Fallout from an age 60-Rule change

[Cyclone]

jim

jim you win

 

[Jim Smyth]

I dont come to this forum to lie or to try to start flame wars. I would also never put down in my proflie anything that wasnt correct. That to me lends itself to lack of charactor if in fact it is untrue.

 

[Flopgut]

Money, greed........well we have arguments for that on both sides. The way I see it is that everyone gets the choice to fly past 60 if/when the rule changes. If you want to be a hero when you get to 60 you can retire and give that other guy his shot in the big leagues. Just remember that when you leave you have no income, no medical, no social security. I think when your time comes you will be singing a different tune!

I paid my dues at more than one airline. I will continue to fly until 60 at the current rules or 65 if the rules get changed. Money concerns and flying past 60 for me at least are secondary to medical coverage issues (or lack there of) that can wipe out any money you may have saved for retirement pretty fast .[/quote]

Jim: Did having no income, no medical, and no social security surprise you? Were you caught off guard? You have been in control of this for some time now. If it looked like SWA was not going to provide you with what you needed to retire with you should have negotiated better wages! How many contracts have you been through? You should have addressed this in at least one of them. Or, since you are so darn great, why didn't you take you talents elsewhere? Been a brain surgeon or something?

I have a flightplan for retirement, I want to fly that plan. (BTW, mine has to include NEVER getting any SS) That means you go at 60, and I go at 60. Five more years as costar for me doesn't really help, I just work longer.

 

[Jim Smyth]

Jim: Did having no income, no medical, and no social security surprise you? Were you caught off guard? You have been in control of this for some time now. If it looked like SWA was not going to provide you with what you needed to retire with you should have negotiated better wages! How many contracts have you been through? You should have addressed this in at least one of them. Or, since you are so darn great, why didn't you take you talents elsewhere? Been a brain surgeon or something?

I have a flightplan for retirement, I want to fly that plan. (BTW, mine has to include NEVER getting any SS) That means you go at 60, and I go at 60. Five more years as costar for me doesn't really help, I just work longer.

Nope, no surprises at all. Been planning on retirement since I was in my mid to upper twenties when I started my IRA's. I had very wise parents with old school values to learn from.

SWA has a formula where you can turn in part of your sick bank that you accumulated to receive medical benefits until you reach age 65. In our last contract extension they gave us the option to also use those sick trips to bring your wife along for the ride too. My wife is 7 years younger than me so I need alot of sick trips. I should have enough sick trips for me and the wife to go to age 65 medically through SWA in 2 years with what I have accumulated already. Now with that being said what if I get hurt down the road and cant work for a year while out on a medical? I would have to use all my sick trips up and then at age 60 would have nothing left. So then I would have no medical insurance after age 60 and would have a hard time getting it if needed. Thats my big concern. If I have the option to go to 65 then this is a non issue because I will have insurance until 65 and have to just worry about the wife after that.

I have been through 1 contract at SWA. It has lasted 11 years now ( 2 extensions) and has 1 more year to go. They did make improvments to our medical after retirement and also made improvements to our compensation. Since I am assuming that money wont be the big issue this time around (section 6 next year) with whats going on in the industry we may close up a few of those loop holes that we currently have in our contract, medical issues being one of them.

I am actualy not that smart. I am a Average "C" type of a guy is all. But I do have alot of common sense. I am well prepared for retirement at age 60. Going to age 65 would just be a bonus as far as not worring about medical coverage (current conditions) or tapping the retirement nest egg. If in our next contract SWA and SWAPA changes the medical issue for us, I may be retiring earlier than 60. Like I said before, security,rude hotel guests,check rides etc get pretty old after a while.

You are wise to not plan on Socail Security because if you are young it may not be there when you are old. It also may not be there for me or if it is I am assuming it will be a greatly reduced rate especially if you have money saved already. Planning this all out when your young is deffinately the way to go.

 

[Purpledog]

I really don't think this is about economics, but rather if the original rule was proper to begin with.

