job opportunities at any of the majors for the next 3-4 years, the environment is very bleak for most individuals. Again, this is worsened by the impact of Age 65. Due to this bleak outlook, many individuals will find themselves looking for greener pastures and leaving the industry for good. This is our future that is leaving the industry in sizable numbers. Again, this will have an impact on our future safety and is aggravated by Age 65.

Also, please tell me why a motivated and capable individual such as you cannot find a job over the Age of 60? Like you said, you were able to find a job. Why can't they?

Competitive minimums with my employer over the past year jumped to about 20,000 hours, with multiple type ratings and 15 years or more of international heavy experience. The hiring standards didn't go down. They've gone up. Plenty of pilots on the street who are more than qualified, who are looking for work...and by no consequence of age 65. It's happening globally. You need to open your eyes a little.

Perhaps you're the one that needs to open your eyes. Of course, with as many unemployed pilots running around and the very few employment opportunities available, hiring minimums at the better places of aviation employment are going to increase. For those companies at the top, it's a buyer’s market. It's the reason why minimums are higher at places such as LUV and FedEx. Good luck on trying to find a job there though.

Contrary to your opinion, hiring minimums at the low end of the aviation spectrum have decreased. American Eagle had new hires with as little as four hundred in the recent past. Quite simply, people don't want the job especially at the lower wage scales. Regionals are not the stepping stone they were in the past. Regionals are now the entire career and most people just don't see the economics in spending $100,000 - $120,000 (state universities are now running between $20,000 - $30,000 per year) for a job that starts at $20,000 and ends at $60,000. Again, Age 65 only exacerbates this problem.

Regional flying isn't long haul flying. Further, you're unable to show a connection between regional mishaps and age 65, because there isn't one. You're unable to back up anything you say...you can't even point to an NTSB report that would back you up...because you've been caught once more telling a lie.

Since it usually takes the NTSB at least a couple of years to issue an official report, you and I both know it is way too early in the ball game for any “official” conclusive reports to be made on the impact of Age 65. The rule has only been around for 18 months. What I do know at this early juncture is what I am able to see with my own eyes.

As for flying long haul...I understand what this means very well...having just come from an international widebody job flying long haul. You?

Flying long haul has nothing to do with age 65, of course.

Again, you’re wrong. At the larger carriers, due to the higher pay rates, most of the over age 60 crowd is very senior and is found flying long haul.

If you haven't figured out by now, I do fly long haul and over the years had the opportunity to flying thousands of hours with many individuals approaching their retirements. Let's put it this way, flying through 10 times zones is very hard on an individual's body. It only gets harder as one age. It's hard on my body even at 48.

I also used to fly with the old 2 stripers that flew well into their 60's and 70's. Some were great but some slept for virtually the entire flight. Have you have ever flown with someone over age 60 through 10 time zones and in the middle of the night. I have.

Moreover, if you are true to your views, you should also strongly support no age cap (Age 65 is also age discrimination). You should also support the view that all those that retired under Age 60 should able to return with their seniority intact. Both views, if you’re honest with yourself, would deny countless others their own careers in which they worked so hard to achieve, diminish safety, and destroy this once proud profession. But as we both know by now, you are both mean spirited and intellectually dishonest with those that have a different opinion than you.

Finally, this has developed into a circular argument. You have your views and I have mine. You can keep calling me “liar liar pants on fire” all you want, hide behind your keyboard, and keep presenting your distorted views, but it will never changed the fact the senior guys just pulled a fast one and screwed the junior pilots.


AA767AV8TOR

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Yeah the 25 year old flying B-1's around the world on 16 hour missions sure is scary

Age 65 guys sorry but you knew the game when you entered to complain after the fact and use "threats of inexpereince in the cockpit" does not fly.

Not one guy should be laid off because of this ruling. Congress should have made it clear the day furloughs start time to move on gents

Again,
The military excuse is pulled.....again. That 25 year old in the B-1, is at the end of a selection/training process that wouldn't even allow you to apply. Get over it, those guys have THE RIGHT STUFF, your stuff is a backpack full of hair gel and guitar picks, toss in an iPod and there you go. If you have to get furloughed so I can continue to work and acquire the necessary stuff for a comfortable life, well...too bad. You could always sell your kids into white slavery, they really should not be living in a refrigerator box under the freeway anyway! After I get the 3rd house paid off, I think I want a P-51 for the weekends. Senority is ruff!
PBR

 

[PBRstreetgang]

I got to enjoy flying with one the over sixty crowd. He should have stepped aside at sixty. We flew just over 20 hours on a 4 day trip. He fell asleep every single leg. Of the 20 hours of flying was awake for 12 of them. Flying into EWR we had a 20 knot x-wind. The non revs in the back came up to ask what had happened.

