Age 65 Stinks

[The Prussian]

Make no mistake about – Age 60 was a giant step backwards for the profession. Lot's of pilots got screwed.


AA767AV8TOR

Great closing statement!!! Just thought I'd correct a little typo error for you. Have a wonderful Memorial Day. Time for beer and brats....

 

[Flopgut]

Did you just say "dude?" Are you really fourteen years old, or simply attempting to sound like a teenager?

If you're just getting warmed up, I think we're safely done here. "Flopgut" has been little more than one big flop, thus far.

So far as unanswered questions, don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension. All have been addressed. That you're unable to fathom this at even the most basic level is little surprise, given your diatribes here. You've shown considerable inability to reason on even a minimal level...let alone a professional or intellectual one, "dude."

You failed to answer whether or not, in a scenario where there is no hiring, no retiring, no growth and no shrinking, should a junior pilot be removed from the seat they occupy so a senior pilot can have it? Should a vacancy be created just so the older pilot can take it? Should we depart the prevailing bidding methodology that does not allow this because age is a factor?

Additionally, help me understand what I'm not reasoning with? I'm trying to grasp the pro 65 perspective but it just gets worse for me the more I try. For instance, when you really start to peel back the layers on a guy like Undaunted you realize that on two major, defining instances in his career (65 and FAL) he has sided with scabs in favor of legitimate pilots when it suited his own needs. He and Prater are both strikers, but both have shown more regard for the career progression and right to work of scabs than they do the average pilot when it comes to their own selfish needs (65 punitively ignores a legit pilot). Entitlement runs so deep with these two that they refuse to acknowledge changing a 40 year old rule was an extraordinary act. They will put anything on the table to get what they want, but won't put themselves out in any similiar fashion for another pilot. And they won't go to bat on the tough issues. They're bootlickers.

 

[The Prussian]

.....

 

[Jet41]

Thanks ALPA!

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

For instance, when you really start to peel back the layers on a guy like Undaunted you realize that on two major, defining instances in his career (65 and FAL) he has sided with scabs in favor of legitimate pilots when it suited his own needs. He and Prater are both strikers, but both have shown more regard for the career progression and right to work of scabs than they do the average pilot when it comes to their own selfish needs (65 punitively ignores a legit pilot). Entitlement runs so deep with these two that they refuse to acknowledge changing a 40 year old rule was an extraordinary act. They will put anything on the table to get what they want, but won't put themselves out in any similiar fashion for another pilot. And they won't go to bat on the tough issues. They're bootlickers.

Floppy: I told you before in my posts that everything you have stated above (about me) is total BS. This is all just something you have fabricated in your mind and it has no basis in fact.

FAL: I have told you that I had nothing at all to do with this (FAL) issue, or with Air Wisconsin or ACA. Those were all UAL/ALPA screwings, or maybe I should just say "business as usual" for that group.

The age 60/65 issue: This has nothing to do with scabs and you know it. In fact, the age-60 rule was something that ALPA was against since the rules inception in 1958 and up until the S/O's got into the union (25-years later) to tilt the seniority towards junior, whereupon the "get out of my seat" group took over the issue in favor of improving retirement and kicking the senior pilots out. Later, however, when the retirement money went away following 9-11, the "get out of my seat" crowd didn't change or care, and still wanted to take the seat, whether or not there was a retirement pension at all. Floppy, you and you buddies just wanted to take the real captain’s seat, and whether it was at someone else's expense or not, that makes no difference to your group. You felt entitled. Screw the senior guy who had earned his position, take his seat and throw him in the street. In truth, that was, and still is, the attitude of you and many of your “get out of my seat” colleagues.

So Floppy, what's your problem? You know these are the facts yet you want to call everyone, even your own union President a scab or worse. Prater, like me, has certainly paid his dues in the picket line, and he chose to take a position that is obviously best for everyone in the long-run. It is obvious that the longer a person can work, the better off they are if they have that option. Otherwise, looking in the other direction, how about mandatory retirement at 40? I’m sure you would be against that. So how is age 60 any different than age 40. My point is that the longer a potential career the better. Yes, there is a price being paid by some of the junior pilots now, but those same pilots will benefit when they have the opportunity to work at their profession 5-years longer than anyone else has had the opportunity to do since 1958.

Floppy, you should thank the Almighty for people like Prater and the many others that have helped the thousands of pilots who are now able to earn a living in their profession for 5 more years.

