Bill in congress would boost retirement age

[habubuaza]

.
.
Nooooooooooooooooo, the ValueJet accident happened in the Everglades; that is in Florida.
.
.
EWR is an airport way north of the Everglades up in a place called New Jersey. . .
.
.
Two different accidents, same basic cause. . . .
.
.
I still don't see what the age of the pilots has to do with cargo catching fire.
.
.

Actually, the accidents you're talking about is FedEx in EWR, and FedEx in SWF. The SWF accident was hazmat, the EWR accident was pilot error.

 

[Jim Smyth]

I've brought this up before. The way I see it, it's unfair to force a person out of his job before his Social Security and Medicare are available. The first thing Congress should do is pass a bill stating that if you are forced to retire from any job by government regulation or rule prior to your SS/Medicare eligibility date, your benefits will accelerate to the date you are forced to retire.

I'll gladly go at 60, but it's not fair to deny me the retirement benefits every other worker in America enjoys when they retire.

AKAAB

This is my thinking exactly! Thats why I want the age raised because of the Medical implications. Guys that are young just dont understand the importance of this and down the road will be in the same boat. It needs to be fixed right now and the time is right for change.

 

[semperfido]

this is meant as a compliment. your .02 is worth 1.00. right on. hit the mark, etc, etc. there is no way a 401k will do the job (and SS, fogetaboutit)so all those that are in 30's or even 40's that think it will-----just wait you will change your tune. the 50 guys already know it won't. in 15 yrs those saddled with a 60 rule with NO defined pension plan will be singing the blues.

Here is my two cents. Please don't attack me on a personal level. I won't attack you. Lets keep this a mature discussion among professionals who might agree to disagree.

Some of this has already been said. Those who look a little beyond the personal desires and emotions of the moment can see logically that there are different groups. If I was lucky enough to be a senior DAL, AA, NWA, Fedex, Southwest pilot then there is no way I would want to work past 60. I could retire with a million dollar plus pension or lump sum. Heck, if it all came together by 55 then I'd be gone. Sadly though, the reality is that only 5% or less of professional airline pilots ever reach that point. The rest of us will be at varying levels of income, with or without defined pensions, IRAs, 401Ks, etc of much lower amounts. Maybe some will invest well and be able to go at 60, but that isn't reality.

A lot of the younger guys on this board have bought the mutual fund industry's propaganda that you can invest in IRAs and such and retire a millionaire. That just isn't true, unless you are a superior investor. I started an IRA at age 23 and it has done pretty well, but it will be nowhere near what would sustain a middle class lifestyle when I hit 60. I also started with a major airline at age 24 and had one of the industry's best pension plans. It would have been more than enough, but it is gone now and I will be lucky to get $1000 per month from the PBGC at age 60.

Some guys, in retrospect, the smart ones, spend 20 years in active/reserve duty and will get a nice little pension plus health benefits. The money probably isn't enough to sustain a middle class lifestyle but those medical benefits are huge. Most of us won't have that and we need to do something to cover ourselves between age 60 and 65. Our companies sure aren't doing a good job at that. If they do, it costs some serious coin.

The other part of this and one that most fail to recognize is that a large percentage of guys don't make it to age 60 in the first place. So these arguments of being held up in seniority and not gettting hired are a little exaggerated. Sure it will slow things down a tad, but not really that much. Take a look at the top of a seniority list at any major and you'll probably count numerous guys out sick ( extended sick leave, medically disability, etc ). How may guys die of heart attacks in their 40s and 50s ?. How many have to fight cancer, diabetes, etc ? It is only a lucky few who remain healthy up to age 60.

It is time for the age 60 rule to go. Most of us will need the choice of a few extra years working to be able to retire comfortably from our chosen profession. You may not realize it when you are in your 20s and 30s, but as time rolls on you'll begin to see the hard reality.


Typhoonpilot

 

[100LL... Again!]

Nice windfall for the senior guys! Too bad for the junior guys who now:

A) Will be set back 5 years; and

B) STILL won't get a pension; and

C) Will work under the concessionary contracts that these old farts left us with

Meanwhile ,the greedy entitlement-oriented creeps at the top:

A) Benefited from tha age-60 rule their whole careers.

B) Now will get a bonus five years on top of that since they are in the right place at the right time.