It was like doing IOE with a new hire, but the new hire was your boss.

On the flip side I have also flown with some guys, that are over sixty, that have been great. I have learned a lot from each of them. It always up to the individual.

He was recovering from a long week off with too much booze and too many teenage hookers, cut him some slack, you will get there someday. Until you have had a hotel suite with a full sized bar, a candy bowl full of Viagara, and hot and cold teenage hookers(with giant plastic cans), you really haven't had a good set of days off.
PBR

 

[tomgoodman]

What changed?

Indeed, the greedy pilots didn't make the legislation – although, it was them that pushed hard to change it, for well over 10 years.

It's quite true that efforts to raise the retirement age had been made, without success, for many years. Why did they suddenly succeed? I submit that it was the rash of pension-dumping, not ICAO, which finally lit the fuse. I also submit that, justified or not, this was quite foreseeable.
Note: I realize that your company did not do this, and I was retired well before it happened, but we were both affected by the actions and inactions of others. It is what it is.

 

[saabservant]

Whether we fly left or right seat is a function of management's business plan, and our timing on getting hired, nothing else.
I went from six-year captain to right seat in 2007, due to mgmt. decision to cookup a phony bankruptcy and to replace half the fleet. Earning it had nothing to do with it....

Again, age 65 is a function of PERCEIVED safety by faa, discrimination, and the before-stated ICAO. It is discriminatory to require a fit, healthy, sharp 60-year old to
retire, just for YOUR career progression. Do you hear yourself?
Why don't you just say that women, blacks, whomever, are taking your seat?

this is pointless.....I'm out

Semper Fi

 

[avbug]

Have you have ever flown with someone over age 60 through 10 time zones and in the middle of the night.

Many times, yes. Many times around the globe, yes. And every one of them, I'd go around again. Not a worry.

Also, please tell me why a motivated and capable individual such as you cannot find a job over the Age of 60? Like you said, you were able to find a job. Why can't they?

I can, but then I'm not over 60. Whether they can or they can't is really irrelevant. They don't have to. They already have a job. You want that job. You want what you cannot have.

Yes, I can find a job. Then again, there isn't much I haven't done in aviation thus far. I hold five different FAA certificates, and am as comfortable flying low level in the mountains as flying IFR, as turning wrenches as instructing. Further, I'm current in all those areas...very current. Those coming out of an airline seat who have done nothing else, not so much. Add to that trying to leave an airline and fine work over the age of 60, they have a challenge.

That challenge is irrelevant, however, because they don't have to leave their seat and find work. They're already employed, and thanks to a sensible, lawful increase in the age limit for them, they may continue with that employment until the age of 65. It's a congressional mandate, you see.

Of course, with as many unemployed pilots running around and the very few employment opportunities available, hiring minimums at the better places of aviation employment are going to increase. For those companies at the top, it's a buyer’s market. It's the reason why minimums are higher at places such as LUV and FedEx. Good luck on trying to find a job there though.

This completes at least one of your lies, previously told. Before, you told us that hiring minimums were at an all time low...now you admit they are not. You previously lied to support your invalid point, just as you continue to lie...

Contrary to your opinion, hiring minimums at the low end of the aviation spectrum have decreased. American Eagle had new hires with as little as four hundred in the recent past.

We could give you the benefit of the doubt and make the assumption that you've simply had your head buried in the sand for the past few years...but given your propensity for telling lies this would be wasteful and unnecessary. You know that hiring minimums for regional airlines have been in the region of several hundred hours for the past few years. This was the case prior to the age 65 issues, and thus were not a consequence of the age 65 legislation. That you associate the two, is of course, a lie.

Furthermore, wages have not decreased, and there is no shortage of applicants ready to jump at the chance to enter the regional airlines at those wages. Again, you tell lies.

people just don't see the economics in spending $100,000 - $120,000 (state universities are now running between $20,000 - $30,000 per year) for a job that starts at $20,000 and ends at $60,000.

What one spends on a university degree is irrelevant, as a degree is not required to do this work. It may make one competitive, but it's completely unnecessary at the regional level...and whereas a degree is applicable to far more than simply flying an airplane...one can hardly count the cost of a degree into one's flight training costs. You grossly over-exaggerate the cost of learning to fly, which of it's own accord is another lie. You tell lies, and cannot help yourself.

