Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

AOPA article "5 More Years"

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

LearLove

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
4,451
This article hits about a zero on the Professional and Class scale.



Pilotage: Five more years
By Mark R. Twombly

Mark R. Twombly is a charter pilot on a Citation II based in Southwest Florida.


With the stroke of a presidential pen, years of FAA stonewalling have finally come to an end. Last December, Congress quickly passed, and President Bush quickly signed, a law that revised what had been the intractable FAA regulation requiring airline pilots to retire at age 60. Now, if you fly under Part 121 or under Part 135 of the federal aviation regulations in an aircraft with more than nine seats that is involved in scheduled service, you can keep on flying until the day you turn 65. That’s made a lot of airline pilots in their 50s very happy.
I sought perspective on the issue from two people with insider knowledge. My brother Gerry is with FedEx. My brother Steven works for Delta Air Lines. How do they feel about extending their careers another five years? Not surprisingly, both are pretty doggone pleased about it, but for somewhat different reasons that mostly have to do with timing and luck. In these uncertain times for major airlines, luck and timing seem to control how smooth or turbulent an airline pilot’s career will be.
In 1990 Gerry was a corporate pilot when he found himself riding the leading edge of a FedEx hiring spree. After starting life there as a Boeing 727 flight engineer, he’s worked his way up to McDonnell Douglas MD-11 captain flying international routes. It’s nice work, and FedEx is a good place for a pilot to be, especially if you can put in 25 years.
Gerry would have 21 years at FedEx if he had to retire at age 60. Now, if he goes to 65, which he has no doubt he will do, he’ll have 26 years with the company. “I’ll get absolutely full retirement. That’s a biggie,” he says.
“I really enjoy what I’m doing, and I think I’m in pretty good health,” he explains. “I don’t have a second business, and I don’t have a hard plan for when I retire. So I wouldn’t be ready to retire at age 60.”
Along with being able to build a larger nest egg, there’s the salutary effect the additional time will have on Gerry’s seniority among his fellow aviators. Up to five more years of seniority will arm him with considerable power to wield when bidding trips. “FedEx is such a dynamic and changing company as far as the flying goes,” he says. “We’re pushing into China, getting different equipment and new routes. It’s pretty interesting flying. I’m going to be very senior at age 65, so it makes for a pretty good deal.”
Gerry has always hoped the Age-60 rule would fall in time for him to benefit—now it has. He’s a happy guy. “All these young dudes, they’ll just have to put up with me for another five years,” he laughs. “I like that. I like that a lot.”
Steven, on the other hand, initially was not a proponent of changing the rule. Steven was an F-15 pilot in the Air Force, and when he left from active duty in 1991 at age 35, Delta Air Lines hired him. He was positioned more on the trailing edge of Delta hiring, and of course had no idea what lay in store for his employer.
When I got into the airlines, I thought it was a really great job,” he says. “I didn’t think there was any better in aviation. Everyone has different reasons to want to fly for the airlines. Mine was mostly about the flying as well as the family time. I very much enjoyed the job, but I was looking forward to being out at 60, maybe even before.”
If he chose to stay until reaching age 60, he would have 25 years with the company and be eligible for maximum retirement benefits. If he decided to leave before that, he would see a reduction in his benefits, but he was prepared to accept that. However, extending the mandatory retirement age to 65 would have resulted in a far greater impact on his pension if he left before reaching age 60, so he was “totally against” changing the rule.
That was then. A lot has happened since.
Like other so-called legacy carriers, Delta has suffered a tumultuous few years recently, culminating in bankruptcy. (The company has since emerged from that condition.) The impact on Delta employees was dramatic. Steven, like other Delta pilots, saw his pay cut by 47 percent, and what he calls “great, great” pensions just disappeared. So, with no pension subject to a change to an Age-65 rule, he no longer had a reason to oppose it. In fact, the new rule works in his favor.
“I’m totally for it,” he says. “It’s given me the option. I can choose to stay and continue to work, but if there is not a monetary reason to stay, I can leave without any financial penalties.”
Despite the tumult, quality of life remains Steven’s job focus, as it was when he was hired. “For a lot of pilots, it’s usually about money,” he says. “Those are the people who are incredibly vocal, unhappy, and defiant about the way things are now. I get caught up in the money thing, too, but then I always fall back on what my priorities are; my perspective. For me, not much has changed.”
 
