Bill in congress would boost retirement age

[alaskaplt]

Its about time for the change! Long overdue of age disscrimination!

Why is it age discrimination at 60 but not at 65?

 

[FoxHunter]

Someone explain the legalities of this - can congress change 14 CFR or does this bill make a reccomendation to the FAA, or what?

Yes Congress can, and has changed FAA requirements. You can look at what happend with TCAS. The FAA opposed it, Congress mandated it.

 

[skykid]

There has to be an arbitrary cutoff, because in commercial aviation you can't afford to have people who don't know when to quit. I investigate aircraft accidents, and the number of old farts who crash flying General Aviation is amazing. I'm glad my dad quit when he started feeling his "skills" slip, and he wasn't much past 60. I've flown with a few guys who were having senior moments in their 50s. I'm sure plenty of pilots are sharp enough well past 60, but lets stick with what is working. At least make it nonretroactive so old timer can't come back through training and cost the company thousands to get retrained, and then bump everybody down, only to go out on a medical.

 

[Echopapa]

We need to think beyond next week.


1. I have flown with many captains who want this rule changed. When I talk to them I ask them what effect they think it will have on their retirement. They all respond...no effect. They are assuming that the retirement rules will not change along with the law. They think, "Of course our retirment will still be guaranteed at age 60, but now we have the option to retire at 65". Not so fast. We as a group need to realize that IF this rule is changed, then so will our retirement plans. There will now be a penalty for anyone who wished to retire prior to age 65, instead of the current age of 60. If your company currently reduces your benefit by 3% a year for each year you retire before age 60, surely they react to the change so that every year you retire before age 65 will cost you 3%. What does this mean to the pilot group: Lets do the math....3% or 2% X 5 years....15 - 20 % decrease in retirement benefits.

2. We are already dying at a young age. When the current life expentancy of a un-named cargo company is around 63, why on earth would anyone want to "fly till you die".

This is stricktly a financial argument. Not to mention all the issues with Captains I fly with who are age 57 who cant read the Jeps, can't hear radio calls, and who I have to literally yell at to get a checklist response.

EP

 

[FlyComAirJets]

Maybe they need to take the ugly one, too.

I think raising the retirement age will directly extend the furlough of thousands of pilots for a directly proportional number of years. I am probably spelling this wrong but that is just unconscionable. How could anyone sleep knowing that after benifiting for years from the Age 60 Rule, they can now trash can it and sock it to their junior pilots like that? This is worse than the B Scale ever was.


What did they do to deserve this, didn't they laugh at your tired old jokes enough or complliment the landing profusely enough?

 

[HalinTexas]

If it passes you'll see a great big difference if FAA physicals. ALPA has put out some literature lately illuminating the history of the Age 60 rule and a comparison to other countries that have higher retirement ages. It's a pretty interesting read. Pretty scary too. Brittish are paying $2000 for physicals, usually paid for by the company and the "nanny state."

Whatever happens, it won't be just a change in the retirment age. There will be conditions.

 

[321 busdriver]

What a ridiculous argument you make! I can only assume that you work for FedEx. Let's just compare for a minute. You're a captain with 7000 hours. At U, 16 year guys are on the street and it takes 20 years to be bottom captain at $125/hr. Your 2nd year pay f/o pay is better than a 19 year f/o . A 2% A plan versus no A plan. I could go on and on. Are you really telling all of us that you have never flown with a forty something that needs to be babysat? Or a 59 year old guy that is as sharp as anyone on campus? Age has very little to do with it. Your either mentally and physically sharp enough to do this job or your not. Age sixty rule is outdated and needs to be changed! It sounds to me that you're a spoiled junior captain with a big case of leftseatitis! Don't worry about the guys who got screwed, as long as you get yours. There are guys at U that never upgraded and never got the chance to move to bigger aircraft. The difference between 60 and something higher could be the difference in staying in your home or moving into an apt. In helping your kids go to college or not, etc.,etc. As far as the King Air accident goes, 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!

They benefitted from this rule their entire careers: getting hired earlier, upgrading earlier, moving to bigger aircraft earlier.

Now that it's my turn they want to change it.

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....

 

[klhoard]

. . . <snip>. . 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 does the crew's age have to do with undeclared hazardous cargo catching fire in the back of the plane??
.
.
.

 

[FoxHunter]

We need to think beyond next week.


1. I have flown with many captains who want this rule changed. When I talk to them I ask them what effect they think it will have on their retirement. They all respond...no effect. They are assuming that the retirement rules will not change along with the law. They think, "Of course our retirment will still be guaranteed at age 60, but now we have the option to retire at 65". Not so fast. We as a group need to realize that IF this rule is changed, then so will our retirement plans. There will now be a penalty for anyone who wished to retire prior to age 65, instead of the current age of 60. If your company currently reduces your benefit by 3% a year for each year you retire before age 60, surely they react to the change so that every year you retire before age 65 will cost you 3%. What does this mean to the pilot group: Lets do the math....3% or 2% X 5 years....15 - 20 % decrease in retirement benefits.

2. We are already dying at a young age. When the current life expentancy of a un-named cargo company is around 63, why on earth would anyone want to "fly till you die".

This is stricktly a financial argument. Not to mention all the issues with Captains I fly with who are age 57 who cant read the Jeps, can't hear radio calls, and who I have to literally yell at to get a checklist response.

EP

For the UAL or USAIR pilot 3% per year for 5 years would be great. If lucky they will get 20% of their expected pension, big difference between $130,000 and the reality of $27,000. F/As and mechanics may retire with a higher PBGC pension because they are not forced to retire at age 60.