Your arrogance in assuming that flying for an airline is the be-all and end-all of aviation is astounding, though perhaps not so much given that you are a habitual liar with a strong self-serving arrogant sense of entitlement. Many more pilots are employed in the industry than simply flying for an airline. Corporate salaries go considerably higher than the figures you have cited; either it's another lie, or you're woefully out of touch. Either way, it continues to represent your bankrupt state of credibility, as you either don't know what you're talking about, or simply are lying. Again.

Wages have always been low for those entering the industry. Nothing has changed.

You recently stated that somehow age 65 has caused "the last few regional accidents." You now tell us you can't prove this because the NTSB won't release the reports for several years. I challenged you. I called you out on this, as you've stated several times now that the blood is on my hands and on all others who support increasing the working age for pilots. You are unable to support your claims. You are therefore, a liar.

Don't come on this board and accuse me of having blood on my hands if you can't back it up. You've been exposed. You've lied, and you can't back up your lies. One after another, and when your lies are exposed for the greedy little child you are, all your statements say over and over is "get out of the way, old man. I want your job."

A greedy liar who has been caught in his lies again and again, who has done nothing to earn what he wants but cry and whine, who has no credibility in this conversation whatsoever, you can safely be discounted with anything further you have to offer on the subject.

You are added to my ignore list, as one unworthy of further discussion.

 

[kwick]

Whether we fly left or right seat is a function of management's business plan, and our timing on getting hired, nothing else.
I went from six-year captain to right seat in 2007, due to mgmt. decision to cookup a phony bankruptcy and to replace half the fleet. Earning it had nothing to do with it....

Again, age 65 is a function of PERCEIVED safety by faa, discrimination, and the before-stated ICAO. It is discriminatory to require a fit, healthy, sharp 60-year old to
retire, just for YOUR career progression. Do you hear yourself?
Why don't you just say that women, blacks, whomever, are taking your seat?

this is pointless.....I'm out

Semper Fi

This guy gets it!

 

[pianoman]

Wait...just so I have this straight.... age 60 is discriminatory, but 65 is A-OK? If you guys seriously want to make this argument, get ready for movement to stop because we're going to look like the flight attendants pretty soon.

 

[Flopgut]

Whether we fly left or right seat is a function of management's business plan, and our timing on getting hired, nothing else.
I went from six-year captain to right seat in 2007, due to mgmt. decision to cookup a phony bankruptcy and to replace half the fleet. Earning it had nothing to do with it....

Again, age 65 is a function of PERCEIVED safety by faa, discrimination, and the before-stated ICAO. It is discriminatory to require a fit, healthy, sharp 60-year old to
retire, just for YOUR career progression. Do you hear yourself?
Why don't you just say that women, blacks, whomever, are taking your seat?

this is pointless.....I'm out

Semper Fi

I do not agree with this post. Age, as it relates to the criteria necessary to fly an airplane, is less related to exact discrimination.

But more importantly I don't think this subject is pointless. There ought to be a way to discuss this issue without having the thread dominated by the Avbug, Undaunted Flyer, and Kwick type guys on here. The issue can not even be hinted at without the same emotional defense mechanisms being thrown up by the same pilots. When we air this out we need to include some dialog on how exactly we're going to move forward. Right now, we can't do that. Hyper senstitve guys who want to defend 65 need to back off. It doesn't need to be defended, it's already changed. We need to have some discussion about the effects, whether or not it's going to work, and what adjustments (if any) need to be made.

 

[avbug]

I'm hardly defensive about it. My own perception is that it's really a non-issue, insomuch as it doesn't affect me appreciably. I'm for the legislation, and I'd support extending the age further out than it is now.

What it is that I'm opposed to is the arrogance and the entitlement that some here perpetuate. This includes you.

I gain some measure of enjoyment in battering and smacking down pride and arrogance...and entitlement is certainly in that category. I've nothing to gain or defend in the age 65 legislation. I'm certainly disgusted by those who feel it's their lot to take what's above them in the food chain.

You cry moderation now, and that's good and well...but it's not been your mantra thus far. Are you now prepared to be reasonable?

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

I've been laughing about this sentence for days! Fricking hilarious. You don't know whether to sh!t or go blind, do you? Anybody who wants to read you ranting and check the facts can do so on the "Age 65 Informal Poll" thread.

You could have single handedly lended more credibility to the age 65 campaign than any one person has lifted an issue! All you had to do was come back like you said you would. Even if it would have been for just one training event and only one bid month you would have been a Christ figure to the cause. Instead, you couldn't muster the professionalism to fly as FO for a once junior to you pilot. Even though they would have been a fellow ALPA/UAL pilot it was too much for your ego. You didn't do it. Sad.

Floppy: Didn't you read my post? ALPA and the HR people put the fix in. The result: UAL only wanted inexperienced new pilots, not the guys who had been there over 30 years with perfect records. So you see, I didn't have a chance, I had a perfect record, never failed a check ride and never scratched anything. The fact is that not one over age-60 pilot was hired although several, besides me, applied.

Really, it was the "get out of my seat crowd" that bullied and bargained away our pension and then kicked us into the street to take our seats. Then they have the nerve to call us greedy? Give truth a break.

The truth, AVBUG says it best. He's 100% on target.

 

[Flopgut]

Really, it was the "get out of my seat crowd" that bullied and bargained away our pension and then kicked us into the street to take our seats. Then they have the nerve to call us greedy? Give truth a break.

It's sad you continue to believe this. You have got to get this through your head: every possible morsel of the junior UAL pilots' future was leveraged in an attempt to save your retirement. The best scope clause in history was transformed into a single sentence, and it still didn't work. There were many junior guys who didn't believe it could be saved, but they still let the scope clause be laid down to try. You owe them better than calling them the "get out of my seat crowd".

Regarding a return to UAL: you just didn't want to be the only guy to go back. Ego was too big.

Remember this: You had the luxury of knowing your exact retirement date beforehand. That's a lot better deal than guys like you had for the Frontier guys! So factor that into the equation when you think you're perfect. I won't let you forget that.

 

[semperfido]

Avbug, Right on. Very nice posts. I enjoyed reading them. I hope to be flying across many time zones on the other side of the world in the middle of the night well into my sixties too. If it doesn't happen- C'est La Vie!

 

[Flopgut]

You cry moderation now, and that's good and well...but it's not been your mantra thus far. Are you now prepared to be reasonable?

Like you, I've done a lot of things in aviation. Sixty was always young and I saw many pilots get jobs after airline retirement and they were some of the best. However, to continue past 60 they had to find a new job via an interview and they had to be presentable enough in all criteria to be a candidate. This rule is different. Any pilot who wants to stay, can. Result: The guys who are staying with the airline aren't necessarily the type who would be employable elsewhere. The guys with their sh!t together are still leaving. Airlines' most esteemed positions are starting to look like a circus. Project this out and you'll see that strict seniority is hardly a "food chain". You want a "food chain"? Let's drop seniority and go with rostering and assignments (we could completely drop the age limit then) and see where everybody ends up. The kind of pilot who wanted/supported age 65 did so because they were, in fact, afraid of the "food chain"! They didn't want to find themselves part of it.

Question: Do you believe that as a result of 65 a junior pilot should be removed from a seat position they currently hold in favor of a more senior pilot specifically in cases where there is no real staffing reason that would otherwise occasion it? If a bid at my airline does not include vacancies (a factor of total block hours projected) in a certain seat position no new pilot can bid into that position regardless of seniority. Should established seat position bidding practices prevail or should the new retirement age have been used to rebid an entire airline?

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

It's sad you continue to believe this. You have got to get this through your head: every possible morsel of the junior UAL pilots' future was leveraged in an attempt to save your retirement. The best scope clause in history was transformed into a single sentence, and it still didn't work. There were many junior guys who didn't believe it could be saved, but they still let the scope clause be laid down to try. You owe them better than calling them the "get out of my seat crowd".

Regarding a return to UAL: you just didn't want to be the only guy to go back. Ego was too big.

Remember this: You had the luxury of knowing your exact retirement date beforehand. That's a lot better deal than guys like you had for the Frontier guys! So factor that into the equation when you think you're perfect. I won't let you forget that.

Floppy: What you write about the ALPA/UAL negotiations is only partially true: ALPA did give away scope and pay in Round 1, and then when Round-2 came around that's when ALPA caved in completely and gave the "A" plan retirement money to the PBGC with gift wrappings on the package. In fact, turning the A-Plan to the PBGC and then converting to a defined contribution plan was ALPA's suggestion to UAL and they of course jumped on it. In other words, the younger crowd did the cowardly thing, rather than fight.

So in the end, ALPA gave away scope and pay in Round-1 and then retirement in Round-2 so as to save their own cowardly skins for at least the short term. In the total negotiations, just as I have said, ALPA gave away the senior pilot’s retirement in the 11th hour of their career, just as I have posted earlier.

The final act of the grand plan was to oppose age-65 as best they could so as to kick the senior captains into the street ASAP with next to nothing. This was to raise the pay of the previously mentioned cowards through their own promotions into the vacant seats of those who they were forcing to retire with nothing. Now, the fact is that this is what really happened and you know it.