Last edited:
You Fedex boys don't have a hair on your collective arse if this tool hasn't received a hot steamy one in his brain bag yet. What a JERK! (sad thing is we've got plenty of the same ilk over here)
 
Yeah- he really presented a balanced picture. Anyone else see the flawed logic in being able to work 5 more years so you'll be able to hold some really sweet senior trips as a captain?!

Ummm..... that would have happened anyway, just 5 years earlier and then you could go play golf, having made as much or nearly so with 5 extra years off.
 
I'm afraid a lot of you still don't get it. Not every single pilot will stay to age 65. If you do, you get to be relatively more senior than if everyone retired at 60. Your career will be better off for having the choice to stay or to go.

It's all about choices; no matter what we're talking about, having more choices is better. Whether it's retirement age, bases, aircraft fleets, having the option is better than not having it.

In an informal survey of a lot of our near-60 guys, most say they'll stay until about 62, then call it quits. Yes, that's a hiccup in our career advancement. But it won't be nearly as big as the next round of furloughs or mergers. If you want to get an ulcer about our industry, there's a lot worse than this issue. Enjoy your next flight, be nice to the passengers (or agents, or cargo loaders, etc), take a deep breath, and realize you've actually made it into the industry you wanted. Also realize that things change. The career path you planned at age 25 most certainly won't be the one you end up following. If you stress about every little detour and moan-and-groan about the 'not-having', you'll never enjoy the 'being here' part of the job.

Of course, this being an internet message board I'd expect some moaning-and-groaning. But really, when you're in the cockpit and your other crew member is looking the other way, it's OK to smile. Really.

HAL

P.S. Twombly is only reporting what his brothers are saying. Don't kill the messenger.
 
I'm afraid a lot of you still don't get it. Not every single pilot will stay to age 65. If you do, you get to be relatively more senior than if everyone retired at 60. Your career will be better off for having the choice to stay or to go.

It's all about choices; no matter what we're talking about, having more choices is better. Whether it's retirement age, bases, aircraft fleets, having the option is better than not having it.

In an informal survey of a lot of our near-60 guys, most say they'll stay until about 62, then call it quits. Yes, that's a hiccup in our career advancement. But it won't be nearly as big as the next round of furloughs or mergers. If you want to get an ulcer about our industry, there's a lot worse than this issue. Enjoy your next flight, be nice to the passengers (or agents, or cargo loaders, etc), take a deep breath, and realize you've actually made it into the industry you wanted. Also realize that things change. The career path you planned at age 25 most certainly won't be the one you end up following. If you stress about every little detour and moan-and-groan about the 'not-having', you'll never enjoy the 'being here' part of the job.

Of course, this being an internet message board I'd expect some moaning-and-groaning. But really, when you're in the cockpit and your other crew member is looking the other way, it's OK to smile. Really.

HAL

P.S. Twombly is only reporting what his brothers are saying. Don't kill the messenger.

HAL, I don't think you get it. Age 65 is here...fine, we're all dealing with it. What I have a problem with is the total lack of judgment on both Gerry AND Mark's parts for printing such crass comments. It's one thing to make such comments to a close confidante in hushed tones over an adult beverage, it's quite another to publish them in one of the most widely-read aviation magazines in the country! This a is a zero-sum game. Gerry's windfall is coming at the expense of all those who must endure flying with him. I hope they make his life a living hell for the next eight years. :uzi:
 
I hope Gerry finds a problem with his ticker soon.............I'm serious (at least before he's vested).....what a pompous A-hole.
 
I'm afraid a lot of you still don't get it. Not every single pilot will stay to age 65. If you do, you get to be relatively more senior than if everyone retired at 60. Your career will be better off for having the choice to stay or to go.

P.S. Twombly is only reporting what his brothers are saying. Don't kill the messenger.

Not sure whether I'll be better off or not. I won't until I'm 65. My issue really wasn't with age 60; it's the flawed logic in the "getting the trips I want" argument and complete failure to even hint at another legitimate viewpoint.
 
