ALPA age 60 survey results

[Neubyfly]

Executive Board Receives Age 60 Report
​

May 24, 2005
​

The May 2005 Executive Board meeting convened this morning, and the first agenda item following the national officers' presentations was the report on the results of the Age 60 Rule education campaign and poll. The polling was conducted in conjunction with the Wilson Center for Public Research who helped to develop the survey questions and analyze the results.

The Age 60 web survey opened on April 4, 2005 and was available online through April 29, 2005. All U.S. and Canadian members in good standing were eligible to participate in the survey.

Overall, nearly 38% of eligible members participated in the web survey. In addition to the web survey, traditional telephone polling augmented the web survey to ensure an accurate demographic representation of the membership.

Taken together, the telephone poll data and the two sets of demographically stratified web survey data provide extremely accurate results, with a raw sample margin of error of less than 1% and less than 0.5% with sample stratification.

The results from all data sets were very similar. In response to the question, "Do you favor changing the FAA Age 60 Rule," in the phone poll, 39% said yes to a change, 54% answered no to changing the rule.

For the largest demographically stratified cross-section of 6,559 records from the web survey, 42% said yes to a change, and 56% said no to changing the rule.

For the second cross-section of 1,045 stratified and coded responses, 41% said yes and 56% said no. And for the entire unadjusted set of 19,012 web responses 44% said yes and 55% said no.

Phil Comstock, president of the Wilson Center for Public Research, presented a thorough report to the Board that is now available to ALPA members on the members' only Age 60 section of the ALPA website.

 

[othello]

Who is making up this 40% crowd that want to work past 60? Please just turn in your wings and retire. You have had your turn step aside.

 

[N1kawotg]

Had their turn at what? A bad economy, bad management, and bad luck. That's like saying I hope a company folds because its our turn now. Just because you probably were told getting into this industry that every vietnam vet was going to retire between 2003-2007, doesn't mean its your turn. Everyone is different on reason, excuses, etc for wanting to change it or keeping it. Its greed both ways in some aspects. However, some now have no choice with pension being slashed from 14K to as low as $800. Hope when you turn sixty everything in the universe aligns. When the rule changes and you don't won't to work past 60, don't-- I'm sure someone junior to you with you attitude will send a nice christmas present to you. The same present that you will send an age sixty pilot this year, right? Just to make a point- I'm 34. IMHO it should not be required to retire if you pass checks and physicals. There are just as many 40 year old who can't fly.

 

[~~~^~~~]

.... some now have no choice with pension being slashed from 14K to as low as $800. Hope when you turn sixty everything in the universe aligns.

I think it is unfortunate that Pilots are losing the retirements they were promised. You know though, they could have saved, like all of us at the "regional" airlines are forced to do.

ALPA promoted the age 60 rule and now is trying to make a course reversal. But, all the indoctrination is going to be hard to change.

But ALPA has been on the wrong side of so many battles lately that they are losing relevance. ALPA has alienated so many people, from its members at the regional level to members of Congress, that the union is probably just an observer in this age 60 fight.

 

[N1kawotg]

You know though, they could have saved, like all of us at the "regional" airlines are forced to do.


I agree about saving on your own. But when these older pilots had started, would you have saved a dime knowing you had a guaranteed defined benefit pension. Its easy now and look back and say yes, but back then even 401k's weren't talked about. That's what makes it even more disgusting that they could underfund then have the court take it away. Its like social security--people didn't save cause Uncle Sam promised xxx a month for retirement. I dare the gov't to reduce ss and give it to the PGBC. Every 65+ year old would book a flight out of Vegas straight to DC

 

[Ninerfan]

ALPA Response

What will be interesting will be ALPA's response to the poll and how it affects their lobbying in Congress. I had the feeling they thought it would go the other way.

 

[BoilerUP]

Say for example you are 60 years old, and have been with Delta/United/Northwest for 30 years. You upgraded to CA at year 10. For basically 20 years, you will have grossed well over 100K (and in many cases 200K+) when adjusted for inflation. Please explain why the peanut gallery should feel sorry for you. Better yet, explain why the general public should feel sorry for you. After all, most Joe Whitecollars out there don't have a pension with their name on it anywhere.