ALPA: I was always a card carrying ALPA member with a set of "Battle star" ALPA wings. When it came down to it, like any good union member, I put my job on the line for the junior pilots to maintain the traditional pay scales we had all worked so hard to establish. In the end, tragically, our bargaining achievements were torn to shreds by 19 religious fanatics combined with fare wars on the internet. It was a perfect storm and now we need to rebuild for everyone in the long term. And the long term means trying to extend the earning years to as many as possible for everyone.

Floppy: Do you think you’ve got it now?

 

[avbug]

You failed to answer whether or not, in a scenario where there is no hiring, no retiring, no growth and no shrinking, should a junior pilot be removed from the seat they occupy so a senior pilot can have it? Should a vacancy be created just so the older pilot can take it? Should we depart the prevailing bidding methodology that does not allow this because age is a factor?

Again with the lies. Not only did I address this topic, but have done so over numerous pages and posts. It's been fully addressed. It's your comprehension which lacks. You don't fail to comprehend it's been addressed, of course. You simply lie again in order to press a dead argument.

Nothing should be changed from it's current methodology.

Currently there is retiring. You state otherwise, and therfore lie. Currently there is hiring, albeit limited, due to numerous furloughs (which have nothing to do with age 65 legislation, and this you know). You lie again. Should a junior be removed from his or her seat in order for a senior to have it? The question itself is a lie, as it's not happening.

You suggest that someone is being displaced in order for a senior pilot to have that seat. Not at all so.

The senior pilot always had the seat. No entitlement issues...the senior pilot earned, and has first rights to the seat. This isn't a pilot who's a new hire displacing anyone. This is a pilot who is the last to be furoughed, the first to get pick of lines and days off, and the first choice to bid a schedule...because he or she is senior.

When furloughs come around, junior pilots go first. This is common sense, proper, and the way it's always been done.

Should a junior pilot be displaced by a senior pilot? If it's an issue of furloughs, of course. I've certainly been displaced by those more senior to me. I wouldn't dare question their right to do so, or the companies right to do so, or even the companies responsbility to do so. It's the duty of the company to furlough in reverse order of seniority. I'm not working for my employer presently...because others more deserving, who had earned the right to be there, made the cutoff and I didn't. I'm two from recall...but that's neither here nor there.

My furlough had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with age 65 legislation. It had to do with the world economy tanking and going in the toilet, from our regular loads out of many destinations shrinking to a tenth of the previous traffic, with over 500 mechanics being axed first (who had nothing to do with age 65 legislation either), and finally approximately half the aircrews. I was on the bottom half. Go figure.

I could cry bloody murder because our furloughs were acutally out of seniority . The company exercised a right to do so based on a contract clause due to training requirments, new equipment, and other factors. However, would my griping about it have any effect? None. Nada. Zero. Zilch. I won't waste my time.

What had no bearing on the actions of the company, the union, or my ability to go fly the line, was the age 65 legislation. Certainly we have captains presently who are between age 60 and 65...but this is unimportant. Those pilots are in place because they ought to be there. They've a legal right to be there. They have the seniority to be there. Quite frankly, as a long-haul international pilot who has spent time whith many of them in the cockpit over extended durations into most places on earth (including frequent trips into combat zones)...I fully support their being there and am glad they're a part of the team.

No vacancies are being created for older pilots. The vacancies are already filled by the older pilots...they've been there all along. They'll just be there a little longer; an opportunity I applaud.

Your assertion that vacancies must be created for the age 60-65 group is a lie. These are pilots who already hold the position, and by the current methedology, it should be the most secure position on the line. Period. It's no hardship or vacancy that's especially created...it's the oldest and most establish position in the seniority list. It's just held a little bit longer by those who are permitted to do so under the law.

You don't like the law? Change it.

Entitlement runs so deep with these two that they refuse to acknowledge changing a 40 year old rule was an extraordinary act. They will put anything on the table to get what they want, but won't put themselves out in any similiar fashion for another pilot. And they won't go to bat on the tough issues. They're bootlickers.

You are quite the hypocritical little flopgutted windbag, aren't you? Have you sacrificed your career for those junior to you? You want those senior to you to do it. Are you willing to lead the charge and surrender your carreer, walk away, and retire to day in order to give some kid below you a chance? No? You are a lying hypocrite, and deserve no more attention in this matter. Practice what you preach, or face the firing squad of credibility. Your credibility is thoroughly shot. You want from others what you're not willing to give yourself. What's that you called yourself again? A bootlicker? You were being generous.

Additionally, help me understand what I'm not reasoning with? I'm trying to grasp the pro 65 perspective but it just gets worse for me the more I try.

