Allright, sum it up stud! How much money was that in dollars adjusted for inflation? How much $ do you think a new hire is going to lose, including time value of dollars, over the 5 years? I'm going to guess it's roughly equivilent to you working your last five years for free. Care to disagree?
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
Delay of the Age 65 Rule
- Thread starter Bally
- Start date
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
Allright, sum it up stud! How much money was that in dollars adjusted for inflation? How much $ do you think a new hire is going to lose, including time value of dollars, over the 5 years? I'm going to guess it's roughly equivilent to you working your last five years for free. Care to disagree?
The Prussian
Stecknadelkopf
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Posts
- 671
Huck
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2001
- Posts
- 1,076
Yep. Exactly.
Don't think about the average guy. Think of the worst pilot you ever flew with. Now think of him at 69.5 - or 64.5 for that matter.
It's be one thing if we could pick and choose, but the weak sisters will get to go longer too. And because nobody will do any research into this - the free market will have to rule.
The age 60 rule will change to 65. Now it's just a question of when. Given that the 'fast track' is tied to the FAA Reauthorization Bill, let's try to kill the FAA Reauthorization Bill. For those that oppose a change to age 60, your time is better spent e-mailing/writing/faxing your Congressman and complaining about other items (not the age change) in the FAA Reauthorization Bill such as the increased usage fees. Here's something to stir the pot on that one: http://www.alaskaaircarriers.org/servlet/download?id=41 Note that Sen Stevens was able to get an exemption for most of Alaska - if you're not from Alaska, you can get your Senator fired up about this one. Or write about the Passenger facility charge pilot program. Or complain about the increased slots into Washington Reagan. Or complain about the increase in funds to subsidize rural airports. Or something else. Just throw some sand in the works and help S 1300 grind to a halt.
The normal track, through the NPRM process, promised by Admin. Blakey, may also get delayed for quite a while if Congress doesn't provide protection from being sued by every 60+ pilot who wants to return.
At this point, APAAD and all of these other groups are becoming their own worst enemies. Instead of accepting that once you're gone, you can't come back, they're pushing to get return rights for those over 60. That ain't gonna fly, but it'll sure slow down the process.
Slow down the process long enough and this thing may end up dying a very long, slow death. This battle is now in the halls of Congress, and the best way to win a battle there is by stirring up controversy and getting one group of Senators pitted against another group of Senators.
We may not stop a change, but I'm hoping that all AMR pilots and any other pilot currently furlough are offered the opportunity to return before any change occurs.
So take a look at S. 1300 and find something you don't like about it. Google it and see what other groups oppose in S 1300. And then write your Senators; let's see if we can't slow this thing down so that the presidential election gets a bit closer. Once the election is front and center, S 1300 will be dead in this session of Congress. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
The normal track, through the NPRM process, promised by Admin. Blakey, may also get delayed for quite a while if Congress doesn't provide protection from being sued by every 60+ pilot who wants to return.
At this point, APAAD and all of these other groups are becoming their own worst enemies. Instead of accepting that once you're gone, you can't come back, they're pushing to get return rights for those over 60. That ain't gonna fly, but it'll sure slow down the process.
Slow down the process long enough and this thing may end up dying a very long, slow death. This battle is now in the halls of Congress, and the best way to win a battle there is by stirring up controversy and getting one group of Senators pitted against another group of Senators.
We may not stop a change, but I'm hoping that all AMR pilots and any other pilot currently furlough are offered the opportunity to return before any change occurs.
So take a look at S. 1300 and find something you don't like about it. Google it and see what other groups oppose in S 1300. And then write your Senators; let's see if we can't slow this thing down so that the presidential election gets a bit closer. Once the election is front and center, S 1300 will be dead in this session of Congress. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
Last edited:
canyonblue
Everyone loves Southwest
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 2,314
In June of 2001, a pilot hired at American and Southwest were both hired under a contract that has changed drastically since. Neither would live under the same "rules" their entire careers, does that mean they are both better off? All pilots know the retirement age when they are hired, and can't say they don't. Not one pilot knows their furlough date when the are hired.
You choose this profession, you understand that there is a mandatory retirement age. Should it be 60, or 65? That doesn't change the fact that that there was a age limit when I was hired, I knew it, and if it's there when I retire I can't complain about it. I've just had enough of the guys who leave the airport after their last flight like they are going to the Gas Chamber. In reality, the only pilots "screwed" under this rule were the ones who were hired before Age 60 went into effect. They were told they could work forever, then handed a shortened career.
Chest Rockwell
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2004
- Posts
- 432
The fact that a bad law was in place does not make it right. Many FARs have changed since I chose this profession. At least you have adm,itted that the law is wrong and people were screwed.
No, no my friend! No hostility. I'm just enthused at the thought of having a rather bright person pinned down trying to make a dumb point.
There is NO way you can compare this monetarily. Current SWA captains would have to have worked for 5 years free at some point for this to jive with new hire's dollars lost. The number, adjusted for inflation and the time value of money, between what a senior guy that takes full advantage of age 65 gets and what a new hire will get is 600k in todays dollars. At least. If that new hire wants out at 60? It's probably 1.5 million.
Last edited:
Duke of Ale
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2002
- Posts
- 94
You talk about hiring now under the conditions of the past. Well, a lot of you would not be here. You could not be 31 years old when I hired on. There were no female airline pilots and very, very few minorities. Stewardesses could not be married or older than 30 or so. (They were stewardesses then) And I really did not know about age 60 until after I hired on to the airlines. I thought it was wrong when I found out and still do. I am way over 60 now and fly for a frac. Also fly around at M.90. Conditions change. It's life.
Enjoy !
Enjoy !
Age 60=bad law. Age 65= good law? (You're going straight after 70, aren't you?) By your own admission, really, both are bad laws. One just happens to augment your wallet. What you are REALLY saying is: that you're too special to be saddled with ANY type of retirement requirement? In the history of powered flight, and since early man's first vocational endeavors, you're the first to walk among us too sacred an employee to be held to the terms of a normal retirement age? Wow, I guess we should all feel special that you graced us with your presence.
How many fractioanls did they have back then Duke? How many pilot jobs were there in those days for fractional guys? I agree, things change and it looks like their are plenty of opportunites for these guys to do what you're doing.
Hey Duke: Just for fun, tell us what the IBT would do with a leader that voted opposite of the membership's majority?
Last edited:
FlyBoeingJets
YES, that's NICE
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2003
- Posts
- 1,802
You say you took the challenge, but all you did was relive some memories and forget why you started your post. So which costs more--Being a newhire/junior dude under the old rules vs. 5 more years as FO. You can factor in how fast you dudes made Captain too.
Are you a 59 1/2 guy? Getting lost in the parking lot yet?
I can assume Chest Rockwell can't do it either since there has been no response.
Why don't you cats just tell me what you really want to say--
"Life was tougher when I was new guy. I don't care about your career progression--I want more now and I won't let you stop me."
I do feel for the guys who retired under the conditions you describe. They deserve more.
Last edited:
The Prussian
Stecknadelkopf
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Posts
- 671
Yeah...like maybe 5 more years...
BTW....had a guy here at SWA retire in Dec 2006 as an FO...so sad....finally had his dream job, but was forced to retire from it before he got to upgrade. Not to mention a whole host of legacy guys in the same boat....
THE HUMANITY! Someone had to retire as an FO because there is a manditory age limit!? Better get on this age 65 thing post haste! That will fix all our problems!
Do any of you guys ever wonder what pilots did when their airline shutdown overnight? I can tell you without hesitation, that is much worse than dealing with a retirement age requirement. You SWA guys shut one down in Dallas years ago and I didn't hear much outcry for their needs?! Prussian: why don't you take your mocking "Not to mention a whole host of legacy guys in the same boat...." comment and stick it up your butt. Yeah right...you care about legacy guys?!
Don't feel sad for that FO you think should make captain. He can fly elsewhere, as many have. What he probably needs is the money. YOU can fix that! Your in section 6 soon and you work for a profitable airline. Go get him and all you other coworkers a comfortable retirement and fix everybodys problems.
Last edited:
It is funny how the pro 65 guys complain about how unjust the law is and how they are being discriminated against. All the ones that benefited from the rule are now trying to change it! You did not care about the thousands of guys that had to retire, but now that you are in the left seat with a good line you want it to change. If I told you I wanted it to change when I was 59, you would say I was greedy and selfish. THAT IS WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING!!!
I used to be neutral on the issue. What changed me was when I was talking to two cappies and told them that I was ok leaving it as is. Well they started to tell me how I was forcing guys on the street and how greedy I was. After beratement was over, I listened to them over the next hour talk about how much money they could make if they could stay for another 5 years. So, needless to say I am against changing the rule now. Leave it like it is and get on with your life. If you cared about "healthy" dudes losing their jobs, I have one question for you....What have you done for all the furloughed??? That is what I thought!
I used to be neutral on the issue. What changed me was when I was talking to two cappies and told them that I was ok leaving it as is. Well they started to tell me how I was forcing guys on the street and how greedy I was. After beratement was over, I listened to them over the next hour talk about how much money they could make if they could stay for another 5 years. So, needless to say I am against changing the rule now. Leave it like it is and get on with your life. If you cared about "healthy" dudes losing their jobs, I have one question for you....What have you done for all the furloughed??? That is what I thought!
nightrider
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2001
- Posts
- 115
What does that have to do with age 60? At all of the airlines that I have worked at the weak link eventually gets discovered. Once discovered they are either reprogrammed or reassigned (made into chief pilots or some higher position) or eliminated. I really do not get your point.
The Prussian
Stecknadelkopf
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Posts
- 671
....and was ushered out the door by....choice????!?
Chest Rockwell
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2004
- Posts
- 432
Both are indeed bad. Come up with an age based on facts and put it into place. Thge law will slow my advancement in seniority for many years, and I may benefit if I choose to fly past 60. Take your personal shot at me when you fully know my situation. If you cannot stomach that I simply feel that mandatory age 60 retirement is simply wrong and unjustified then I have no clue as to how to convince you otherwise. "We all knew the rules" doesn't hold water. This business and the rules that regulate it have always evolved. I have no problem complying with a normal retirement age when one is factually determined.
Chest Rockwell
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2004
- Posts
- 432
If you can come up with factual justification to put a mandatory retirement age into effect, I am fine with that. I think that the curernt rule is wrong, period. Believe what you want, but $ is not in my reasoning on this issue, although it obviously is on many on both sides.
Allow me to shed a tear for the guy that retired making a six-figure income with 18 days off, plus a military pension. He had it so rough! So much more deserving of that job than the guy who's been furloughed for the past 5+ years. [/sarcasm]
The Prussian
Stecknadelkopf
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Posts
- 671
You're the one that brought this "sob story" into the debate, not me. I'm just pointing out that your example is absurd, and no one is going to have any sympathy for the guy. He retired in a better position than most pilots will, no matter what the age limit is.
Here's how I'd frame the arguement: What the he!! is this "class envy" BS?! We're all doing the same job here, right? When did this dude attain status in a class no other had claim to? When did any of you get into a "class" the rest of us won't ever see? Is that the deal? You all got hired before 01 so your in an altogether class?
Disgusting. None of us are better than another. We just got hired in a particuliar order and that is all!
The Prussian
Stecknadelkopf
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Posts
- 671
Fine...let "most pilots" have another five years, and then let's reevaluate your above statement.
Yeah, it's real hard to figure out your deal....NOT! You work for an airline where the most senior pilot really doesn't have a better schedule than the most junior. Cry me a river, but you're dipped in butter no matter how this goes so your gripe crap won't hold any water. If you had any seeds at all, you wouldn't support age 65 cause you know it's a half answer. I'd sooner support NO age limit before selling out for this five more years BS. You should as well; Any less and you have no claim to credibility. You'll just take it cause it helps you.
Chest Rockwell
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2004
- Posts
- 432
Wow. No sense being sensibkle with you. Believe what lets you sleep at night. Make it personal rather than discuss facts. I think the current rule is wrong. Deal with it. I think 65 is a less unfair but not an ultimate answer.
Share this page
Latest posts
-
-
-
FYI Storage and Endurance Testing of the TCW IBBS 3AH battery
- Latest: Cactus Charlie
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