I hate the fact pensions are being taken away, and people are not going to recieve what they expected to get, what they were promised to get. However, just because you make 200K doesn't mean you have to live a 200K lifestyle. I don't want my upgrade to be delayed because some old pilot didn't plan a financially independent retirement, or because he has to pay off his condo/beach house/3 ex-wives/mistress/boat/Mercedes/etc. Yes, thats greedy - but certainly no worse than changing the rules you knew going in mid-stream because they would better suit you. Its the ultimate case of the senior selling out the junior!


...and anybody who isn't saving for retirement because of the *promise* of Social Security is a fool.

 

[seefive]

my company has a defined benefit plan that is great. Nevertheless, I max out my 401K and then some. Not because my defined benefit won't be there (it better be), but because you're an idiot not to. I also have a B plan that will undoubtedly go away if age 60 is changed. The government would force it.

I understand why the older guys want to stay past 60. Because of their personal situation.....financial or otherwise. I'm the same way. Fortunately ALPA will be forced to agree because of the majority. Will this mean age 60 won't change? Of course not. I'm sure the Congressional masses will stick their nose in soon.

 

[N1kawotg]

and anybody who isn't saving for retirement because of the *promise* of Social Security is a fool.


Once again, tell our parents and grandparents they were fools since social security was a promise. Pensions work the same way-- future employees pay the "taxes" of the retired. It wasn't necessary to save. But, I'll agree if someone now isn't planning, then it is there own fault. These guys retiring now don't have that luxury unless the age 60 is gone. Congress is seeing that. Besides do you have a mortage or bills based on a "promised" salary increase to Capt? Your time will come but why at someone else expense.


This is a worthless debate because everyone thinks about a monetary reason. Greed cause the older dude had his, greed cause the younger guy wants his. Never will change..

Age discrimination is how it will play out if it is changed, not by whining about pensions or lack of upgrade.


To change subjects: I had to change avatars- please bid farewell to Catherine Bell in a stringed bra

 

[MVSW]

Had their turn at what? A bad economy, bad management, and bad luck. That's like saying I hope a company folds because its our turn now. Just because you probably were told getting into this industry that every vietnam vet was going to retire between 2003-2007, doesn't mean its your turn. Everyone is different on reason, excuses, etc for wanting to change it or keeping it. Its greed both ways in some aspects. However, some now have no choice with pension being slashed from 14K to as low as $800. Hope when you turn sixty everything in the universe aligns. When the rule changes and you don't won't to work past 60, don't-- I'm sure someone junior to you with you attitude will send a nice christmas present to you. The same present that you will send an age sixty pilot this year, right? Just to make a point- I'm 34. IMHO it should not be required to retire if you pass checks and physicals. There are just as many 40 year old who can't fly.

They might be able to pass a checkride but, what are their chances of having health problems? And yes I know thats why we have F/O's. And not everyone is going to have a GREAT aviation career. Thats just LIFE!!! And the guys that were making over 150K...please...don't tell me that you dont have any $$$. I think that if you make over 100K you are in the top 2% in the US. I think that the age 60 deal is good, it keeps a fresh flow of pilots.

 

[N1kawotg]

Health problems occur at all ages. 30-40 age has more heart attacks then any age group now. We were brought up on Mcdonalds and Dominoe's. "Fresh flow of pilots" isn't a valid reason to keep age 60 if I were the courts. Hard stats about decreasing agility, cognitive skills, etc would be. But how do you prove that for ever moron there's a 59 1/2 that in great shape. 60 is not old anymore.

Both sides to this issue has valid points, so what's fair? Keep an outdated rule to please a few that will be getting old or change it now and let all enjoy a longer career if wanted.

I just have a hard time believing the rule will stay if people want to argue , its my time, should have saved, or they knew this rule when they signed up. THE RULES OF THE INDUSTRY ARE CHANGING WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT. So why not change one that we can all benefit from. Maybe not now if upgrades are hinder. But, you will make more as a capt later---IF I repeat IF you want to--by choice.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Overall, nearly 38% of eligible members participated in the web survey.