Bah ha ha ha ha! If you had brought this up pre-9/11 you would have been crucified by all the people begging for change now (minus LCCs). This is purely about money. I don't hold it against them, I'd be doing the same thing also if I had a family (2 ex's, Bimmer payment, giant mortgage, boat payment) to support. I want it to stay, b/c of my family, whom I plan on spending a lot of time with when I retire at 55. To each his own.Bureaucratic
inertia is in our favor. Fight's on!

 

[Flopgut]

Nope, no surprises at all. Been planning on retirement since I was in my mid to upper twenties when I started my IRA's. I had very wise parents with old school values to learn from.

SWA has a formula where you can turn in part of your sick bank that you accumulated to receive medical benefits until you reach age 65. In our last contract extension they gave us the option to also use those sick trips to bring your wife along for the ride too. My wife is 7 years younger than me so I need alot of sick trips. I should have enough sick trips for me and the wife to go to age 65 medically through SWA in 2 years with what I have accumulated already. Now with that being said what if I get hurt down the road and cant work for a year while out on a medical? I would have to use all my sick trips up and then at age 60 would have nothing left. So then I would have no medical insurance after age 60 and would have a hard time getting it if needed. Thats my big concern. If I have the option to go to 65 then this is a non issue because I will have insurance until 65 and have to just worry about the wife after that.

I have been through 1 contract at SWA. It has lasted 11 years now ( 2 extensions) and has 1 more year to go. They did make improvments to our medical after retirement and also made improvements to our compensation. Since I am assuming that money wont be the big issue this time around (section 6 next year) with whats going on in the industry we may close up a few of those loop holes that we currently have in our contract, medical issues being one of them.

I am actualy not that smart. I am a Average "C" type of a guy is all. But I do have alot of common sense. I am well prepared for retirement at age 60. Going to age 65 would just be a bonus as far as not worring about medical coverage (current conditions) or tapping the retirement nest egg. If in our next contract SWA and SWAPA changes the medical issue for us, I may be retiring earlier than 60. Like I said before, security,rude hotel guests,check rides etc get pretty old after a while.

You are wise to not plan on Socail Security because if you are young it may not be there when you are old. It also may not be there for me or if it is I am assuming it will be a greatly reduced rate especially if you have money saved already. Planning this all out when your young is deffinately the way to go.

Fascinating Jim, you have thought of everything. I am guessing you are very fastidious and probably an allright person to fly with. (I am guessing too that I would go home from a trip with you exhausted from lectures on FMC technique and the like) I am certain you have exceeded my loftiest goals for myself in almost all aspects of personal and professional life (health, $, career progression, retirement) so don't take this as condescending. I think you personify the selfishness of this issue on the part of your pilot demographic. You indicate as much when you characterize SWAPA contract negotiation. Sure sec 6 is going to be a hard one to improve on for your group. Other SWA types, FOs to be correct, have theorized possible wage cuts in the future. And we know how work ethic is such a core value so don't look for any "soft time" type QOL extras, which have actually been denuded entirely from the passenger flying business. No, for sure this business has changed and it may even effect pilots' careers at SWA, yet you have no apprehension toward making a claim on five extra years at the top for yourself. A "bonus". Don't really need it, but it sure would be nice. The generation behind you will have to work as hard or harder for increasingly less in their careers and your solution to that is letting them work longer? Wow, you're a nice guy. Additionally, this claim that your health insurance issue is the tipping point really grates on me. You can find another job! If you retirement age pilots are so darn experienced and capable then it should be a good one. Matter of fact, if you can get yourself hired at Netjets, I believe they have comprehensive health benefits that are free! So you can keep that young wife of yours, and yourself, fit as a fiddle! That way while you are both out mountain biking and basking in the wealth and health of airline pilot retirement monies coupled with an exciting new career endeavor, you can think of how great the UAL furloughee is going to feel finally getting recalled because pilots retire at 60. Finally being able to get ulcers, chronic back pain, or other injuries treated because they have regular insurance now as a backstop to financial ruin. An artificially aged and tired spouse and kids can all get re-aclimated to life with health care like you have always had. You have a cute little chilling scenario where a health problem post age 60 wipes out your retirement monies. Scary to be sure, but let me ask you this: is that sort of thing any less scary for someone younger and furloughed without insurance? Please don't say its going to be less a problem for them because they have more time left to work and can make it up. This could be a sick child, are you going to tell me they can just have another? It follows your logic!

