DOT seeks age 60 opinion, young guys speak up

[BoilerUP]

Yeah, you're right. My bad... Got a little pissed off...

My wife was flying professionally when she was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes last year, effectively ending her career before it really got started. Comments like that really hit close to home with me.

I want Age 60 to remain as is because every CA in the industry has benefitted from such blatant "age discrimination" yet nobody complained loudly about it until recently - when it was in their financial best interest. I want you out of "my" seat when you turn 60 because thats the way it happened for you and everybody else clamoring for this change. Is that selfish? Sure is, but its no more selfish than changing the rules we all knew about in the middle of the game once they no longer suit you.

That said, I'd never wish a medical problem on anybody...ever.

 

[Flybynite]

I want Age 60 to remain as is because every CA in the industry has benefitted from such blatant "age discrimination" yet nobody complained loudly about it until recently - when it was in their financial best interest. I want you out of "my" seat when you turn 60 because thats the way it happened for you and everybody else clamoring for this change. Is that selfish? Sure is, but its no more selfish than changing the rules we all knew about in the middle of the game once they no longer suit you.

Since you don't like change I hope you enjoy flying your BE20/40 or CL65 till you reach 60. Seems only fair since you knew what your flying. Stay where you are and let someone else get the job at a major. Sounds just as reasonable as your ignorant argument. The nothing ever changes gang.

 

[LEROY]

Why not approve the age 65 rule change...for anyone hired AFTER the rule change takes effect? Let's see how many folks would approve of that measure...

 

[MECH]

How is 65 not discrimination? Why not 67 when you can collect full social security benefits?

This whole issue is about money! I fly that captains that lost on average $200,000 to $300,000 dollars when their retirement was frozen. They want to work an extra 5 years to make it up. By calculations the most they will need to make it up is 2 years. Why the extra 3 years?

This same group that is pushing for the change is the same group that forced ALPA into supporting the age 60 rule.

If it does change and I am stuck in my current seat for an extra 4 years. Then lose my medical at age 60 plus 1 day it will cost me about $200,000 dollars in lost retirement.

How can I support this change.

 

[Andy]

Posted on the UAL board by a pilot - easy instructions on how to comment:

Easy way to comment on Age 60
https://dms.dot.gov/submit/

Page one
click continue

Page two
enter docket no 26139
enter operating administration FAA
enter docket existence does exist
enter submitter information
click continue

Page 3
enter your comments
enter submit


If you read the comments, it looks like the pro-change crowd has been able to rally the troops and 'get out the vote.' They are much more organized with APAAD and PPF. It looks like they've been able to send the message to their members, trying to keep it off of the radar screen for us younger pups. Great work, PVB BEACH.

 

[Jim Smyth]

Why not approve the age 65 rule change...for anyone hired AFTER the rule change takes effect? Let's see how many folks would approve of that measure...

Why not make it age 65 and let all the Pilots that were forced out at age 60 be able to come back immediately at there original seniority after they get there First Class back and pass there check ride? Sounds fair too doesn't it! That way no one benefits from being forced out at age 60!

 

[Lear70]

I'm very sorry to hear that, Boiler, that really sucks and yeah I feel bad for posting it and will remove it if you like (Hansom quoted it anyway so it would stay up regardless). Again, my apologies.

I know how most guys my age feel about it, and I understand you don't want your career to suffer by sitting another 2, 3, or even 5 years in the right seat, but it's age discrimination, and it has to end SOMETIME... if not now, when?

I'm willing to take that extra time in the right seat in order to make it happen now because I believe it's the right thing to do and I will always go with what I believe is right, even if it hurts me financially, but I'm a bit of an idealist.

Personally, I don't have a problem with 67 either, as long as the medical requirements are stringent enough to weed out problems, but 65 is the accepted ICAO age and I think it's fair to match that.

Just my opinion, backed by a bunch of medical research and pilots in other countries currently flying to that age that shows it's perfectly safe. Opinions vary,,,

 

[LEROY]

When you were hired at your (hopefully) 30+ year career at your dream major AND (since career progression is based on an age limit) you understood that you would have a conceivable finite limit in the left seat of a widebody, you accepted it. The person who had to retire in order for your slot to open up accepted that fact too. For you to then attempt to change the rule DURING your career would be a freebie for you, shouldered by those who would come after you.
If you were hired as a government employee knowing you could only make GS-16 as a final career position, changing Age 60 would be like asking for a GS-20 position to be created specifically for you.
If you started out as an O-1 in the military, knowing you could only aspire to O-11 (on a first-name basis w/ the Pres) it would be like altering the rank structure for yourself to become an O-16. You would effectively undermine the stature of the folks senior to you, and undercut the careers of those junior to you.
Seems to me, if it's about safety, then it's certainly as safe, or safer, to allow the rule to change only for those entering the business after the rule changes.
OTOH, if it's about money, and greed, and recouping personal losses incurred as a result of corrupt, ethically questionable managers liquidating your retirement assets, I say don't try to make two wrongs into a right. Address the real problem. Don't attempt to take stop-gap measures which affect everone else, mostly negatively.
Just my pair O' pennies...

 

[General Lee]

I'm very sorry to hear that, Boiler, that really sucks and yeah I feel bad for posting it and will remove it if you like (Hansom quoted it anyway so it would stay up regardless). Again, my apologies.

I know how most guys my age feel about it, and I understand you don't want your career to suffer by sitting another 2, 3, or even 5 years in the right seat, but it's age discrimination, and it has to end SOMETIME... if not now, when?

I'm willing to take that extra time in the right seat in order to make it happen now because I believe it's the right thing to do and I will always go with what I believe is right, even if it hurts me financially, but I'm a bit of an idealist.

Personally, I don't have a problem with 67 either, as long as the medical requirements are stringent enough to weed out problems, but 65 is the accepted ICAO age and I think it's fair to match that.

Just my opinion, backed by a bunch of medical research and pilots in other countries currently flying to that age that shows it's perfectly safe. Opinions vary,,,

The main reason ICAO recommended this was not because they decided one morning that old guys should fly longer and later in life, but rather Europe is short of pilots. The expansion of LCCs in Europe has caused a shortage. That was the imputus. It's great you feel like you want to "do the right thing." But that is the real reason ICAO asked for this--Ryanair and Easyjet expansion.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[EAP]

Why not make it age 65 and let all the Pilots that were forced out at age 60 be able to come back immediately at there original seniority after they get there First Class back and pass there check ride? Sounds fair too doesn't it! That way no one benefits from being forced out at age 60!

Fairness? There is no fairness in business, is there? How about we negotiate a deal. We get rid of seniority entirely and go on merit. And we can all work till our little tickers stop mid trip. How's that? Everybody's right, this is not a safety issue at all. O'l Frankie L. would be proud of us lazy pilots about now, well he probably is.

 

[KCPilot]

There are good points made by most here and we know it’s not about trying to keep experience or safety in the cockpit. Age 65 will not do that. What it is about is the lost money. The bottom line is we all know the mandatory retirement age is 60. In my current job the mandatory age is 55 and I’m planning accordingly. I’m sorry that the pilots approaching 60 lost your pension but unless you have an ex or two or other problems, you should have been able to save some of that income you made back in the glory days of the airlines (I know some with a million in the bank now) and not worry too much about the pension. Don’t get me wrong, the pension is a real nice thing to have and I wish it would stay around, but here we are now, so deal with it.

The pilots approaching age 60 have seen the airline industry go from a round dial 707 with an FE to the full up glass 777 with 2 pilots. You have seen the hot young flight attendants and now they have grown old as you have. For some that are 59+, you might feel like you can go on for another 5 years and you probably can, but remember the rule is not there for the few that are okay to fly like you, it there for the masses and just because ICAO did it doesn’t make it right for us. I’d like to go fly for an airline someday, but if I have to wait 5 more years to get there, what’s the point since I’ll have to work to age 60 then. At that point I’d rather be on a sailboat or flying a float plane around to go fishing rather than working for the airline to age 65.

Say what you want about this, but that is how I see this whole age 65 thing!

 

[bayoubandit]

No age limit will ever solve the woes of those who need the money. They can raise the age limit to infinity and there will be those who will find a reason to call fowl.

I don't want to have to rely on a higher age to make the same gains that should have been attained by age 60. Payscales will probably go from 12 year max to 18 year to offset paying 6 years at a higher rate. Mgmt. will,as always, find a way to reap any benefits that may come from an increased retirement age.

To me, this sounds like a good idea now, but for reasons we don't see today we will in 10 years and ask what the hell were we thinking.

I'll take 60. Thank you!

The real problem is the raping of employees and abuse of the BK system. I don't understand why there isn't a larger push to hold companies accountable instead of screwing ourselves.

 

[aussiefly]

This is not about safety or discrimination or anything else. It's all about $ and retirements. They knew the risks and rewards of this industry, they have had the golden years at a major of their choice and now they want to pull the ladder up behind them. It sucks.

This is just another classic case of the top 10% eating their young.

Thanks again

 

[munson]

Lear, man I'm sorry, I dont know what to say. To think that what someone types on a computer in a message room could get you so " hot headed" as to wish their death... I'm sorry your life has so little meaning. Dude, seroiusly, you can keep your seat, which is probably the RIGHT seat for you. Do you really think management is not going to find a way to screw everyone with this? As someone else said, just wait to see what is around that corner. When I got in the game, the rule was 60, now YOU want it changed, and I gotta pay the price. But I guess that is just the ME attitude coming out again. I just dont understand why someone would want to do this job any longer than they have to. Do I love to fly...heck yes. But I also look at the fact that it takes me away from other things that I love...family, fishing, ect. There isnt any "job" that I would rather be doing, but in the end, its still just that, a job. When you are lying there on your death bed at 67, 2 years out of flying, are you gonna be saying..." Man, if..I...could.....only......have.....had..one...more...flight...aaaahhhhh. I hope not, you need to get your priorities straight. But then again, they are your priorities to put in any order you want, not mine. Good luck with that.
Flame on brutha...im out

 

[BoilerUP]

Since you don't like change I hope you enjoy flying your BE20/40 or CL65 till you reach 60. Seems only fair since you knew what your flying. Stay where you are and let someone else get the job at a major. Sounds just as reasonable as your ignorant argument. The nothing ever changes gang.

What? This does not make ANY sense. Step away from your emotion...

I'll be stuck flying a "small jet" for a longer period of time than I'd like if Age 60 becomes Age 65. Pilots that are furloughed will be on the street longer if Age 60 becomes Age 65. However, those pilots currently at legacies & LCCs (who all benefitted in their career from an artificial retirement ceiling at 60) will remain in their seats because they seek extra $$$ because of lost pensions/ex-wives/living beyond their means/because they can. Since movement only happens because of attrition or growth, the rapid hiring you see at places like CAL because of retirements would come to a screeching HALT, slowing movement down across the industry.

I'm young at 23 years old. I have the most to lose from an Age 60 change because of my age, while somebody older has the most to gain. You might say that I'll more than make that up at the top of my earning potential, but I say no thanks...there's no way in HELL I want to be doing this job, spending half the month in hotels and dragging a 20+lb flight bag up and down steps when I'm over 60. No thank you. You had your turn...and you knew the rules.

Bottom line is this: I don't want my career to be punished because of YOUR financial mismanagement. And as I said, yes that is selfish - but no more selfish than changing the rules YOU benefitted from once its beneficial to YOU.