Of course, in the end, the Congress forced the "get out of my seat" bullies to do the right thing by shoving age-65 down their greedy throats. Enjoy!

And Floopy, didn’t you read my prior post, ALPA and HR fixed it so the age-60 guys couldn’t even come back as new-hires when the law changed, not even to the training center. I guess that was because when you sh!t on someone you really don’t want to see them any more because it reminds you of what a coward you are. That’s the only reason I can think for the action of keeping us out, even as a new-hire.

But I'm not complaining. I'm actually happy to be gone and leading a "normal" life. Maybe you will retire early too, but I don't think so. The "get out of my seat" crowd wants it all, every last second and they don't care at whose expense it is as long as it isn't their own.

BTW: I have no hard feelings toward you or anyone else. I love everyone who has the courage to comment on FI.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

AVBUG: I've really enjoyed reading your comments on this subject. This is your best work ever. Congratulations, you have certainly called the liars what they are! Thank you for this contribution, your objectivity and for your honesty. You have told it like it is.

 

[coogebeachhotel]

Again,
The military excuse is pulled.....again. That 25 year old in the B-1, is at the end of a selection/training process that wouldn't even allow you to apply. Get over it, those guys have THE RIGHT STUFF, your stuff is a backpack full of hair gel and guitar picks, toss in an iPod and there you go. If you have to get furloughed so I can continue to work and acquire the necessary stuff for a comfortable life, well...too bad. You could always sell your kids into white slavery, they really should not be living in a refrigerator box under the freeway anyway! After I get the 3rd house paid off, I think I want a P-51 for the weekends. Senority is ruff!
PBR

Yeah that's why I went F15 A$$hole

 

[Flopgut]

I guess that was because when you sh!t on someone you really don’t want to see them any more because it reminds you of what a coward you are. That’s the only reason I can think for the action of keeping us out, even as a new-hire.

No Sir, that's what you did to the Frontier guys. If you had been half as creative in negotiating with UAL mgt over your A plan as you were at decieving the FAL pilots, you might still have it. Or, why don't you get off your wrinkly butt and try to get it back!? The PBGC is sitting on your money and if you would match the effort you spend in expounding on how "greedy" junior pilots are you might get something done. Guys like you managed to change a 40 year old rule, why don't you try to secure some increase for yourself without diminishing the profession for a change??

ALPA is about to get into the RLA. The more that is uncovered the more reasons we will find to leverage improvement for this profession. In a scenario where we might have been fully covered under the RLA for protection (not just liable to the terms of the RLA) you would not have lost your A plan. This was not the case; airline pilots distanced themselves from upsides the RLA contained in an effort to secure more money for fewer pilots. Case in point, the aforementioned FAL/UAL pilot debacle. Previous to the stunt you pulled, the RLA contained language that provided for seniority intergration in merger scenarios that acted as a backstop to ALPA merger policy. UAL pilots had the full protections reduced to include only pre 1974 DOH because you didn't want to allow any version of merger policy to prevail with FAL. You set the bar for greed quite early in your career and it came back to bite you in the a$$.

So why don't you do something now instead of complain about a bunch of junior pilots who really don't have the capacity to match your level of greed. UAL pilots don't have enough left for you to assail them as greedy "get out of my seaters". Take charge of something or bow out.

 

[Fubijaakr]

avbug,

Again, well said. All I can tell you about bitter, greedy guys like (ex)AA767AV8TOR can be summed up thusly:

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. Its a waste of your time and it irritates the pig."

Obviously an ex-TWA pilot, he's so wrapped up in his bitterness that his perception of reality is totally warped. While I give you kudos for trying, sometimes ignoring the ignorant is more effective.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

No Sir, that's what you did to the Frontier guys. If you had been half as creative in negotiating with UAL mgt over your A plan as you were at decieving the FAL pilots, you might still have it.

Floppy: Excuse me but you must have mistaken me for someone else. I personally or even collectively had nothing to do with the Frontier deal, or the Air Wisconsin screwing either. Those deals were just the usual work of UAL with maybe a little cooperation from ALPA. The membership had nothing to do with that. There was no vote. And besides, you are just trying to change the subject because you know the age-60/65 issue is all lies by you and your colleagues, as AVBUG as so accurately pointed out. My advice, get over this all and just go on to work. Preoccupation with things like this can be dangerous and maybe a medical disqualification factor.

