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

FAA Age 60 Comments

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
Register   Log in
FoxHunter

FoxHunter

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Posts
679
 
ALPA won't support it, and neither does the Supreme Court. And, what language is that anyway (above)? I always thought the FAA was hard to understand, but that weird blue language is something straight from MARS.


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
age 55 for controllers with very few waived to 60

ATC controllers have a mandatory retirement age of 55 and as stated in the video very few have been granted a waiver to 60.

I am all for a mandatory age 55 retirement to keep pilots and controller equal. If the FAA is concerned about them they should be concerned about us.
 
FoxHunter said:
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?videoUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fvp.video.google.com%2Fvideodownload%3Fversion%3D0%26secureurl%3DoAAAAF5P4_sszKDzzu48jibAgYjvkJPUU-hzap88IyQZtuPYlEzVWQQFJM5JiQypIRUBOFBin_sOP_wz81fx1EalzW6jEXMLK8DQS9PFs28SSuE9VucabTUv0qUbvob5QUlk9nL_plfO2KAdDyjhT5bakELI7P3EEXZH_doPdeJt2kEPw-JiUPu-zqBHRnKP9ZL7rDsSClq4W7QGKJHru3CeDEmAOD-xJigDvkCLcQJsWIp8%26sigh%3DvoI8IQer6cdcX6TK0GGTCBeVYUE%26begin%3D0%26len%3D155121%26docid%3D-8530235634119565043&thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2FThumbnailServer%3Fapp%3Dvss%26contentid%3D6b4fdff2cdb68cfe%26second%3D5%26itag%3Dw320%26urlcreated%3D1146085504%26sigh%3DC_lO-Qf09LwoKzDVaHHHqyA3MTc&playerId=-8530235634119565043
Click to expand...

Foxhunter:

I'm curious as to why you re-joined ALPA when you constantly find fault with everything they do. Disagree with all of their (our) positions and continue to predict doom and failure for the FDX pilot group. Do you have an impending violation or company discipline problem that you will need union protection for?
 
matt1.1 said:
ATC controllers have a mandatory retirement age of 55 and as stated in the video very few have been granted a waiver to 60.
Click to expand...


This brings up an interesting question in my mind if we're going to compare retirements of pilots to the retiremnts of controllers....anybody know what the controllers receive w/r to pension and/or retirement benefits????
 
Last edited:
matt1.1 said:
ATC controllers have a mandatory retirement age of 55 and as stated in the video very few have been granted a waiver to 60.

I am all for a mandatory age 55 retirement to keep pilots and controller equal. If the FAA is concerned about them they should be concerned about us.
Click to expand...
The government can afford to pay controllers to retire, they just print more money. If an airline printed money to meet the obligations of retiring it's employees, they would be talking to the Secretion Service.
 
Meanwhile it changes to age 65, all the guys in poverty driving limos as the questioner mentions will still be going into poverty driving limos, only they will be five years older.

On the face of it five more years is a good thing financially. But much as people get used to spending more as they make more and trading up to captain houses and such things, they will find a way to "blow through" the five more years benefit. Or even worse they will ratchet up their spending and whatnot even before they turn 60, because they know they have five additional years. That is why the same guys will be driving limos, whether they are 60 or 65.

I don't mind changing the rule, but I don't like bs arguments. That poverty thing is an individual life structural problem that has little to do with age 60 or 65 in my opinion, although I am sure many will vehemently disagree.
 
Last edited:
To think that it Will not go to 65 in our lifetimes is absurd. Get on the bus make plans for it to happen or get run over!

Congress will ask JBLU and SWA pilots and use their input as examples of pilot groups that are Pro age 65.

ALPA is weak and getting weaker. The senior ALPA pilots will look at pro age 65 legislation, and the recent turn in Europe, Japan and countless other countries that allows pilots to fly beyond 60 (to 65) WITH IN THE USA. They will ask themselves do I want to continue to work or do I want to help get furloughed pilots back so that they can work to 65? Thump, thump, that was the sound of the bus running over the thousands of pilots out on furlough.

ALPA will cave. In an effort to appear to have some strength or influence on the issue (when they don't). Let's see, for the next 5 years I can get 2% of low seniority, low salary pilots or I can get 2% of the most senior pilots on the pay role. Hummmm.........

Anyone who doesn't see the fact that the JAA now drives the bus is blind. European regulators have been ahead of the FAA for years and the FAA is just playing catch up.

I just had to do a RVSM HMU check and the FAA told me that directly. The inspector said. "I will just download your HMU check from the JAA web site and use that, if it's good for them it's good for us, what they say goes"

Now I have to go out and get a transponder that is capable of reporting my Alt and what my alt preselector reads because the JAA wants it or you can't fly in Europe by 3/2007.

When you work the line for an airline you are immune to the inner workings of the FAA, I would estimate I talk to my FSDO 3-4 times a year at a minimum. When I flew for AA, I didn't know where my FSDO was. FYI the JAA has all the power if they say 65 is acceptable. Consider it done.

The reality is that they have the funds to support a healthy JAA and the FAA has been left in the dust.
 