Where I work there is another upside to changing the age upward. If I'm age 55 with 15 years service and medical out I get disability until I turn 60 and retire with 20 years service or 40% of Avg of best five years. If 65 becomes the normal retirement age I would collect disability till age 65 then retire with 25 years service or 50% of my best five years.

Not sure where guys live to an average of 63 years. I just read about two guys I has flown with that just turned 90. We had a guy retire a few year ago at age 80, flew P47s in Europe during WW2.

Hell, I get F/Os that can't understand the radio, understand the airplane, know the difference between getting cleared to eight zero and eight thousand, know when to change from ground to tower, and the list goes on.

I think the old guys probably understand all the issues far better than you do.

 

[321 busdriver]

.
.
What does the crew's age have to do with undeclared hazardous cargo catching fire in the back of the plane??
.
.
.

I believe you're thinking of Valujet. The EWR accident had nothing to do with undeclared hasmat. And in keeping with the tone of the thread, I was simply pointing out that accidents can and will happen, irreguardless of age. If you can't do the job at 40, 50, or 60, then it's time to move on.

 

[321 busdriver]

Right on the money! And thank you.

For the UAL or USAIR pilot 3% per year for 5 years would be great. If lucky they will get 20% of their expected pension, big difference between $130,000 and the reality of $27,000. F/As and mechanics may retire with a highter PBGC pension because they are not forced to retire at age 60.

Where I work there is another upside to changing the age upward. If I'm age 55 with 15 years service and medical out I get disability until I turn 60 and retire with 20 years service or 40% of Avg of best five years. If 65 becomes the normal retirement age I would collect disability till age 65 then retire with 25 years service or 50% of my best five years.

Not sure where guys live to an average of 63 years. I just read about two guys I has flown with that just turned 90. We had a guy retire a few year ago at age 80, flew P47s in Europe during WW2.

Hell, I get F/Os that can't understand the radio, understand the airplane, know the difference between getting cleared to eight zero and eight thousand, know when to change from ground to tower, and the list goes on.

I think the old guys probably understand all the issues far better than you do.

 

[dbrownie]

"Jim Gibbons of Nevada said the regulation currently enforced is outdated and changing it over time would save jobs and retain experienced pilots"

Meanwhile thousands of experienced pilots continue their furlough, and job loss, while those who knew age 60 was it, change their mind...

I aggree "save jobs and retain experienced pilots".
Give me a break!
Save who's jobs?
Retain "experienced pilots" Yea there hard to come by...
What about the thousands
of "experienced" pilots on the street.
Age sixtyrule change is about GREED pure and simple.
Dave B

 

[FoxHunter]

If it passes you'll see a great big difference if FAA physicals. ALPA has put out some literature lately illuminating the history of the Age 60 rule and a comparison to other countries that have higher retirement ages. It's a pretty interesting read. Pretty scary too. Brittish are paying $2000 for physicals, usually paid for by the company and the "nanny state."

Whatever happens, it won't be just a change in the retirment age. There will be conditions.

That is pure ignorant BS. The Brits have always had to do their Initial Class I at Gatwick. The initial requirements have always exceeded what we have to get with the FAA. The initial medical included Eye check w/drops, EEG, ECG, Chest xray, blood work, lung capacity, full half day, and cost about $600, and yes all the same if the initial is done at age 21 or age 40. All further exams are give by FAA style examiners. Since most Europeans smoke more, drink more, exercise far less than their American cousins their fitness at age 60 would become more of a question that the average American pilot. ALPA literature is far from illuminating, it is a total distortion of fact, but what else is new? The only pension ALPA has been able to protect is DWs. I'm sure you would agree that he deserves a pension of $149,000 for eight years as ALPA President, or $223,000 if he serves another 4 year term. This is of course on top of any NWA pension earned.

 

[sandman2122]

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!

Talk about wanting their cake and eating it too. Ridiculous!

VOTE NO

 

[TAZ MAN]

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 retire at 60 and make room for them!

Talk about wanting their cake and eating it too. Ridiculous!

VOTE NO

You are absolutely right. As well as you would and will in their position. When your an FO you want that left seat. When you can see retirement coming up, you want to hang on as long as possible. We are all walking contradictions.

 

[skykid]

Another thing I heard is a lot of the 60+ guys coming back will be so hyped up on the Viagra they will miss even the loud radio calls. Just think of the harassment at the layovers. This must be stopped. Its an outrage. I just emailed Senator Clinton and Boxer and informed them of this fact. The Senate bill is now officially dead. Sleep well Sandman.

 

[klhoard]

I believe you're thinking of Valujet. The EWR accident . . . <snip>. . ..

.
.
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.
.
.

 

[labbats]

Some people define who they are by what they do for a living. That being the case, I fully support extending the age to 65.

The problem lies in the fact that financially crippled airlines have enough problems as it is. Now you want to glom on for another 5 years at max pay. Not only that, but you're now setting the standard for average retirement at 65. I don't want that.

 

[Jim Smyth]

Why is it age discrimination at 60 but not at 65?

How did they come up with 60? Was there any age related tests done prior to CR Smith at American getting his political buddies to make an age limit on Pilots to get rid of his older more rebelious Pilots in the union? I dont think so! So why do we have to wait until age 62 to get partial Social Security and age 67 to get full Social Security and age 65 to get Medicare if we are forced to retire at 60? Seems like total Bull$hit to me! Thats why I am for extending it to something longer than 60! 65 would take you to the most important one of all IMO and that is health care that can literally wipe you out overnight if your not covered.

 

[sgu]

JUST SAY NO! I like Cathay Pacific's, and ATC's retirement age of 55!