We have a somewhat "sinking ship" here Jim, do the "women and children" get the lifeboats, or do you need one just for you?

 

[Jim Smyth]

No lectures from me at all. I dont ever bring up the subject of age 60 unless asked about it. FO's and possible wage cuts? Huh? It looks like we are going to be posting record profits his year. It would be pretty hard for the company to come back and ask for wage cuts now wouldnt it! Most guys dont see alot more money this contract with whats going on in the industry. So you then work on things that close some contract loop holes that arnt that expensive. Guys in the union have expressed concerns about our current medical after retirement coverage or lack there of so I know it will be addressed this time.

I personally dont want to go find another job, thank you. I have one right now that fits me just fine. Live in base and dont commute. We at SWA dont have anyone thats layed off and "Never have". So what, I should just ah, ok, I will retire at 60 (if the age changes to 65) so some guy can get hired thats furloughed from (pick an airline)? I dont think so! I will retire when it suits me and my family.

What I tried showing is my reasoning to continue on past 60 if necessary working within the SWA system. Hopefully working past 60 for me will be a non issue but it would be a nice choice if the cards dont fall in the right direction at the right time.

So the young guys have health issues too huh? I feel for them, especially the ones furloughed/out of a job. In 1991 the airline I worked for went out of business. I had a wife, 2 kids and a house. I went out and paid for a 6 month catastrofic health insurance policy with a $10,000 deductable so I wouldnt be wiped out if anything really bad happened. That was money we didnt have at the time so it really hurt. First time in my life that I had no income and alot of family responsibility. I went out, delivered catering through the holidays,worked in a friends body shop and then drove a semi until I got back with another airline. I know what its like to be out there on the outside looking in. It sucks! But it doesnt change my views and I am sure it wont change yours either. We are made up of our life experiances and mine arnt the same as anyone elses.

 

[Spooky 1]

Jim, your wasting your time trying to convince these guys/gals that the age 60 rule is a bad thing. They are hell bent on saving every furloughed pilot even though there are other jobs flying jobs to be had albeit some might not be as good as the one you may have furloughed from. Even that has changed dramatically in the last few years I am afraid. So, if every furloughed pilot was recalled, what would the argument be then? Give it up Jim, go out and hit some balls. Relax some so you can enjoy that flying at age 63, or what ever comes along out of this. Obviously one's right to work is only extended to those young folks. Us older guys need to learn a few things about speak'n up and causing such trouble.

 

[Jim Smyth]

Ya, your right. I'm done.

 

[Airmike767]

The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee passed the amended Senate Bill 65 on November 17 with a voice vote. It was amended by several factors. First the age 65 limit, second the limitation on two pilots over 60(either could be over 60 but not both), third there is a clause that prevents a retired pilot from sueing for his job back or for his seniority.

The bill was marked up for a vote before the full Senate. If passed it would be effective within thirty days of ICAO implementing their age 65 policy, currently 11/23/2006.

The House will still have to have a go at this as well as the President (who said he would sign it). The ALPA poll was very skewed and has forever lost my participation with the wilson Center for Aviation Propaganda!

 

[capt_zman]

Spooky, please spare us with your condascending know-it-all attitude. Not all of us "young guys" are young and dumb.

As always, it comes down to the have and have nots. From my point of view, the age 65 thing is a credible threat to not just an upgrade, but to my job. What happens to me and my family? Do I join the list of furloughed guys from (pick an airline) too?

It's pretty obvious that labor costs, whether right or wrong, is a focal point at every airline right now. If we add 5 more years to the top wage scale of the cost structure, what are the consequences in doing so? Let's look a simple cost analysis at my airline regarding retirements at 60 vs. 65:

5 year retirement outlook:
2005 = 69
2006 = 148
2007 = 159
2008 = 155
2009 = 134
Total = 665

Let's assume that 80% are widebody captains (WC) and 20% are narrow body captains (NC). We'll also assume that each captain has a 75 hr per month guarantee. 665 * .80 = 532 WC and 133 NC. We'll also assume that each captain is at the 15 year top of pay scale, so each WC currently makes $206.24 /hr and NC $177.78 /hr.