 

[Flopgut]

Floppy: Excuse me but you must have mistaken me for someone else. I personally or even collectively had nothing to do with the Frontier deal, or the Air Wisconsin screwing either. Those deals were just the usual work of UAL with maybe a little cooperation from ALPA. The membership had nothing to do with that. There was no vote. And besides, you are just trying to change the subject because you know the age-60/65 issue is all lies by you and your colleagues, as AVBUG as so accurately pointed out. My advice, get over this all and just go on to work. Preoccupation with things like this can be dangerous and maybe a medical disqualification factor.

I'm preoccupied with nothing more than trying to see benefit for this entire profession. I'm trying to understand why you won't take any initiative and only want to whine. Retirement age criteria needs to be part of the dialog and not just an arguement. It has already changed, it doesn't need to be defended. It needs to be further managed!! I don't know why we all can't agree that raising the retirement age should be a distant second to getting better retirement dollars for all pilots? But it's impossible and I don't think it's the junior guys fault. Let's forget who is junior and who is senior for a moment. The title of this thread is "Age 65 stinks". It does stink! In any scenario there are good, better, and best outcomes. On whatever level age 65 was "good" there is a "better" and a "best" outcome we should aspire to. It would be "better" than age 65 if every pilot had the money to retire at 60. It would be "best" if those who wanted to stay could, those who wanted to retire also could, and retirement age was superfulous [no limit] because every pilot had a secure economic backstop. Let's all unload the emotional part of this and try to see the big picture. There is no reason we can't improve things.

 

[avbug]

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. Its a waste of your time and it irritates the pig."

You're absolutely right, and that's exactly why I finally relegated him to the ignore list. It was fun while it lasted, though.

Yeah that's why I went F15 A$$hole

I don't care who you are. That's funny.

I suspect you're being modest. You took an opportunity to do what many dream of doing, but I suspect you did it for reasons larger than yourself. No doubt the opportunity of a lifetime, service to country and self-sacrifice are their own reward. You realize you're responded to a mental midget with an intellect nor much longer than a severed earthworm, and not nearly as interesting? You don't have to justify yourself...even if it is worth a laugh.

Question: Do you believe that as a result of 65 a junior pilot should be removed from a seat position they currently hold in favor of a more senior pilot specifically in cases where there is no real staffing reason that would otherwise occasion it? If a bid at my airline does not include vacancies (a factor of total block hours projected) in a certain seat position no new pilot can bid into that position regardless of seniority. Should established seat position bidding practices prevail or should the new retirement age have been used to rebid an entire airline?

You complicate things so much. Everybody bids. Senior pilots have first pick. Nothing changes. Problem solved.

 

[Freight Dog]

I was bitterly fighting this Age 65 garbage as well. I still think the ruling is wrong. However, one thing I agree with the pro-65 crowd is that it's time to move on.

I personally think that the seniority system is the root of all evils. It devalues our profession by marrying you to your airline and not allowing you to sell your services/experience to the highest bidder.

I keep hearing national SENIORITY list arguments... but frankly, I think that 'seniority' shouldn't be used for anything other than non-rev boarding priorities, amount of vacation available, and retention bonuses (imagine THAT concept!).

I'm so glad to be out of 121........

 

[Fubijaakr]

I was bitterly fighting this Age 65 garbage as well. I still think the ruling is wrong. However, one thing I agree with the pro-65 crowd is that it's time to move on.

Amen, bro.

I personally think that the seniority system is the root of all evils. It devalues our profession by marrying you to your airline and not allowing you to sell your services/experience to the highest bidder.

Here's where you lost me. I think you need to review "Flying the Line." Granted, there's a lot of ALPA propaganda in there, but the bottom line is NON-SENIORITY based systems are riddled with corruption.

Who gets the best line? Who gets upgraded? The brownnosers. And if you do things like (gasp!) write up maintenance gripes at non-maintenance bases, you stand a good chance of getting the redeye turns to Fairbanks.

...but frankly, I think that 'seniority' shouldn't be used for anything other than non-rev boarding priorities, amount of vacation available, and retention bonuses (imagine THAT concept!).

Yeah, until the day they put rotating seniority into place at your Company and you find yourself standing every 4th month on Reserve even though you have 25 years seniority.

I'm so glad to be out of 121........

Me too.

 

[Freight Dog]

Amen, bro.



Here's where you lost me. I think you need to review "Flying the Line." Granted, there's a lot of ALPA propaganda in there, but the bottom line is NON-SENIORITY based systems are riddled with corruption.

As opposed to current system? AAA vs. AWA, TWA vs. AA, Pro-65 vs. Pro-60, 15,000 hour captains having to sit right seat to 3000 hour pilots while making $20,000/year AGAIN?! Shotgun married to places like UAL where incompetent management is ruining that once-proud airline, and you as a line pilot have no choice but to watch it happen and hope to God it doesn't fail because you have no ability to truly vote with your feet? I don't know about you, but I like it when the choice to lowball or not to lowball rests squarely on my shoulders as opposed to being forced to lowball by ALPA/seniority system.

Who gets the best line? Who gets upgraded? The brownnosers. And if you do things like (gasp!) write up maintenance gripes at non-maintenance bases, you stand a good chance of getting the redeye turns to Fairbanks.

Ah, the beautiful ability to be able to vote with your feet without having to worry about entry-level wages again. Best lines? Upgrades? Brown nosers? Well... let me put it this way - how about those who don't abuse the system, those who do their jobs right, those who are competent and qualified? How about best customer service? How about peer recommendations? How about off the street if that's the best candidate and there's a need? You know, you'd be surprised with the all-around improvements you'd see in this profession if we actually started rewarding excellence vs. strict date-of-hire. As it stands right now, you can be a total f**k-up and still get upgraded simply due to date-of-hire. You can call it brown nosing if you want... personally, I think it's more along the lines of taking pride in what you do, treating your passengers and coworkers right, and looking out for your company's best interest. Again, if the company doesn't look after you, it's nice having the ability to leave without having to start all over again making the bottom dollar. Conversely... if another company could lure you into going there by offering you more money and better working conditions, would you not be tempted? As it stands right now, that concept is foreign to airline pilots.

Secondly, I don't see Fairbanks experiencing any explosive growth... Personally, I wouldn't mind it because they have some outstanding fish and chips there.

Yeah, until the day they put rotating seniority into place at your Company and you find yourself standing every 4th month on Reserve even though you have 25 years seniority.

I already do rotations at my job. Besides... who cares if I spent every 4th month on reserve? I presume you're talking about Emirates system. Frankly, I like it - everyone gets a shot at a nice schedule and gets to enjoy the quality of life without pitting one group against the other. You know... senior vs. junior; old vs. young; long-haul vs. short-haul... etc.

I don't have all the answers... but any system that pays without any regard to experience is flawed.

Just a thought...

 

[Hamburger]

They waited their turns, a full career, to presently reach age 60...and now will be entitled to complete their careers at age 65.

You have that same opportunity. Let's be honest. You're greedy. Others have had, and continue to have their opportunity, and you'll receive nothing less.

You obviously don't grasp simple math.
Two 30 year old pilots are in the same new hire class. 10 years go by and it's their turn to upgrade. Pilot A had a September class, Pilot B had a October class. Pilot A goes to class and upgrades at 40 years old. Pilot B had his class canceled because Age 65 passed. He must now wait until he's 45 to upgrade. Both pilots were hired on the same day, but because of Age 65, Pilot A spends 10 years as an FO and 25 as a Captain while pilot B spends 15 years as an FO and 20 as a Captain. Let's be honest. Pilot B receives MUCH LESS.

You simply want what's not yours, and that, mate, is nothing more than avarice and greed.

:laugh: What a joke. THE EXACT SAME OPPORTUNITY is greedy? Changing the rules so that you can sit at the top of the payscale for an extra five years that I have to sit on the bottom isn't?

Those who are enjoying the benefits of no forced retirement until age 65 had no opportunity given them by others surrendering their jobs.

You've already proven you can't do simple math, but I find it hard to believe anyone could be stupid enough to actually believe this.

It's not your turn yet. You'll just have to wait.

Unfortunately, this is true. The difference being that the current Captains had to wait for the guys before them to retire, We'll have to wait for them to die.

 

[BigMotorToter]

Its the law. Get over it.

When age 60 was the law, how come you and all the rest of the change age 60 pilots didn't just "get over it", and retire like everyone else did before you?

You didn't like it then, and we don't like it now.

You had the right to bitch and complain about it then and so do we now.

You got it changed, good for you, but I'll be damned if I'm going to shut up so you can feel comfortable on your trips.

It is the law, and in reality there is probably very little those of us severely affected by this ruling ( I'm currently furloughed) can do about this except remind pilots who are feeding from the 60+ trough what their actions have done, and maybe, just maybe, create a little shame that they will carry until they do retire.

 

[eaglesview]

When age 60 was the law, how come you and all the rest of the change age 60 pilots didn't just "get over it", and retire like everyone else did before you?

You didn't like it then, and we don't like it now.

You had the right to bitch and complain about it then and so do we now.

You got it changed, good for you, but I'll be damned if I'm going to shut up so you can feel comfortable on your trips.

It is the law, and in reality there is probably very little those of us severely affected by this ruling ( I'm currently furloughed) can do about this except remind pilots who are feeding from the 60+ trough what their actions have done, and maybe, just maybe, create a little shame that they will carry until they do retire.