C) Spent a fair percentage of their later years with the company earning the big bucks before the bottom fell out of the contracts. SWEET!!


If they are going to be a-holes like this then I am thrilled to see their pensions in the tank. I mean this - I really do.

Why haven't they been saving their industry-leading cash all these years. Only a TOTAL FOOL would have thought these pernsions were an absolute guarantee.

Eagerly awaiting the flaming.

 

[100LL... Again!]

I wanted this to be a seperate post.

This 'union brotherhood' crap is just that. It's every man for himself now. I'll never scab, but as far as I am concerned, there is no unity at all.

I will accpet the age-65 rule on ONE condition:

Every retired pilot under 65 can come back to the top of the list.

This will hurt me more, I know, but it would wipe a lot of smirks offthe faces of the greedy, selfish senior fcuks that think the world owes them. If it were not for the good guys at these airlines, I would just as soon every one of them liquidate.

 

[semperfido]

ok, here ya go. you seem to have a chip on your shoulder. try to stop being concerned so much with what the other guy is doing/getting. take a bigger picture view. think long range.

Nice windfall for the senior guys! Too bad for the junior guys who now:

A) Wil be set back 5 years; and

B) STILL won't get a pension; and

C) Will work under the concessionary contracts that these old farts left us with

Meanwhile ,the greedy entitlement-oriented creeps at the top:

A) Benefited from tha age-60 rule their whole careers.

B) Now will get a bonus five years on top of that since they are in the right place at the right time.

C) Spent their last years earning the big bucks before the bottom fell out. SWEET!!


If they are going to be a-holes like this then I am thrilled to see their pensions in the tank. I mean this - I really do.

Why haven't they been saving thei industry-leading cash all these years. Only a TOTAL FOOL would have thought these pernsions were an absolute guarantee.

Eagerly awaiting the flaming.

 

[100LL... Again!]

The flagrant selfishness is just appalling. If the industry was trucking along okay and the majors were in good shape with a normal trickle of hiring, it would still be selfish, but I would not oppose it so much. But in this current state, it is inexcusable.

 

[Jim Smyth]

I wanted this to be a seperate post.

This 'union brotherhood' crap is just that. It's every man for himself now. I'll never scab, but as far as I am concerned, there is no unity at all.

I will accpet the age-65 rule on ONE condition:

Every retired pilot under 65 can come back to the top of the list.

This will hurt me more, I know, but it would wipe a lot of smirks offthe faces of the greedy, selfish senior fcuks that think the world owes them. If it were not for the good guys at these airlines, I would just as soon every one of them liquidate.

You are wrong! I wouldnt mind at all if my "Friends" that were forced out at age 60 and are not age 65 yet came back in front of me on the senority list! Your comments are also self centered and self serving! But fortunately you wont be the one making the decisions on this one. If will be falling on the old deaf ears in the senate this time, you wait and see.

 

[TonyC]

Actually, the accidents you're talking about is FedEx in EWR, and FedEx in SWF. The SWF accident was hazmat, the EWR accident was pilot error.

No, actually klhoard knows what he's talking about, it's 321 busdriver who doesn't. Huck initially brought up the issue of older corporate pilots, specifically an over-70 pilot in the King Air crash - - the one that was going to pick up Lou Holtz.

Rather than address that point, 321 busdriver chose to raise a red herring about a FedEx accident, but couldn't be bothered with facts. He stated "DC-10," "EWR," and "3 sub-sixty guys." Those three facts do not fit any accident or incident, but don't let that stop him. The only FedEx DC-10 involved in an accident around ten years ago was the DC-10 that landed at Stewart (Newburg) with a cargo fire which subsequently consumed the airplane. As klhoard pointed out, the ages of the crewmembers had nothing to do with that accident; the problem was undeclared Haz.

Still oblivious to the fact he might have gotten some facts wrong, 321 busdriver proceeded to tell klhoard he must have been thinking about ValuJet. Puzzled that 321 busdriver would persist with this line of "reasoning," klhoard reminded 321 busdriver that age has nothing to do with undeclared Haz. Then 321 busdriver had the nerve to admonish us to Google the EWR accident, still ignorant to the difference between a DC-10 and an MD-11. It was 321 busdriver, after all, who declared the accident involved "3 qualified sub-sixty guys." Apparently his Google ain't workin' that well.

Of course, it was at this point that 321 busdriver had the audacity to call someone else a "smartass." (Thank you, Echopapa, for applying the proper label to the proper person.)

You'd think 321 busdriver could see the light and return to the discussion (Age 60) at hand, but no. He adds lie to illogic when he says, "I did originally say that it was a DC-10. I have since corrected myself." Wrong! Not only did he NOT correct himself, he tried to correct everyone else.

Now... let's examine the point (and counterpoint) of all this...

Point: Huck -

I flew with several over 60 guys in the corporate world - including one King Aire guy in his seventies. You really gotta see it to believe it. I still have nightmares.

Read the report on the King Aire crash that was going to pick up Lou Holtz....

Counterpoint: 321 busdriver -

I also remember the DC-10 FedEX accident in EWR some 10 years ago, flown by 3 qualified sub-sixty guys. You should be ashamed of yourself!

What did any FedEx accident have to do with the King Aire crash, or the Age 60 rule?

321 busdriver -

I was simply responding to the post that blamed some over 60 pilots as being responsible for an accident.

So, basically, he was just throwing dirt in the hope it would obscure the facts. By citing an accident that was not caused by over-sixty pilots, he could somehow excuse an accident that had as a contributing factor the progressive age of a pilot.

I must ask 321 driver - - have you looked at the case of the King Air crash yet? Do you have something useful to contribute to the subject, or do you just want to remind us of FedEx accidents that involved sub-sixty crews? If that's your course of action, let me know. I can provide dates, aircraft types, number of crewmembers, and actual locations so you can look like less of a total and complete idiot.


By the way, habubuaza, the cause of the EWR error was materiel failure. Wings are not supposed to fall off before the landing gear. Ask FedEx where they hid the wing (airplane parts could not be examined by the NTSB because they mysteriously "disappeared"). I know the NTSB says pilot error, so I'm not condemning you for repeating their finding. However, I would be remiss if I didn't take the opportunity to defend the pilot.

 

[stb]

Make room for me..

Notice the senior and/or retired pilots who want this policy changed to age 65 are the ones who got their job 20 to 30 years ago because people had to reitre at 60 and make room for them!

Talking to a pilot approching 60 and I asked him about the pilots already retirered in to 60-65 age range. I said if they want to come back to work, they should get their old senority number back.
His reply was they are gone already so we(The company) shouldn't call them back.
I looked at him and asked him to clearify and thats exactly what he meant.

 

[FoxHunter]

Fitness?!? You honestly tell me that the average American (wherethe obseity rate is highest worldwide by far) approaching sixty is morefit then the average European of same age? As far asfitness, have you seen the guts on many of our old guys flying the bigiron. This part of your post is pathetically ignorant. I'msure most informed travelers would enjoy a good laugh at your arguement.

The average American pilot is far more fit than the average European pilot. When I started in this business 80+% of pilots smoked, now less than 10%.

 

[Jim Smyth]

http://www.ppf.org/

 

[100LL... Again!]

Of course you want it both ways. You're selfish. Look at the post above where the other guy says 'no way' to retirees returning.

Freedom for me, but not for thee.

This profession has pretty much had it.
I do not like management at all, but when I see the people that are supposed to be on my side changing the rulesto please themselves and compensate for their poor financial planning, I begin to become a company man. Because they are looking out for themselves and I am doing the same. ALPA tells me they are my side but the evidence is not very convincing.

I'll never scab, but that is about the maximum loyalty that I can be talked into promising to a bunch of self-centered jerks.

It's look out for #1 from now on. You can't trust your union any more.

 

[Jim Smyth]

Of course you want it both ways. You're selfish. Look at the post above where the other guy says 'no way' to retirees returning.

I'm not selfish at all and any of the guys that fly with me can attest to that. I also dont want it both ways. But what I do want is not to have to work as a Walmart greeter when I turn 60 to provide Medical insurance for me and my wife. I will have enough money to retire comfortably on when I hit 60 and maybe even at 55 if my kids get out of college in 4 years. What I do want is to either be able to extend my career so I wont have to take another job for medical insurance purposes at age 60 or I want them to make me instantly eligible for Social Security and Medicare when I have to retire at the current 60. Nothing more. If they do extend the age to something other than 60 in the future I dont plan on flying that much anyway. I will be giving away most of my flying so I only do a trip or two each month to stay proficient. I will let you younger guys get all the flying you want, I'm sure by then I will have had enough of the BS to last me.

