Discussing Age 65 WITHOUT arguing the merits

[Flopgut]

It is a small miracle to get hired into this profession. It is a somewhat larger miracle to be able to retire from this profession. I'm in favor of both of those becoming a reality for more pilots. It is no miracle whatsoever to find a way to stay longer in a seniority system! That is to say: Flying professionally to, say, age 75 might also be somewhat miraculous. But certainly not in a seniority system when you did so by soaking up a rule change! That's not really different than getting hired in a manner to everyone else's detriment.

The best test for working past age 60 I ever saw was wether or not anyone would hire you? (Yes, you always could work past 60) Make no mistake, the loudest voices wanting this rule to change and supporting it now, wouldn't be able to get hired past 60.

 

[Flopgut]

So the answer is: Get more pilots more money. Give those who can stick to a plan the opportunity to build a retirment. This will not be accomplihed if we let the greed imperative have a free pass. Yes the rule has changed but we have to roll up our sleeves and do some hard work. We can't pull punches when we're talking about our weak links.

 

[Andy Neill]

Please refer to the questions on the other thread and let this thread die please.
http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=119512

 

[Flopgut]

Start a two part thread that asks:

How are the pilots who will work past 60 managing money in these tough times so they are ready to retire at 65? (that will be an eye opener. they aren't doing anything)

And, what can we do contracturally and within the RLA to get a broadbased retirement change for US 121 airline pilots?

 

[Andy Neill]

Start a two part thread that asks:

How are the pilots who will work past 60 managing money in these tough times so they are ready to retire at 65? (that will be an eye opener. they aren't doing anything)

And, what can we do contracturally and within the RLA to get a broadbased retirement change for US 121 airline pilots?

Bingo! Thanks.

 

[mach none]

The same group that lobbied for age 65, did nothing to help pass the law when they were on the bottom of the seniority list years ago.

Hypocritical? I think so.

 

[Andy Neill]

The same group that lobbied for age 65, did nothing to help pass the law when they were on the bottom of the seniority list years ago.

Hypocritical? I think so.

But not in the spirit of this thread. Now to get back to the point, is there something that can be done in terms of revising union contracts to reverse the effects?

 

[hockeypilot44]

My favorite are the NWA pilots who bid to sit sideways for a month or two because they turned 60 before the rule was changed. As soon as the rule was changed, every single one of them bid back to captain or wide-body first officer. The rule change was a shame. In the grand scheme of things, ALPA dropped the ball. ALPA should have organized a nation-wide shut-down or strike as soon as the first pension was taken away. Sometimes laws need to be broken in order to make sure the right thing is done.

On another note, I also think we should be cutting policians' pay and benefits. Afterall, our government is broke. That is their solution to the auto companies. Get pay cuts from your workers. Why would the government's solution be any different.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

It wasn’t too hard to predict this was going to happen. Even the brakes are slammed on at Southwest. I think everyone better start enjoying their seats. It looks like we’re all going to be there for awhile!

AA767AV8TOR

http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/1091523.html

Pilot hiring is at lowest point since 9-11, firm say

By TREBOR [email protected]


Pilot hiring hit its lowest point last month since just after Sept. 11, 2001, as the airline industry shrank, according to a report released Friday.

Airlines hired just 133 pilots in November while laying off more than 400, according to AIR Inc., a consulting firm that focuses on careers and jobs for airline pilots. About 4,500 pilots are on furlough nationwide.

In November 2007, the industry hired 1,084 pilots and had about 2,700 on furlough.

None of the major airlines, such as Fort Worth-based American Airlines, United Airlines or Delta Air Lines, hired any pilots during the month, according to AIR. Only smaller regional carriers and corporate-jet operators hired.

Those jobs typically pay far less than flying positions at large airlines like American and United.

American has by far the most pilots on furlough, 1,969. That’s about 23 percent of the 8,379 pilots that AIR has listed for American.

United has the second-most pilots on furlough, 222, while Dallas-based Southwest has none.

Pilots on furlough keep their seniority and can be recalled to work when the airlines begin hiring. But they don’t receive wages or most benefits.

Furloughed pilots from large airlines rarely take lower-paying jobs with smaller carriers because they risk losing their seniority.

The big airlines have been cutting flights in recent months amid a steep drop in travel demand. More cuts are expected next year, which could lead to more furloughs.

TREBOR BANSTETTER, 817-390-7064

 

[mach none]

But not in the spirit of this thread. Now to get back to the point, is there something that can be done in terms of revising union contracts to reverse the effects?

With the elimination of the A plans, do we really need to change anything in the contracts other than pay and the DC contribution?

Without the A plan, there is no penalty for retirement before 60 or after 60. You go when you have had enough of this torture.

 

[alaskaplt]

With the elimination of the A plans, do we really need to change anything in the contracts other than pay and the DC contribution?

Without the A plan, there is no penalty for retirement before 60 or after 60. You go when you have had enough of this torture.

And/or elimination of the 50% lump sum payment from the A plan. They would flee like rats off a sinking ship. I actually hope we can eliminate this for all the people who didn't take the full retirement, plus 6 months of full medical, along with the 100k. It would be great to see them have to leave and not get the 100k that they turned down. I hope it is my vote that seals it.

 

[Andy Neill]

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

[mach none]

.....

 

[reroute]

IIRC, the age 65 change here in the US was LEGISLATED in Congress. Any contract REQUIRING pilots to retire earlier than this would most likely be considered illegal.

Now, negotiation of something that would make it ADVANTAGEOUS to retire early is certainly feasable.

But first you need to get your company to pony up any additional labor expense. Next, you would need to get the majority of the pilots to vote yes on any TA.

And, up to this point, not even the strongest airline in the land has been willing to do something such as this. They don't see any reason to do so, nor do they envision any enhancement to their bottom line as a result.

 

[Andy Neill]

IIRC, the age 65 change here in the US was LEGISLATED in Congress. Any contract REQUIRING pilots to retire earlier than this would most likely be considered illegal.

I don't agree on this point. The legislation does not allow those to fly airline beyond Age 65. There is nothing in the rule requiring the airline to retain those above any lesser age.

So if ALPA and a carrier agree that retirement is required at age 63, for instance, what would prevent them from doing so? Others have pointed out that this may be advantageous to the carrier by reducing the average longevity pay of the pilot force and I am sure many pilots would be glad to see the older pilots walk out the door a couple of years earlier.