((75 hrs*206.24)*12 mos)*532 = $98,747,712 per year in salary.
((75 hrs*177.78)*12 mos)*133 = $21,280,266 per year in salary.

So each year it costs my airline $120,027,978 extra in labor costs, which would equate to $600,139,890 over a 5 year period. Also notice that this is just salary, not including insurance, medical costs, or anything else for that matter.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that even the most profitable airlines will have a difficult time swallowing an extra $120 million in costs per year and over $600 million over 5 years, especially since these costs currently aren't budgeted. It also doesn't take much intelligence to figure out exactly where the company will seek relief for such costs, just ask some of the other airlines.

So while you and spooky go out and "hit some balls" and not worry about what's going to happen to anyone other than you, you can bet your last dollar that I'm going to exhaust every possible option to make sure this doesn't happen. The airline industry has been victimized by mismanagement for decades, let's not aid in flipping the switch on the rest of the us.

 

[Flopgut]

Ya, your right. I'm done.

Go ahead and be done. I suggest you make a copy of this thread and look at it again in your later years. See if it is something you are proud of then.

As hard as things have been in your past you should be cognizant of where you are now and let it pass to others as well someday. Adversity not unlike what you have endured has been a part of my past too. But I realize that I'm still very lucky and concerned about others getting their fair share. I think you, and this industry's overall past, kind of typify your generation. The generation that just "took". Did the most damage to this industry and squeezed everything out of it you could. And if you get your way, you will take everything it will ever have. Because I don't believe you really want to leave at 62, 63 or 65. You want to leave when their is nothing else left. We will change the age once and you will want it changed again. You will have all the same reasons but then you will want to go at 70.

Our discussion notwithstanding, you're going to leave at 60 under current conditions. I will be fighting to keep it that way.

 

[Spooky 1]

Spooky, please spare us with your condascending know-it-all attitude. Not all of us "young guys" are young and dumb.

As always, it comes down to the have and have nots. From my point of view, the age 65 thing is a credible threat to not just an upgrade, but to my job. What happens to me and my family? Do I join the list of furloughed guys from (pick an airline) too?

It's pretty obvious that labor costs, whether right or wrong, is a focal point at every airline right now. If we add 5 more years to the top wage scale of the cost structure, what are the consequences in doing so? Let's look a simple cost analysis at my airline regarding retirements at 60 vs. 65:

5 year retirement outlook:
2005 = 69
2006 = 148
2007 = 159
2008 = 155
2009 = 134
Total = 665

Let's assume that 80% are widebody captains (WC) and 20% are narrow body captains (NC). We'll also assume that each captain has a 75 hr per month guarantee. 665 * .80 = 532 WC and 133 NC. We'll also assume that each captain is at the 15 year top of pay scale, so each WC currently makes $206.24 /hr and NC $177.78 /hr.

((75 hrs*206.24)*12 mos)*532 = $98,747,712 per year in salary.
((75 hrs*177.78)*12 mos)*133 = $21,280,266 per year in salary.

So each year it costs my airline $120,027,978 extra in labor costs, which would equate to $600,139,890 over a 5 year period. Also notice that this is just salary, not including insurance, medical costs, or anything else for that matter.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that even the most profitable airlines will have a difficult time swallowing an extra $120 million in costs per year and over $600 million over 5 years, especially since these costs currently aren't budgeted. It also doesn't take much intelligence to figure out exactly where the company will seek relief for such costs, just ask some of the other airlines.

So while you and spooky go out and "hit some balls" and not worry about what's going to happen to anyone other than you, you can bet your last dollar that I'm going to exhaust every possible option to make sure this doesn't happen. The airline industry has been victimized by mismanagement for decades, let's not aid in flipping the switch on the rest of the us.

Zman, calm down. Looks like you have a very strong corporate background and I would also guess you are a fairly new guy at FedEx. Congatulations. Would you also suggest that all corporate pilots retire at age 60? just wondering? And by the way, I don't know it all and I am finding out every day just how little I really know about this business called avaition.

 

[Boeingman]

Flopgut. You can knock off this generation barrier crap anytime now. Reading your posts reminds me of some folks who are very opportunistic in their views and opinions. For many like myself I view the opportunists mentality just like a scab mentality.