 

[100LL... Again!]

You knew the deal when you signed on, though. As did I. This was no surprise.

 

[Jim Smyth]

I wont argue with you any more on this issue. By your comments in this thread and your profile you show who you really are and are just stiring the pot and like to make waves rather than constructive debate. Your turn will come and I hope you plan appropriately but I doubt you will. Common sense isnt something you can buy!

 

[Spooky 1]

Looks like the 12 SWA guys are asking for an exemption, not an out right rule change? Did I read this correctly or is there more to the story? Obviously they would be setting a new standard and one could assume that something over age 60 would follow.

Don't have a dog in this fight as I left the airline before I turned 60 to persue other interests but those on this board who have condemed dead men that were over age 60 (Gll crash at Hobby) should stand down and wait for the official results of the investigation. I know of no accidents that have been attributed to over age 60 pilots either in corporate or airlines as in the case of those countries that allow pilots to fly beyond age 60.

ICAO has a rule that does not allow two pilots over the age of 60 to fly together in commercial operations, meaning that they will not both occupy a control seat at the same time. Has anyone ever been ramp checked overseas reagrding this issue? This rule applies to all pilots regardless of their country of orgin. In Europe the two pilots who were on the Gll at Hobby would not have been able to fly together as a crew. As indicated in my earlier paragraph I am not aware of any reason to believe that age had anything to do with this accident. Obviously the chance of a massive heart attack or stroke increases with age. So maybe the ICAO (Annex 1) ruling is prudent at this time but just saying that the current age 60 is fair is a real stretch of the imagination. It was wrong in the first place and it's still wrong today.

At the very least the SS and Medicare issues should be cleaned up to address these shortfalls when a pilot is forced out at age 60. Talked to a Delta friend the other night who bailed early and he said he medical and dental was costing him $1,300 month! that should get anyones attention lump sum, or no lump sum.

I think this rule will change. ALPA has no friends in the current administration. The industry has changed and the retirement issues are draconian at best. For those who will be affected by a slide in seniority, get over it as anytime you have more opportunity to set your self up for post retirement is just like having more altitude and airspeed when things go wrong in the airplane. It will work its self out and everyone will adjust to the new rules. Relax this is not the end of the world.

 

[CarjCapt]

If it passes you'll see a great big difference if FAA physicals.

Not to say you are right or wrong but do you have you any written documents from the FAA that would substantiate your statement.

 

[AFcitrus]

All of our times will come. And when they do let's hope we are all prepared for retirement. We all know when we are hired into this flying business that we need to prepare for age 60. Failure to do so starting early in life will most undoubtedly result in not being prepared at age 60. I know that things happen (wage cuts, benefit cuts, etc) that affect the investment plan. However, that's why we all must be flexibe and not over-extend ourselves.

I tend to think this is not so much an old pilot vs. young pilot issue as it is a pilot who has failed to prepare appropriately (for whatever reason) vs. a pilot who is preparing appropriately. The latter doesn't feel he/she should payroll the former. And certainly those people furloughed shouldn't be payrolling the ill-prepared. If one gets to age 60 and is not prepared, more than likely it is their own fault. They should have saved more and bought less before they had their wage and benefit cut.

I'm sure I will upset people with my statements but then again "the truth sometimes hurts"

If I am unfortunate enough to be unprepared at age 60 then it is my own fault as well.

My two cents.

Vote NO

 

[Spooky 1]

I don't think the economic issues were ever a factor in the age 60 ruling back in the late 50's, and in theory at least they should not be a part of the equation in todays arguments. So that leaves the question soley as to whether or not a pilot is fit and able to fly past age 60 and beyond that to some other age determined to be safe.

The financial arguement is specious at best. Yes there are those who want to work beyond 60 but the financial argument should be very limited as it was never a player in the original ruling. The real issue is and should remain the physical conditioning of the pilot. BTW you do not have to be a tri-athelete to be a good pilot or a safe pilot.