First off Instructor Dude needs to be permantly banded fromed this site.
Second, I have been paying AOPA dues for 8 years, and support most of their causes. But they issued a statement a month ago stating it was about time the age 60 rule was changed to 65 due to age discrimination. What?! If age 60 is age discrimination, so is age 65! Anyway this last article really takes the cake. I am going to respond to them that they need to consintrate on the user fee issues, not the issues of the 121 world. If they keep this up, I will stop paying my dues. This article is completly out of hand. By the way, AOPA blames the airlines for suggesting user fees for GA. Hmmm-
 
HAL, I don't think you get it. Age 65 is here...fine, we're all dealing with it. What I have a problem with is the total lack of judgment on both Gerry AND Mark's parts for printing such crass comments. It's one thing to make such comments to a close confidante in hushed tones over an adult beverage, it's quite another to publish them in one of the most widely-read aviation magazines in the country! This a is a zero-sum game. Gerry's windfall is coming at the expense of all those who must endure flying with him. I hope they make his life a living hell for the next eight years. :uzi:


I continue to be amazed by the animosity toward pilots whose mandatory retirements happened to coincide with peak pension-rape. Guess what kids? It's not all about you. And yeah, guys sticking around another few years is going to hit me right in the wallet. I got over it; you might want to consider doing the same.
 
First off Instructor Dude needs to be permantly banded fromed this site.
Second, I have been paying AOPA dues for 8 years, and support most of their causes. But they issued a statement a month ago stating it was about time the age 60 rule was changed to 65 due to age discrimination. What?! If age 60 is age discrimination, so is age 65! Anyway this last article really takes the cake. I am going to respond to them that they need to consintrate on the user fee issues, not the issues of the 121 world. If they keep this up, I will stop paying my dues. This article is completly out of hand. By the way, AOPA blames the airlines for suggesting user fees for GA. Hmmm-

Heyas NJ,

First and formost, you have to understand the AOPA demographic. There are LOT of folks in that group who have made enough $$$ and own their own ride, and quite a few of them turbine.

Back when I joined, the heaviest iron you'd ever seen in the mag was a Malibu. Now there's plenty of turbine stuff (read $$$), because that's what their demographic has moved into. How many of us at FI can afford their own turbine rig (or heck, even a Cub or LSA?)

These type of people have a lot of bread, and it wasn't made by huffing it between Boston and Cleveland 15 days a month. Those type of folks have more in common with our management than the pilots, and probably have the same thought processes (IE pensions).

Personally, I agree with AOPA on a lot of things, such as the user fee debacle, airport preservation, etc. The AOPA Air Safety Foundation does fantastic work. But don't expect them to cater to, or even understand, the mindset of the working pilot.

Of course, ALPA pushed through 65 as well, and we PAY them. How smart does that make us? Why wasn't there a wholesale recall of Prater and the leadership at each airline that participated in the age 65 voting? The only leadership group that voted against it was NWA's.

Nu
 
I gotta say that I don't see anything wrong with the article either. It is what it is....

I don't know ANY pilot who doesn't have the "it's all about me" attitude. Isn't it all about us individually, really? There are those very few now and then who seemingly take a hit for the greater good of the majority, but I suspect that doesn't happen often.
 
You Fedex boys don't have a hair on your collective arse if this tool hasn't received a hot steamy one in his brain bag yet. What a JERK! (sad thing is we've got plenty of the same ilk over here)

Deleted
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately I think there are alot of these "D-bag attitudes" in the airline arena right now...he really just makes his brother shine as the lead one...
 
tha saddest part is that these fdx guys did not lose their retirements and still can't afford to leave....ex-wives..bad investments or just greed...very sad
 
Age 60+ Pilots: "Hey guys look at this awesome dinner we cooked up for everyone!!! Too bad we ate it all before you got here! There's some B-scale in the fridge though if you're still hungry."
 
If you're not ready to retire by 60, thats your fault. What makes one think they'll be able to retire now that they can make money for 5 more years? These pilots that need 5 more years are the same as management, will worry about having money later, well later came and the grandpas are all broke. In the furure I think Pro standards will get sick of hearing from FO's complaining that the Capt. they were flying with, was deaf, not standard and asleep the whole trip.
 
Heyas NJ,

First and formost, you have to understand the AOPA demographic. There are LOT of folks in that group who have made enough $$$ and own their own ride, and quite a few of them turbine.

Back when I joined, the heaviest iron you'd ever seen in the mag was a Malibu. Now there's plenty of turbine stuff (read $$$), because that's what their demographic has moved into. How many of us at FI can afford their own turbine rig (or heck, even a Cub or LSA?)