Incidently those in your "generation" had a large part in negotiating our wonderful contract. Those in your generation willingly pay for training and jobs. Those in "your" generation willingly work for poverty wages with a sense of entitlement and SJS abound. I don't recall that happening years ago.

I would think looking back on history those in "my" generation did more to advance pay benefits and working conditions than many coming aboard today. In fact if we hadn't had so many of "your" generation prostituting themselves perhaps management wouldn't of run over all of us with a steamroller knowing no matter what and for how little they will have warm asses to fill the seats.

BTW, before you continue any tirade I don't care one way or another what happens to the age 60 deal. Makes no differnce to me financially or professionally.

 

[Jim Smyth]

Your numbers are kinda off IMO in reguards to cost if the age goes to 65, at least at our airline.

I am currently at the highest pay rate for my company, 12+ year Captain pay. That 12+ pay rate number doesnt change for me the rest of my career whether the age stays at 60 or goes to 65. When I retire they dont replace me with a new hire. They replace me with the most senior copilot which is about a 7 year guy right now at SWA. So you take his pay ($104.00) verse mine ($167.00) and its about a third more pay for him since our senior copilots pay scale is about 66 percent of Captains pay and I am assuming this is pretty standard in the industry. Thats a $63.00 difference. Then you bring on the new hire ($44.00) and compare that to the senior FO ($104.00) that just swapped seats and you have another spread. ($60.00) So its not that big of a difference in the first few years that you make it out to be. $63.00 for when I leave and get replaced by the senior copilot compared to $60.00 for the new hire and the senior copilot. YMMV

 

[Jim Smyth]

Our discussion notwithstanding, you're going to leave at 60 under current conditions. I will be fighting to keep it that way.

Good luck, I will also keep fighting to change it!

 

[Flopgut]

Flopgut. You can knock off this generation barrier crap anytime now. Reading your posts reminds me of some folks who are very opportunistic in their views and opinions. For many like myself I view the opportunists mentality just like a scab mentality.

Incidently those in your "generation" had a large part in negotiating our wonderful contract. Those in your generation willingly pay for training and jobs. Those in "your" generation willingly work for poverty wages with a sense of entitlement and SJS abound. I don't recall that happening years ago.

I would think looking back on history those in "my" generation did more to advance pay benefits and working conditions than many coming aboard today. In fact if we hadn't had so many of "your" generation prostituting themselves perhaps management wouldn't of run over all of us with a steamroller knowing no matter what and for how little they will have warm asses to fill the seats.

BTW, before you continue any tirade I don't care one way or another what happens to the age 60 deal. Makes no differnce to me financially or professionally.

Fair enough. I'm boring the sh1t out of myself as well. I also loath PFT. However, I don't think anyone from my generation thought that one up. I agree, plenty of pilots have engaged in it from my generation. I think we will fix that. What does SJS mean?

Regarding the "scab mentality" assertion: I am a worker in a "shop" with a senority system. There is a contingent of workers who want to short circuit my proper and established seniority progression by means of something outside the collective bargaining agreement. What would you term this mentality?

 

[Big Beer Belly]

Fascinating Jim, you have thought of everything. I am guessing you are very fastidious and probably an allright person to fly with. (I am guessing too that I would go home from a trip with you exhausted from lectures on FMC technique and the like) I am certain you have exceeded my loftiest goals for myself in almost all aspects of personal and professional life (health, $, career progression, retirement) so don't take this as condescending. I think you personify the selfishness of this issue on the part of your pilot demographic. You indicate as much when you characterize SWAPA contract negotiation. Sure sec 6 is going to be a hard one to improve on for your group. Other SWA types, FOs to be correct, have theorized possible wage cuts in the future. And we know how work ethic is such a core value so don't look for any "soft time" type QOL extras, which have actually been denuded entirely from the passenger flying business. No, for sure this business has changed and it may even effect pilots' careers at SWA, yet you have no apprehension toward making a claim on five extra years at the top for yourself. A "bonus". Don't really need it, but it sure would be nice. The generation behind you will have to work as hard or harder for increasingly less in their careers and your solution to that is letting them work longer? Wow, you're a nice guy. Additionally, this claim that your health insurance issue is the tipping point really grates on me. You can find another job! If you retirement age pilots are so darn experienced and capable then it should be a good one. Matter of fact, if you can get yourself hired at Netjets, I believe they have comprehensive health benefits that are free! So you can keep that young wife of yours, and yourself, fit as a fiddle! That way while you are both out mountain biking and basking in the wealth and health of airline pilot retirement monies coupled with an exciting new career endeavor, you can think of how great the UAL furloughee is going to feel finally getting recalled because pilots retire at 60. Finally being able to get ulcers, chronic back pain, or other injuries treated because they have regular insurance now as a backstop to financial ruin. An artificially aged and tired spouse and kids can all get re-aclimated to life with health care like you have always had. You have a cute little chilling scenario where a health problem post age 60 wipes out your retirement monies. Scary to be sure, but let me ask you this: is that sort of thing any less scary for someone younger and furloughed without insurance? Please don't say its going to be less a problem for them because they have more time left to work and can make it up. This could be a sick child, are you going to tell me they can just have another? It follows your logic!

We have a somewhat "sinking ship" here Jim, do the "women and children" get the lifeboats, or do you need one just for you?

:beer:

That was a thing of beauty Flopgut!

BBB

 

[SWA/FO]

Other SWA types, FOs to be correct, have theorized possible wage cuts in the future.

NOT this FO.... Did you read any of the above posts? Maybe a probationary newhire from UAL thinks we will be cutting pay....But I think not (in my OPINION.)

~THE SWA/FO

 

[K. Marx]

People on here are understandably very wrapped up in how this will affect their specific career. But the real issue is safety and making it to retirement without a violation. Iam sure their will be all kinds of posts about exceptions to the rule, but that is all they are. Just go through any aircraft transition class with people in their late 50's and you will be even more convinced it will hurt safety. Most pilots toward the end of their career will admit it is much harder for them to learn anything new. But they don't seem to recognize their skill in the aircraft is also slipping (even tough it is obvious when they can barely stay awake, or unable to stay awake on all nighters). I have flown with numerous older ca's that say they want to go past 60 because they are as sharp as they ever were. I think they actually believe it. If there truly is no difference then 64 yr olds should be able to fly with 64 yr olds. Clearly their is some sort of acknowledgment their that there is an issue with older pilots. Funny thing is they wouldn't be able to fly with other 60+'s but could still fly with newhires (and even be checkairmen?). Great combination there, old guy who can't hardly fly anymore with a new guy that is unlikely to question him. One thing is for certain though, my workload is much higher when I am flying with a 58yr old with many thousands of hours in the plane than with a 48 yr old with 100 hrs in the plane. I believe the older guys just can't or refuse to see that they are slipping. It seems to be a pretty steep slide from around 55 to 60 in my experience. Can't wait to see how much of one it is from 60-65. This may not be pc, but it is how just about every fo and even most Captains I know feel after years of flying with different age groups. Most people 64 can't even drive anymore, though they also don't realize it. This is just an accident looking for a place to happen.

 

[SWA/FO]

Hey Flapgut or flopgut....

Do you know how to make paragraphs? Sure would make it easier to read your posts...

People might have a different perspective on this age 60 thing, if they worked for a "growth" company? Sure, everyone claims the JetBlue, AirTran and Southwest guys want this to past the most. Maybe that is a true statement.

Then some people claim its because we have no retirement....but, in my opinion it just might be that all these companies are GROWING and in the end it will not make a difference at those companies listed above. Plus, my fellow airmen working at JetBlue, AirTran and Southwest actually like going to work. That might factor in also. If you enjoy your work, you might want to do it longer... Not tapping that nest egg 5 years is/will be a good thing since we all need our money to last longer.

 

[lostplnetairman]

People on here are understandably very wrapped up in how this will affect their specific career. But the real issue is safety and making it to retirement without a violation. Iam sure their will be all kinds of posts about exceptions to the rule, but that is all they are. Just go through any aircraft transition class with people in their late 50's and you will be even more convinced it will hurt safety. Most pilots toward the end of their career will admit it is much harder for them to learn anything new. But they don't seem to recognize their skill in the aircraft is also slipping (even tough it is obvious when they can barely stay awake, or unable to stay awake on all nighters). I have flown with numerous older ca's that say they want to go past 60 because they are as sharp as they ever were. I think they actually believe it. If there truly is no difference then 64 yr olds should be able to fly with 64 yr olds. Clearly their is some sort of acknowledgment their that there is an issue with older pilots. Funny thing is they wouldn't be able to fly with other 60+'s but could still fly with newhires (and even be checkairmen?). Great combination there, old guy who can't hardly fly anymore with a new guy that is unlikely to question him. One thing is for certain though, my workload is much higher when I am flying with a 58yr old with many thousands of hours in the plane than with a 48 yr old with 100 hrs in the plane. I believe the older guys just can't or refuse to see that they are slipping. It seems to be a pretty steep slide from around 55 to 60 in my experience. Can't wait to see how much of one it is from 60-65. This may not be pc, but it is how just about every fo and even most Captains I know feel after years of flying with different age groups. Most people 64 can't even drive anymore, though they also don't realize it. This is just an accident looking for a place to happen.

You make a lot of statements but have no proof to back it up. I can say what I want too to make a point. But I have to then prove it! You have not proven it (or any of them).

Perhaps the pilot with 100 hours of experience is "more qualified" because they don't know anything! I personally know of a 50+ pilot who blew the younger guys away in Airbus initial training--that's computers folks!

It's not all about stereotypes. Not everyone at 50 is washed up. Not everyone at 60 is washed up.
And we all know of some who are younger than 50 who are washed up.

HR Diva

 

[ACAFool]

I personally know of a 50+ pilot who blew the younger guys away in Airbus initial training--that's computers folks!

It's not all about stereotypes. Not everyone at 50 is washed up. Not everyone at 60 is washed up.

HR Diva

Sounds like those exceptions to the rule Karl was talking about to me. I have been through initial training on many different ac and would strongly agree with Karl. The vast majority of them have a much harder time, and will actually admit it.

 

[lostplnetairman]

Sounds like those exceptions to the rule Karl was talking about to me. I have been through initial training on many different ac and would strongly agree with Karl. The vast majority of them have a much harder time, and will actually admit it.

Again, let's talk numbers, not your preconceived notions....

HR Diva

 

[ACAFool]

Again, let's talk numbers, not your preconceived notions....

HR Diva

Go ahead with your numbers then. Can you prove we are not right. We all see it, just some won't acknowledge it. People slow down in everything as they age. Their is no reason to think flying skills are exempt from this.

 

[capt_zman]

I just don't understand how people can think that just because you work for a GROWING company, that this has no effect. The entire airline labor cost model is based upon a fixed pay scale based upon seniority that terminates at 60. Please explain how this won't effect every airline, profitable or not.

 

[lostplnetairman]

Go ahead with your numbers then. Can you prove we are not right. We all see it, just some won't acknowledge it. People slow down in everything as they age. Their is no reason to think flying skills are exempt from this.

No, I asked YOU to prove the point. You just turned it around and demanded that I prove it.


HR Diva

 

[ACAFool]

No, I asked YOU to prove the point. You just turned it around and demanded that I prove it.


HR Diva

Conclusive studies have not been done yet. But again proof is in the flight deck every day we are out there. And again why would flying skills be exempt from aging. Besides the courts have already ruled the 60 rule is not discrimination. The rule stands at 60, so why would we need to prove anything to keep it.

 

[alaskaplt]

But again proof is in the flight deck every day we are out there. And again why would flying skills be exempt from aging.

I Absolutely can not agree more. And I too rarely talk to another fo that does not say the same thing.

 

[alaskaplt]

I just don't understand how people can think that just because you work for a GROWING company, that this has no effect. The entire airline labor cost model is based upon a fixed pay scale based upon seniority that terminates at 60. Please explain how this won't effect every airline, profitable or not.

Ofcourse it will affect it. To argue otherwise is ridiculous. Nearly anything has an affect on the finances. If it didn't affect the bottom line, one way or another, the companies would not have an opinion on the matter, because they would not care.