You are obviuously ill-informed or choose to ignore facts. Most who are heavily involved changing this rule have been involved since their 40's. Many continue to work for change even though they have already turned 60. They believe in the principle that this rule is wrong.
But they signed up for this career knowing FULL WELL of the REQUIREMENT to retire at 60.
This is less about age discrim and more about selfishness. In years prior to 9/11, airline pilots retired en mass with little mention of the age limit. Now, sadly, many have had their financial lives overturned and they want the junior pilots to finance their retirement dreams. Some these men refuse to downshift their fiscal responsibilites due to their own financial arrogance over the years. They should never have relied on their retirments in the first place. 98% of Americans do not get the retirement that airline pilots do. To simply rely on your retirement and continue to bruden yourself with debt is arrogant and ignorant... especially when you 1) are required to retire at 60. 2) VOTED for a concessionary contract, which allowed your company to cut your financial legs out from under you. READ:
Most of the "yes" votes during the post 9/11 concessionary contract were placed by SENIOR pilots who were simply SCARED of managment's threat to shut the airline down.
My former career was as a Financial Consultant. I had many airline pilots as clients. I can't tell you how many times I advised them to plan for retirement WITHOUT their airline pension. It's too bad so many ignored my advice. Many were blatant about it.
The retirement issue at my airline is supposedly "handled". All contributions are in the pilot's name now. Do you think I will rely on that to kick in when I retire? Hell no. Between now and my AGE 60 retirement date I'm sure some greedy airline exec will figure out how to get his hands on my money. Therefore, I will plan, pay off debt, invest, live responsibly, avoid consumerism, etc. If that money is there when I retire. Great. If not, at least I planned accordingly.
The only way to fairly change the rule is force all those hired under the age-60 rule to retire when they turn 60. Anyone hired after any such change can stay on past 60. To have it any other way is to openly state that this is indeed less about age discrimination and more about financial mismanagment... oh, and greed.
BTW, to blame ALPA for the demise of the airline retirement is like listening to a Michael Moore diatribe. It's a half-truth. The reality is, as Flying the Line VOL II stated, "all politics is local." Meaning, it was the LECs and MECs of the respected airlines who offered a concessionary TA to the pilots to be voted upon, NOT ALPA National. Frankly, it's crazy to suggest ALPA National is the sole villan here. As crazy as listening to Ahmandinijad tell us the Holocaust neever happened.
Instead of striking, performing CHAOS, slowing down, or simply refusing to vote, many of the rank-and-file accepted what their LEC/ MEC handed to them and voted in favor of it. The concessionary contracts were voted in by a landslide (most junior pilots vvoted NO, while most senior pilots voted YES). These retiring pilots have nobody to blame but themselves... or their MEC, if they in fact voted against concessions. If anything, they should be apologizing to the junior pilot on their way out the door for handing them such and abhorrant contract and for failing to lead in the face of adversity.
What ever happened to mentors? What ever happened to leaders? The baby-boomer generation or airline pilots had an opportunity to rise to the challenge and take mgmt on in a war for their retirement and pay. Instead, they (UAL, U, CAL, DAL, AQ, HA, NW) folded and played into mgmt's hand. Once the contracts were voted in, airline managements raised fares
42 times in order to charge the consumer the cost of air travel plus a small profit. Something mgmt would have done in the first place had they been told NO by labor.