These type of people have a lot of bread, and it wasn't made by huffing it between Boston and Cleveland 15 days a month. Those type of folks have more in common with our management than the pilots, and probably have the same thought processes (IE pensions).

Personally, I agree with AOPA on a lot of things, such as the user fee debacle, airport preservation, etc. The AOPA Air Safety Foundation does fantastic work. But don't expect them to cater to, or even understand, the mindset of the working pilot.

Of course, ALPA pushed through 65 as well, and we PAY them. How smart does that make us? Why wasn't there a wholesale recall of Prater and the leadership at each airline that participated in the age 65 voting? The only leadership group that voted against it was NWA's.

Nu


Nu -

You are exactly right! That's the very reason I have terminated my AOPA membership, and will never go back.
 
"Me, Me, Me!" Damned pompous, arrogant baby boomers! Don't they know this is about "Us, Us, Us!"?

Joking aside, I hate age sixty five as much as anybody. It was a cowardly move on the part of ALPA when they should have been demanding that airlines who wiggled out of their obligations and promises to their pilots are held accountable. In other words, if United is turning a profit, why is the PGCB and/or the taxpayers on the hook for even a penny?

But wishing a heart attack on your brother pilot? :eek: Dude, Karma's a bitch!

Speaking of Karma, who gives a rat's ass about what Mr. Twombly has to say about airline pilots issues? He's mirred down in the pergatory of South Florida Charter and as such, has not a whole lot of credibility on this subject.
 
Last edited:
Fair and Balanced?

This was my reply to this guy:

Mr. Twombly:
I worked in broadcasting prior to changing careers to become a professional pilot.
Your article on the change of the age 60 rule showed absolutely no balance. Are you aware of the fact that the majority of airline pilots (data can be confirmed by an ALPA Blue Ribbon Panel Survey with very little research) were AGAINST the rule being changed.
Sounds like you formed the idea for your story over a beer with your two brothers and wrote the story on the spot.
It's unfortunate that you did not do a little more research to show both sides of the issue so that the true ramifications of the rule could be revealed.
For example, my career as a First Officer was extended by up to 5 years because of the rule change. Your brother's comment about how the young guys that would just have to put up with him another 5 years was very telling. His generation has been called the greatest generation. It should have been called the most selfish.
Now that the rule has changed, if pilots like me do not work until age 65, we will effectively lose out on 10 years of Captain pay. If you do simple math, a senior captain's wage for 10 years is equal to a lot of money.
Time and time again, senior pilots in the airline industry have dismissed the effects of their selfish motives on the next generation of airline pilots. Pilots, like your two brothers, can counter argue however they like, but they can never argue that our profession is better now than the one they signed up for many years ago. It is not!
I would suggest you write a more balanced story next time instead of taking short cuts.
Sincerely,
The Majority of Airline Pilots
 
my letter to Twombley

I sent this letter to nut-job Twombley....


Mark -

The age 65 legislation is nothing more than pyramid scheme. Those at the top (your FEDEX brother) make out like bandits, while their windfall is completely funded by those at the bottom. His comment, "all these young dudes will just have to put up with me for 5 more years....I like that a lot", is typical of what has become known throughout the industry as the "I got mine" mentality. If this is what your brother thinks of his first officers he is probably high on the avoidance bid list. I know I wouldn't fly with him.

I have a bit more sympathy for your brother Steve. The pilots at Delta were absolutely robbed, and it's very unfortunate, but, as your article suggested, luck and timing are everything. Why do I have to be punished with another 5 years in the right seat because of someone else's bad luck? We all rolled the same dice and took the same chance.

Bottom line, your article was not researched thoroughly enough, and printing Gerry's crass comments was in poor taste. It's one thing to discuss this issue among other professionals, but to print a biased story like this in a magazine that caters mostly to GA pilots is irresponsible, and I have terminated my AOPA membership as a result.


Everyone should flood this idiots inbox. Here's his email address incase anyone missed it:

[email protected]
 
I am sending in my comments as well. AOPA should stick to matters that concern GA-unless of course they want to take over ALPAs job.
 
I am sending in my comments as well. AOPA should stick to matters that concern GA-unless of course they want to take over ALPAs job.

Look I agree that the article and the attitudes displayed in it are gross at best. However AOPA was not, nor never has backed the age 65 rule. This guy and his brothers are tools, but he is an editorialist on GA matters not the voice of AOPA's political positions...
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom