Delay of the Age 65 Rule

[Freight Dog]

Hmmm, I thought it was imminent and that's why ALPA folded.

 

[canyonblue]

Wellll..... it won't suck for the

- 25 guys who will upgrade to captain,

- the 25 guys who will get hired at SWA,

- the 25 guys who will replace those new-hires at whatever job.

YEAH! Brother!!!!! :beer: 60 when you started....60 when you departed!

 

[mdf]

The second pilot must be under 60 to ensure the safety of the flight.

Tejas Jet works for a regional flying little commuter hoops and doesn't know the first thing about safety. Tejas compromises safety for schedule daily so he has little regard for running the safest organization. But I don't blame Tejas personally as he is just doing what his company preaches which is exactly what he has to do. His companies business model has not lead the industry in any safety practices and its accident record does not reflect the damage it has done to air travel as a whole by chance much more than design."

Nice post. Could you back all that up with facts, or are you just talking out your a$$ like that guy on the ESPN commercial?

 

[BVT94]

YEAH! Brother!!!!! :beer: 60 when you started....60 when you departed!

Can I get that on a sticker? Cheers:beer:

 

[Chest Rockwell]

YEAH! Brother!!!!! :beer: 60 when you started....60 when you departed!

Would you like to live under the same rules they were employed under their entire careers? Such as:
type req'd to interview.
no 401k 1st year
no paid dh
1/2 pay dh to training
all training on days off
on reserve from first push until last
no 2nd year pay for "extra flying"

Profitsharing and options have been better thus far for those that are senior, but they were not guaranteed in our compensation package. They were at risk components that turned out well.

If the rule (age 60) did not exsist today, no reasonable argument could be made to get it enacted. I believe that should be the test for all laws.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Would you like to live under the same rules they were employed under their entire careers? Such as:
type req'd to interview.
no 401k 1st year
no paid dh
1/2 pay dh to training
all training on days off
on reserve from first push until last
no 2nd year pay for "extra flying"

Yeah, I'll take the Pepsi challenge.

You tell me how 5 years of Captain pay vs. FO pay is less than the above and I'll be happy.

Let me guess--You can't do it, can you? Thought so.

 

[DiamondZ]

Would you like to live under the same rules they were employed under their entire careers? Such as:
type req'd to interview.
no 401k 1st year
no paid dh
1/2 pay dh to training
all training on days off
on reserve from first push until last
no 2nd year pay for "extra flying"

Apples / Oranges

You're trying to compare contract vs regulation.

Next.

 

[PCL_128]

Reauthorization slipped again, with the Dems still trying to get the air traffic controller contract reopened. As the dollars are huge, and the Repubs/White House adamantly against, things have gotten messy at the committee level. Age 65 language (which WILL be included in the bill) is hostage to other, partisan, issues.

Yeah, that sounds like typical selfish APAAD bulls%*$. Age-65 so they can keep flying and making $200k+ at SWA for 5 more years is a "noble" cause, but the Dems supporting NATCA in their effort to achieve a fair contract and not have to take the ass-reaming they took with their government-imposed concessions last year, that's just a "partisan issue."

Another two months will mean 400 more pilots on the street and (an average of) 25 more SWA pilots. Sucks.

How 'bout the thousands of AMR pilots still on the street after 5 years? Any consideration to them? Naw, didn't think so. You'll just give them 5 more.

 

[ttuite]

Unfortunately we will be hearing about age 70 in a few years. The same old arguements will be heard once again. Where does it end?[/quote]

Are you going to try to tell me that even a crew of 70 year old experienced major airline pilots is more dangerous than a 235 hour pilot teamed with a 1500 hour Captain? That is the current situation at the Regionals at this time. For heavens sake just admit it, you want those guys out of your seats. The fallacy in that thinking is that this is not a zero sum game. Air traffic is INCREASING not decreasing. Those old farts may not get out of your seat but there will be more seats in the future.

 

[The Prussian]

Yeah, I'll take the Pepsi challenge.

Yeah, Ill take that Pepsi challenge (your words, not mine!)

No pay DH...yes, I remember,...and after I arrived, 1/2 pay Dh to everything...

It was assumed that if the company wasn't making anything, why should we???...IE...flight was cancelled...no money to company...no money to our bottom line...no money to our paycheck....kinda like we were all entrepreneurs...

No 401k...period...(or match)...period...no 401k..

4-day trip...pays 16.0...no rigs...months on end....

Sr. line pays 103.5...Jr. line pays 86.5...no guarantee, or rigs...

Oh yeah...I forgot to mention that the profit sharing was realigned before my arrival!!!

I may be wrong. but certain memories seem to burn pretty deep, so correct me if I'm wrong!!!

Oh....by the way,...I luved it back then...times were great...


TP

 

[Flopgut]

Yeah, Ill take that Pepsi challenge (your words, not mine!)

No pay DH...yes, I remember,...and after I arrived, 1/2 pay Dh to everything...

It was assumed that if the company wasn't making anything, why should we???...IE...flight was cancelled...no money to company...no money to our bottom line...no money to our paycheck....kinda like we were all entrepreneurs...

No 401k...period...(or match)...period...no 401k..

4-day trip...pays 16.0...no rigs...months on end....

Sr. line pays 103.5...Jr. line pays 86.5...no guarantee, or rigs...

Oh yeah...I forgot to mention that the profit sharing was realigned before my arrival!!!

I may be wrong. but certain memories seem to burn pretty deep, so correct me if I'm wrong!!!

Oh....by the way,...I luved it back then...times were great...


TP

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]

Hummm......I sense hostility...not going to go there now...just had some nostalgic recollections...allow me the moment....

 

[Huck]

Are you going to try to tell me that even a crew of 70 year old experienced major airline pilots is more dangerous than a 235 hour pilot teamed with a 1500 hour Captain?

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.

 

[Andy]

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.

 

[canyonblue]

Would you like to live under the same rules they were employed under their entire careers?

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]

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.

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.

 

[Flopgut]

Hummm......I sense hostility...not going to go there now...just had some nostalgic recollections...allow me the moment....

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.

 

[Duke of Ale]

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 !

 

[Flopgut]

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.

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.

 

[Flopgut]

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 !

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?