DOT seeks age 60 opinion, young guys speak up

[aussiefly]

To others who keep talking about the ways the guys near retirement "mismanaged their money" during the "golden years": What if it wasn't financial mismanagement or infidelity that caused your financial problem but a family member with a medical condition? What if the only way to meet the financial obligations of all the medical bills was to keep making what you were making? Would you feel better about it then?

Well thats all good and fine but the reality is that this would be at the expense of someone elses financial future and career progression. In the same token what about the junior guys who may have a family member with medical issues that needs to upgrade and hold the left seat to pay for the bills. Under your rationalization surely it would be fine for them to leapfrog over you in seniority??? Because the need the money ???

Changing the Age 60 rule simply screws everyone who is furloughed and people that are junior to the top 10%. This is not about age discrimination or ICAO rules. This is solely about those at the top wanting to extend their time and hold on to the left seat.

They knew the rule when they started flying, they reaped the benfits of the retirements and now they are at the top they want to change it to drag the ladder up behind them.

And they have the gaul to call us `selfish'

 

[Cobra]

Cobra, you're missing something on your unscientific poll: most of the guys over 50 may not even OWN a laptop (or even a home computer unless required to bid), much less bother to go to (or even know where) flightinfo is.

God, your killing me man. Every stinking poll, either professionally conducted (ALPA member's website), or here on this site has said the same thing-over and over-and over again. Come'on I know you can read right?

I'm tired of the argument that the pro-age change camp's voice has more relevance than the numerous polls that suggest otherwise.

G

 

[ground stop]

the effect on hiring and upgrades would only be delayed about 3 yrs from the current levels during the transition from 60 to 65. all those guys who are 59 now, problably won't make it to 65 and still be in flying condition although some will. the companies won't need to hire as many newbies as people leaving slows. once the "59ers" hit 65, hiring will pick back up. the people who are hurt the most by the age change are the pilots that are less then about 50 right now, they will miss out being able to maximize their time. the young guys, 15-20 right now, are the ones who will benifit the most as their careers will get another 3yrs more longevity on average. basically, ok for the old guys, not terrible for current middle age guys but pretty good for the ones with student pilot certs.

 

[Lear70]

If memory serves (can't get onto the ALPA site anymore to verify), the polls were actually pretty close, not "overwhelming".

And yes, I can read, can you? If so, feel free to post the actual numbers from the ALPA polling here. I bet they're within 10% points (gotta love those 60/40 spreads - sounds like a T.A. ratification vote for concessions).

I never said the pro age-change camp's voice was more "relevant" than yours, again, can you read?

What I DID say was that they didn't necessarily bother to come here and they knew very well how to call/write/visit their elected representatives (which is not saying their voice is or should be any stronger than yours) and that I agreed with them (which is my OPINION, NOT a statement of fact).

 

[Lear70]

Well thats all good and fine but the reality is that this would be at the expense of someone elses financial future and career progression.

Yes, just as a refusal to change the limit would come at the expense of someone else's financial future and career RETENTION. It's a double-edged sword, don't forget that.

In the same token what about the junior guys who may have a family member with medical issues that needs to upgrade and hold the left seat to pay for the bills. Under your rationalization surely it would be fine for them to leapfrog over you in seniority??? Because the need the money ???

Your logic is faulty. I never said "it would be fine" to do anything of the sort. Do NOT put words in my mouth.

What I said, and it was VERY clear, was that the people who come on here talking smack about older pilots mis-managing their money and having multiple ex-wives is a broad generalization that doesn't fit everyone. I tried to broaden their thought process by offering another reason they would WANT to keep working past 65, I NEVER, EVER said they should be ENTITLED to keep working because of that.

READ and UNDERSTAND before you post and don't change the words I actually used in order to fit your argument. There seems to be a LOT of you doing that on here.

Changing the Age 60 rule simply screws everyone who is furloughed and people that are junior to the top 10%.

No argument there, the furloughed guys do get screwed for another 1-3 years. That does suck and I don't have a good answer and neither do you.

Either way this goes, people get screwed, so why can't we argue the merits of the debate rather than fight over who's getting screwed harder?

This is not about age discrimination or ICAO rules. This is solely about those at the top wanting to extend their time and hold on to the left seat.

That's what it is FOR YOU. Or are you telling me you can read the minds of every single person who supports this and tell me what they TRULY believe and how they TRULY think in this fight?

Seriously, please enlighten me how you can make a broad statement of why individual people fight this battle. If you're really that psychic, maybe you should quit aviation and get your own 900 line...

They knew the rule when they started flying, they reaped the benfits of the retirements and now they are at the top they want to change it to drag the ladder up behind them.

And they have the gaul to call us `selfish'

Why not? You can't be honest enough to call YOURSELF that. Look REALLY hard in the mirror and tell me you haven't just argued a point that benefits YOU regardless of how it impacts those forced to retire at 60. That's called being selfish, and is a normal human reaction.

How we conduct ourselves and the choices we make AGAINST what is in our own best interest for an overall fundamental belief, be it age discrimination, equality, or any other basic value this country is SUPPOSED to possess, is what defines your character.

If your ethics don't prevent you from giving up something that benefits you to benefit someone else, it doesn't necessarily mean they're "WRONG", it just means they're "DIFFERENT" than someone else's. How others view that type of behavior is their own business.

I sleep very well at night with my value set... but then again, those who truly "beileve" differently probably sleep just as well since, at their core, they believe they're doing the right thing.

That's why they call this a "debate", not a forum where we beat each other into submission. I do see it both ways, as Boiler and others have demonstrated, and I know the base evil is not each other, but rather the condition of this industry imposed on us by management and government that lacks any semblance of moral value. I simply have my beliefs, just as you are entitled to yours.

 

[Chewbacca]

Thanks. I'll be sure to respond as I am all for changing this out-dated, useless rule.

Useless?? Holy crap give me what you are smoking.

 

[mynameisjim]

I did not realize the rule says that if one pilot is over 60, then one pilot must be below 60. It's like the government realizes above 60 is dangerous, so they only want one at a time.

It's almost like "One pilot may fly blind, as long as at least one pilot is not blind."

 

[bubbers44]

I got hired by a great airline when I was 35. Shortly after I was furloughed for a year. I saw great pilots retiring at 60 and thought it was wrong then even though it got me back sooner. I was sure they would fix it soon but now almost 30 years later with the ICAO age 65 change finally it is being carefully looked at.

Get over it. This is long over due. However retirement is wonderful. That is if the airline didn't steal it from you in the last five years.

 

[zman]

Who cares about these old farts, they are just selfish and greedy. The only reason why they want the age 60 rule to be changed is that they have nothing else in life to do or need more money for their lost pensions. They dont understand by changing this rule is that what about the impact not only in our fields but other fields around them. See I love it when I hear from major airline pilots saying that we are ruining their flying by flying 70-90 seat jets. When in reality it was them that relaxed the scope close, countless times they have made decisions that have come back to haunt them. This will do exactly the same thing. Thank god that these old farts already have one foot in the grave they have ruined this industry enough!!!!

 

[EAP]

I got hired by a great airline when I was 35. Shortly after I was furloughed for a year. I saw great pilots retiring at 60 and thought it was wrong then even though it got me back sooner. I was sure they would fix it soon but now almost 30 years later with the ICAO age 65 change finally it is being carefully looked at.

Get over it. This is long over due. However retirement is wonderful. That is if the airline didn't steal it from you in the last five years.

Buddy, you have got to be kidding me.

Furloughed for a year, and that gives you any idea of what it is like out there right now in the "outside" where you are attempting to raise the drawbridge behind you? You are out of touch.

This isn't a "fairness" issue. This is a "discrimination" issue as you see it.

When I was furloughed, I was furloughed based on my seniority. When an age 60 guy retires, he retires on his seniority. You want to cherry pick? Fine, let's get rid of seniority and go on merit. Becasue seniority is discriminating as I see it, holding somebody back from advancement based on hire date. Or, offering advancement based on hire date. If congress can mandate things within the industry, why stop at retirement?

Go get a job at a hard charging corporate charter flight department if you want to contunue to work. It would be a change of pace and would not discriminate against you at all. Everything is based on merit, how could that be discriminative?

Right now we have the biggest glut of pilots with large cahes of experience that we ever had in history. A Wilson study based on multiple polls that were used to determine status in the industry within the past couple years showed a very disturbing trend. Though the age 60 guys wanted to stay, the age 30-40 guys were seriously in danger of being pushed out. The backbone and immediate future leadership ready to leave in droves. And the 60-65 crowd wants to make more money for a few years and then leave the industry in a heap after they get theirs for the second time in a row.

This is unacceptable. We have a serious problem and an industry ready to implode and we have a special interest group who wants nothing than something for themselves at the cost of others who have, indeed, suffered enough. "If not now, when?' That sounds like a kid begging for candy. Sorry, we need leadership, it's time for a change of guard and a period of healing before this industry can accept such a change.

My argument is that while age 65 may eventually come, it could not be proposed at a more foolish time for the greater interest of the industry and for the "masses" and not the "few".

65 is a train wreck waiting to happen. Time to take one for the team like your captain did for you, and like all the furloughed guys did for their company.

Oh and all this talk of polls on the internet. How about polls conducted with scientific method and with credibility like the ones ALPA used to be suprised that the majority of the industry wanted to keep age 60?