Well then be like the age 65r's and bitch and moan to the govermant and get it changed back. If they could do it surely you can too.

 

[avbug]

Two 30 year old pilots are in the same new hire class. 10 years go by and it's their turn to upgrade. Pilot A had a September class, Pilot B had a October class. Pilot A goes to class and upgrades at 40 years old. Pilot B had his class canceled because Age 65 passed. He must now wait until he's 45 to upgrade. Both pilots were hired on the same day, but because of Age 65, Pilot A spends 10 years as an FO and 25 as a Captain while pilot B spends 15 years as an FO and 20 as a Captain. Let's be honest. Pilot B receives MUCH LESS.

Oh, I do math just fine.

Pilot B is not ENTITLED to anything. Nobody said life is fair.

In a worldwide economic recession, you have the gall and the arrogance to presume that a furlough has occurred because of the age 65 legislation. Newsflash, brightspark: we're got a little more going for us in this economy than simply people retiring a few years later. Companies are parking fleets, going bankrupt, and cutting back not because a few pilots are working past age 65, but because the economy is in the toilet, world wide. Welcome to reality. You've missed a lot since you've been gone.

What a joke. THE EXACT SAME OPPORTUNITY is greedy? Changing the rules so that you can sit at the top of the payscale for an extra five years that I have to sit on the bottom isn't?

Ah, the entitlement argument. You feel you're entitled to something. Again, newsflash brightspark: you're entitled to nothing.

You find it unfair that you may get furloughed while those who are more senior to you don't get furloughed? Are you at all familiar with the concept of seniority?

Is this your first furlough? Can you really be that naive?

Perhaps one day you'll be senior enough to keep your seat while others beneath you are furloughed. Of course you'll do the right thing and resign your seniority in order to bring one of the junior pilots back off the street. Right?

Didn't think so.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You're the gander.

You've already proven you can't do simple math, but I find it hard to believe anyone could be stupid enough to actually believe this.

Quite the contrary. My math is excellent. Then again, I don't think the world owes me a living, and when furloughed, I get up, find another job, and go right back to work.

You want pilots who are 60 to 65 to surrender their jobs in order that you might have it. You're nothing more than another child whining "moving out of my way, old man. I want your job." Again, in case you missed it the first dozen or two times...you can't have it. You're not entitled, you don't own the seniority, you haven't put in the time or years, it's not yours. The beauty of it is that you can cry and whine all you like, and it won't change a thing. All you'll accomplish is making yourself look more bitter and foolish...no small accomplishment in it's own right.

Pilots in the 60 to 65 age bracket didn't get there because others above them simply surrendered their careers in order to let them get ahead. Neither should the senior pilot sacrifice the final years of his or her career for you. Perhaps when you're 60 you'll turn in your wings in order to give those beneath you a shot at your seat. You're that type of person, aren't you? After all, you want those more senior than you to do it for you?

What about it? Are you going to sacrifice your career when you turn 60 in order to let those below you have your job? No? What a hypocrite you are. This is not surprising.

...in reality there is probably very little those of us severely affected by this ruling ( I'm currently furloughed) can do about this except remind pilots who are feeding from the 60+ trough what their actions have done, and maybe, just maybe, create a little shame that they will carry until they do retire.

Good luck with that. Asking those who are legally gainfully employed in a position their seniority allows them to hold, to be ashamed for doing their job? Not going to happen.

When you're back on the line and others beneath you are furloughed, are you going to be ashamed for working while others are furloughed? Again, didn't think so. You rightfully speak as a hypocrite, and you speak the language well. So sad the language doesn't speak well of you.

 

[Hamburger]

Pilots in the 60 to 65 age bracket didn't get there because others above them simply surrendered their careers in order to let them get ahead.

Really?
You really think this? Do you even know what the topic is?
You are actually so dense that you don't realize that all those guys had Captains that preceded them that surrendered their seats at 60? You really don't think that let them get ahead?
Really? You're that stupid?

Everyone understands that life isn't fair. Economy goes bad, airline goes bad, things happen. In this case, we got screwed by the 65 crowd. That's life.
What I will not abide is folks like yourself telling me that I haven't been screwed. I will certainly not sit by and allow you to pretend that you didn't screw us. I understand that life isn't fair and I've got to deal with it. You need to understand that the 65er's pulled a shameful screwjob on the rest of us and you're going to have to deal with the shame that comes with it.

BTW, I'm not the furloughed guy. Your reading comprehension is right up there with your math skills, I see.