Cute.

We are all winners. All 62% of us, I mean 38%.

 

[MVSW]

Health problems occur at all ages. 30-40 age has more heart attacks then any age group now. We were brought up on Mcdonalds and Dominoe's. "Fresh flow of pilots" isn't a valid reason to keep age 60 if I were the courts. Hard stats about decreasing agility, cognitive skills, etc would be. But how do you prove that for ever moron there's a 59 1/2 that in great shape. 60 is not old anymore.

Both sides to this issue has valid points, so what's fair? Keep an outdated rule to please a few that will be getting old or change it now and let all enjoy a longer career if wanted.

I just have a hard time believing the rule will stay if people want to argue , its my time, should have saved, or they knew this rule when they signed up. THE RULES OF THE INDUSTRY ARE CHANGING WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT. So why not change one that we can all benefit from. Maybe not now if upgrades are hinder. But, you will make more as a capt later---IF I repeat IF you want to--by choice.

So your saying that if I was 90 years old and could still pass a checkride that I should be PIC of a jet with 500 PAX?? (LOL) With saying that, there has to be some age... weather its 60, 62,65... There is NO way we can let pilots fly until they fail a med.

 

[typhoonpilot]

I think it is unfortunate that Pilots are losing the retirements they were promised. You know though, they could have saved, like all of us at the "regional" airlines are forced to do.

Fins, that is a pretty stupid thing to say. I'm a little disappointed, you normally have more logical things to say. Think about it for a few seconds. A pilot who is age 60 today, or even age 55 didn't have the media hype and knowledge of today's entrant into the work force. A pilot starting his career at an airline in the early 70s probably didn't know about 401Ks ( did they even exist ? ), IRAs ( did they even exist ? ), or how to invest in stocks and mutual funds. I know that my fairly well educated parents didn't have a clue about retirement planning when they entered the work force in the 50s and 60s. What they did have a knowledge of though was that most companies provided a pension plan, and that if they stayed with that company for their entire career that they would have a little something to retire on.

TP

 

[Marquis de Saab]

"Had their turn at what?"


They had their turn at benefitting from the Age 60 rule for their entire career. We didn't hear much from the current AARP crowd when they were FO's in their early thirties. Now that they qualify for the discount dinner at Golden Corral they are suddenly struck by the injustice of it all.

See you at the salad bar at four o'clock sharp, Cap'n!

 

[seefive]

I'll bite N1.

30 to 40 year olds do not have the highest rate of heart attacks.
(what an assinine statement)

your parents and grandparents were fools if they didn't save.

SS isn't a retirement plan. never was. it was a social plan to help people through the difficult times in this country and was continued as a security net.............not a retirement plan. wake up!

 

[typhoonpilot]

[your parents and grandparents were fools if they didn't save.
/QUOTE]

Be really careful about calling people's parents or grandparents fools. Public message boards are nice, but would you say that to my face in an actual debate ?

TP

 

[MVSW]

Fins, that is a pretty stupid thing to say. I'm a little disappointed, you normally have more logical things to say. Think about it for a few seconds. A pilot who is age 60 today, or even age 55 didn't have the media hype and knowledge of today's entrant into the work force. A pilot starting his career at an airline in the early 70s probably didn't know about 401Ks ( did they even exist ? ), IRAs ( did they even exist ? ), or how to invest in stocks and mutual funds. I know that my fairly well educated parents didn't have a clue about retirement planning when they entered the work force in the 50s and 60s. What they did have a knowledge of though was that most companies provided a pension plan, and that if they stayed with that company for their entire career that they would have a little something to retire on.

TP

LOL...Do you think that they just came up with IRA's, or did stocks just make them selves up last year?? Umm... I think there was a thing called a STOCK BROKER in the 70's. Come on, dont say that your disappointed in someone...when its you that really needs to take a step back and look at the picture.

 

[typhoonpilot]

LOL...Do you think that they just came up with IRA's, or did stocks just make them selves up last year?? Umm... I think there was a thing called a STOCK BROKER in the 70's. Come on, dont say that your disappointed in someone...when its you that really needs to take a step back and look at the picture.