Last edited:
"consider it done" .....goverment translation............we will work it in to the system sometime in the next two decades.

Are there really retired pilots thats pension was reduced/stolen on food stamps? If they retired at 60 the PBGC is giving them about 38k ish a year I think. I am not sure which state that is food stamps qualified.

The rule will change, but it may be quite some time before it takes effect.
 
fr8doggie said:
Foxhunter:

Do you have an impending violation or company discipline problem that you will need union protection for?
Click to expand...

Not a chance!!! Although it sounds like a good rumor you would like to pass on.:)
 
FoxHunter said:
Not sure where you get your numbers??

Maximum monthly guarantee tables (PBGC.gov)

Max guarantee for a married pilot that retires at age 60 is $2323.38 per month or $27880.56
Click to expand...

Sorry, that is why I wrote "ish." Looks like it is 28k-31k depending on if your wife already left you or not. Also remember it is the age you were when your plan was terminated. If you were retired for 5 years (age 65) you are up to almost 48k.

If you retired early, presumably you were ready to retire. IE not to food stamps.

I am not saying that it is fair in any way, it sucks, just not on food stamps.
 
Hutchman said:
Sorry, that is why I wrote "ish." Looks like it is 28k-31k depending on if your wife already left you or not. Also remember it is the age you were when your plan was terminated. If you were retired for 5 years (age 65) you are up to almost 48k.

If you retired early, presumably you were ready to retire. IE not to food stamps.

I am not saying that it is fair in any way, it sucks, just not on food stamps.
Click to expand...
Go to the PBGC web site, read a little, get educated so you don't make such foolish statements.:(
 
Is there any logical reason?

FoxHunter said:
Not a chance!!! Although it sounds like a good rumor you would like to pass on.:)
Click to expand...

Not really. I would like to know why you rejoined when all you ever say is that we are doomed to failure. There would seem to be no logical reason for paying hard earned dues if you think we (FDX-ALPA) are on the road to self destruction.

Sure would be great if we were back in the good old FPA days under Aiken and Cassel. Or better yet the old FAB under Cheever. Man, life was sweet!

Seriously, why'd you rejoin?
 
So lemme get this straight...the JAA is doing it, so therefore it's right?

Hmmm... as usual we're proving to the world that we can't think for ourselves.

Someone 'splain to me why I should support this. I cannot see how this will help anyone I know that's currently furloughed. I cannot see why we should follow in the foolish footsteps of the JAA. But most of all...I cannot see why I'd want to do this for 5 more years.

All this talk about "if your contract allows you to go at 60, you can still go at 60" is bull$hit. Companies that still have pension/retirement plans will be in a race to see which one can force lower multipliers, matching funds, and pay rates on a crew force they now have as a captive audience for 5 more years.

Why would anyone want to play this game longer than they currently have to?

Groupthink is a killer.
 
G4G5 said:
They will ask themselves do I want to continue to work or do I want to help get furloughed pilots back so that they can work to 65? Thump, thump, that was the sound of the bus running over the thousands of pilots out on furlough.
Click to expand...

This has nothing at all to do with furloughed pilots. If age was the only issue then why, while AA, UAL, US Air, Delta were furloughing, didn't they call back pilots to make up for those that were leaving.

US Air more to the point had a max exodus of pilots during their 2 bankruptcies and only recently has called back a few furloughees. NEver did address the shortfall.

The only thing that will being back furloughees and get pilots moving through the seats will be an aggressive growth plan that produces profits.

Lots of furloughees see that now. In fact, many recalls have deferred because they just don't want to come back right now. Gee, wonder why? I would question why a guy would want to come back to ....reserve?

Tejas
 
fr8doggie said:
Not really. I would like to know why you rejoined when all you ever say is that we are doomed to failure. There would seem to be no logical reason for paying hard earned dues if you think we (FDX-ALPA) are on the road to self destruction.
Click to expand...

If you are working for a RLA carrier, you have to pay either dues or agency fee. Nobody* rides for free, that's the law.

*Certain religious exceptions may be made.
 
Next Time do a Little Reasearch

Bringupthebird said:
If you are working for a RLA carrier, you have to pay either dues or agency fee. Nobody* rides for free, that's the law.

*Certain religious exceptions may be made.
Click to expand...

You are not very well acquainted with US labor law, are you?
 
Tejas-Jet said:
This has nothing at all to do with furloughed pilots. If age was the only issue then why, while AA, UAL, US Air, Delta were furloughing, didn't they call back pilots to make up for those that were leaving.

US Air more to the point had a max exodus of pilots during their 2 bankruptcies and only recently has called back a few furloughees. NEver did address the shortfall.

The only thing that will being back furloughees and get pilots moving through the seats will be an aggressive growth plan that produces profits.

Lots of furloughees see that now. In fact, many recalls have deferred because they just don't want to come back right now. Gee, wonder why? I would question why a guy would want to come back to ....reserve?

Tejas
Click to expand...

The furloughed pilots are just a by product of the age 65 discussion. The reality is that as more people realize that their career expectations have not been realized, their will be an increase in union pressure to fly beyond age 60.