There is no helping you understand. This would be a complete waste of time.

Certainly it gets worse the more you try, and more embarassing, too. You should quit while you're far behind, as you're correct that it only gets worse for you the more you try. This may be the only correct thing you've said so far...unfortunately for you, it does nothing to help your case, and only embarrasses you further.

 

[Flopgut]

Avbug: I'm guessing you are Canadian? French Canadian (ESL). Is that correct? Not a big deal, just might explain why your posts are so long.

We have two different things playing out from the same rule change. I believe vacancies are perhaps being exaggerated on recent bids at my airline (CAL), I wasn't trying to comment on yours. Although I'm sorry to hear you are furloughed out of seniority. It is necessary to carefully monitor my airline as they are really not interested in following the letter of the rule change, let alone the spirit. Case in point: My airline allowed 14 instructors who were not on the line and were not required crew members to come back to the line after the rule change. Additionally, my airline recently allowed a mgt pilot who had not flown in years to operate a widebody flight days before his 65th birthday after having improperly removing the regular flight deck crew from the trip. CALALPA has successfully dealt with the single widebody trip instance and is still fighting the instructor issue. Do you see why they can't given the benefit of the doubt on vacancies? Or anything for that matter? I know 65 is unlikely to change back. There is still a lot of interpretation being done with the new rule and I don't think it's a waste of time to monitor the situation. As I've said before, we ought to be able to bring up retirement age related issues without guys like you insisting even a SINGLE comment is a: lie, greed, unprofessional, unearned, entitlement, etc. I'm acquainted with Prater and have a somewhat regular dialog with him. You might know him better, but I doubt it. It is not wrong to question his leadership, loyalties, motives and what he feels is sacred about seniority and retirement. 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.

 

[avbug]

Avbug: I'm guessing...

I'm not a big fan of speculation or guesswork, or assumptions for that matter. You guess wrong. I'm a US Citizen, flying for a US carrier.

I'm acquainted with Prater and have a somewhat regular dialog with him. You might know him better, but I doubt it.

I do not know Prater, and it's entirely irrelevant to the conversation, as is Prater himself.

My airline allowed 14 instructors who were not on the line and were not required crew members to come back to the line after the rule change. Additionally, my airline recently allowed a mgt pilot who had not flown in years to operate a widebody flight days before his 65th birthday after having improperly removing the regular flight deck crew from the trip. CALALPA has successfully dealt with the single widebody trip instance and is still fighting the instructor issue. Do you see why they can't given the benefit of the doubt on vacancies? Or anything for that matter?

This is an issue above and beyond the age 65 legislation. It delves into issues between the union, the pilot body, and the company. Where difficulties occur in this case, this cannot be blamed upon the age 65 legislation, but on the company and the union. Further, such cases are very minute, particularly when comparing the pilot body as counted on the seniority list, vs. the few pilots who have joined the line.

My sole consideration in this conversation is pilots who are flying the line, and are allowed to remain on the line. For pilots who are not on the line but enter into a line after the age 60 changes, one needs to take that up with the union and with the company. Where a company does elect to make changes to the pilot body by introducing those who were not part of the line seniority, then this goes beyond the scope of this discussion. It should be handled as a separate discussion, furthermore, as the numbers are small, and the unique nature will vary with each company.

At my own operation, I'm not aware of any who were acting as sim instructors or out of the line who came back to the line as a result of the age change in legislation. I do know of a certain few who had moved to the flight engineer seat, who moved back, and many others who elected to remain in the FE seat...and some who were in management or instructor positions who did not leave those positions. The situation you describe did not exist within our own operation, and therefore posed no issues.

In the few rare cases where pilots who were not flying the line elected to enter the line seniority system as a result of opportunities found in the age 65 legislation, one might as well face the fact that pilots who were under age 60 could just as easily have done the same thing before the legislation was changed...no difference at all. Therefore, the issue isn't at all with the age 65 legislation, but a topic to be addressed between management, the pilot body, and the union.

 

[Flopgut]

Well OK, now we're getting somewhere.

I agree with you in principle that 65 is a larger issue and that I'm talking about specifics. And that Prater would be irrelevant, except that he wrote the rule. He made it happen when, and in the exact manner, he chose.

 

[fullsail]

You felt entitled. Screw the senior guy who had earned his position, take his seat and throw him in the street. In truth, that was, and still is, the attitude of you and many of your “get out of my seat” colleagues.

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?

 

[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.