Just to prove the point of my earlier statement:
401k history and background

Section 401(k) of the tax code was enacted in 1981 as a way for people to save money for retirement outside of the traditional pension retirement plan. Your employer deducts money from your paycheck, pre-tax, and the money is placed into some sort of investment vehicle (usually a mutual fund).

and:

History

Starting in 1975, individuals were allowed to set up
separate accounts at financial institutions and deduct
the value of their contributions from their current
taxable income. Only employees without pensions
were eligible to contribute, and their annual contri-butions
were limited to 15 percent of pay or a maxi-mum
of $1,500. The investment returns of these ac-counts
were also excluded from taxable income in
the year earned, but withdrawals were to be included
in taxable income in the year they occurred. To en-courage
use of the accounts for retirement saving,
ERISA set a penalty of 10 percent additional tax on
withdrawals by taxpayers before age 59 1 2 .

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 ex-panded
IRA eligibility and increased maximum
contributions. Starting in 1982, all persons with
earnings could contribute to IRAs, whether or not
they were in a pension plan, and the maximum con-tribution
was increased to 100 percent of earnings or
$2,000. In response, tax returns with IRA contribu-tions
jumped from 4 percent of all returns with wage
and salary income in 1981 to 14 percent in 1982 and
18 percent in 1986.


Deductible IRA contributions were restricted by
the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Starting in 1987, the
act allowed deductible contributions only by an individual
who was not covered by an employer pension
plan, and who had adjusted gross income between
$25,000 and $35,000 (or, for joint returns,
$40,000 to $50,000). The restriction caused returns
with IRA contributions to drop to 8 percent of all
returns in 1987 and to decline slowly from there
through the mid-1990s.


The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 substantially
raised the income limits, which will eventually be
$50,000 to $60,000 for single returns (the year 2005
and after) and $80,000 to $100,000 for joint returns
(2007 and after). The act also allows individuals to
elect back-loaded IRAs, called “Roth” IRAs, in
which contributions are not deductible but with-drawals
are not taxed—a treatment similar to that of
a tax-exempt bond. These IRAs are phased out be-tween
$95,000 and $110,000 of income for singles,
and $150,000 to $160,000 for joint returns. Virtually
all taxpayers will thus be eligible for some type of
fully tax-favored IRA. Regulations imposing pe-nalities
on premature withdrawals were also relaxed,
so that the accounts may be used to save for higher-education
expenses or the first purchase of a home.



Do you have any clue how many middle class individuals invested in stocks and bonds in the 70s ? The figure is very low. The barriers to entry were very high. That is why the discount brokerage business started. I remember paying $50 for a stock transaction at Schwab in the late 80s and thinking how cheap that was in comparison to the full service brokerages.


So, yes relatively speaking, they did just come up with IRAs and 401Ks. They were not around or not available to people who worked for companies that had defined pension programs until the 80s. Today's retiring pilot could not have been involved in them until then and probably didn't get involved in stock investments until the discount brokerages came along. Sure there would have been exceptions to this, but the majority would not have.


TP

 

[tubelcane]

To all of you boo hooing 60+ folks,

The Mutual Fund was invented by MFS like 80 years ago! My father who was not a pilot, worked for Carrier, the air conditioning guys. He gets a pension in a few years. But he also has about 750k in his 401k! So just because you were getting a pension doesn't mean you couldn't have been saving for all those years. By the way my dad is only 56, so you guys have virtually no excuses. He also never made over 75k a year. So if he could do it, I'm sure an airline capt making atleast double that could have done just as well. Some more fun facts. Take what you save per month and if you earn 12% per year, which by the way alot of equity mutual funds have averaged that the past 30 years, and add 3 zeroes to it and that's what you'll have in 20 years. That is if you save $250 per month, get 12%, in 20 years you'll have $250,000! Roth IRA's are tax free when you take the money out after you are 59 1/2! These are all good things to know for all of you 20 and 30 something young pilots. So in 30 years I don't want any whining pilots on this site!