If the current pilots on the property feel in anyway that age 65 is a going to happen, then why would they vote against it?

Many furloughed pilots are in the same position, they will need to go beyond age 60 in order to come close to career expectations. It's going to happen.

It may take a few years but sooner or later age 65 will happen. If guys want to spend alot of time and energy getting wrapped around axle fighting this, so be it. I would sooner accept it and plan for it.

It has nothing to do with "agressive growth plans". Furloughed pilots at AA and Delta would havebeen back already if not for the constant shift of mainline flying to the regionals. Eagle is still accepting new aircraft while mainline continues to park aircraft. With attrition rates of just 200-300 a year, it's easy to shift that flying to the regional.

The other thing that has kept furloughed pilots out longer is the work rules concessions. For ever 10 pilots that fly an additional 6 hours, that's one less pilot on the seniority list.
 
Agency Shop

Bringupthebird said:
Actually, I'm quite familiar with it. But feel free to "illuminate" and entertain us.
Click to expand...

OK-you just don't understand the RLA then. Agency Shop is not mandated by the RLA. DAL didn't have it until some time in the '90's. Here at FDX we don't have it. It is something that is negotiated between the union and the company. FDX has been pretty zealous in keeping agency shop off of the property here. My point was- When Foxhunter quit ALPA last year he stopped paying dues and didn't have to pay any kind of "agency shop" fee.
 
If pilots at an airline are represented by a union, then those pilots must either belong to the union and pay dues or they must pay the union an Agency Fee. There is a provision in your contract that requires the airline to dismiss any pilot who is delinquent in dues, assessments or agency fees. This is mandated by the RLA and merely reiterated by the contract. So if this foxhunter guy was to merely quit the union and think he could stop paying, he would eventually find himself facing dismissal and the company could do nothing to stop it. I'll find the link in a minute and post it for you.
 
Bringupthebird said:
If pilots at an airline are represented by a union, then those pilots must either belong to the union and pay dues or they must pay the union an Agency Fee. There is a provision in your contract that requires the airline to dismiss any pilot who is delinquent in dues, assessments or agency fees. This is mandated by the RLA and merely reiterated by the contract. So if this foxhunter guy was to merely quit the union and think he could stop paying, he would eventually find himself facing dismissal and the company could do nothing to stop it. I'll find the link in a minute and post it for you.
Click to expand...

Sorry to say it but you are incorrect. Most airlines have Agency Shop in their contract, FedEx does not. You are correct to say that a pilot can be fired if he does not pay, if there is an Agency Shop clause in the contract. The other fact is that the union has to accept the individual as a member in order or the induvidual doe not have to pay. I know of two guys that were National scabs back around 1948 and they were not let in to ALPA so even though Seaboard World had Agency Shop they never had to pay a dime.

When I quit ALPA last year I did not have to pay one cent in dues. I did have to pay all my back dues to rejoin. We probaly have 100 guys at FedEx that have never paid a dime in dues and probaly never will unless Agencey Shop is put in the contract. In that case they will have to pay the service fee since I don't see any paying ten years back dues for membership. I also know of one guy that was a Wien scab, and he would not be accepted for membership, and would have to pay zip.
 
Here's one to get you started:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/uscircs/5th/9710490cv0.html

Basically the issue is that under the RLA only one union can be the exclusive representitives of a particular class or craft of employee. In order to eliminate the problem of free riders, it was permitted to require employees as a condition of their employment to either belong to the union or pay their fair share of the germane expenses of providing the representation. In exchange for this, non-members (objecting or otherwise) are provided with 3 basic things: Representation, contract administration and grievance processing. As an Objecting Non-Member they are entitled to a lower rate, but lose all non-germane benefits (like aeromedical and their union webboard).

Other unions, like those covered by the NLRB, may not have these provisions.
 
Bringupthebird said:
Here's one to get you started:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/uscircs/5th/9710490cv0.html

Basically the issue is that under the RLA only one union can be the exclusive representitives of a particular class or craft of employee. In order to eliminate the problem of free riders, it was permitted to require employees as a condition of their employment to either belong to the union or pay their fair share of the germane expenses of providing the representation. In exchange for this, non-members (objecting or otherwise) are provided with 3 basic things: Representation, contract administration and grievance processing. As an Objecting Non-Member they are entitled to a lower rate, but lose all non-germane benefits (like aeromedical and their union webboard).

Other unions, like those covered by the NLRB, may not have these provisions.
Click to expand...

The law allows a union shop or agency shop to exist. It has to be agreed to by the employer and the union. You had better call Herndon in the morning if you are correct because ALPA is losing a lot of money over at FedEx. Or do they know something you don't?:)
 
great

That’s all we need. First off all 50+ you guys use the cockpit to take turns napping, and the worst part is, you cant be counted on as a wingman when we young guys are chasing tail. And if you do force us to go out to chillis or someplace you just get more embarrassing with age. Come one now hang it up and enjoy life, don’t c0ckblock us anymore. You had the life back in the 60s-80s, when FAs where hot young and “good to go”, and pay was also nice. We will never see any of that, so let it go so we can upgrade and at least afford a round of golf. Thanks!!
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom