FDX 2003 hiring

[VaB]

F-18,

Good post. I would also be interested to hear who the informed senator was that responded to you. I'm always amazed at some of the dumba$$es we have elected, or at least working for them.

I'm not looking forward to the "old guys" getting another 3 years to stand in my way either. However, and I'm sure I'm going to get both barrels in the face for this, but how are you going to feel when you're 59.5, feeling great and being forced to retire? I personally don't know and con't even imagine, but I can see the other side of the fence. I'm not down with all the ins and outs of this age 63 thing other than what it is on the surface, so maybe I'm missing the big picture. Like I said, I'm not for the new rule, it's just that I'm not ready to burn the barn in support of it yet. I know there are lots of other guys out there that feel the same way that I do, undecided. It's just that you don't hear from 90% of the people. I've still got 25 years to go, so I'm not trying to garner support for the thing.

OK, bring it on, I'm ready.

 

[Huck]

At age 59.5, all pilots should be subjected to an audit by an accountant. If their net worth is over, say, 2 million (including the value of their fixed pension), then age 60 should apply. If they're poor, broke, flying for some second or third tier carrier with no retirement, shopping around for a greeter job at Wal-mart, they ought to get a few more years.

My dad retired after thirty-one years at NWA. He makes more from his pension than an MD11 captain at my previous carrier.... He derived a monetary benefit from the age 60 rule for his whole career, and it is only fair that he stepped out of the way. But if he was flying 8's in Miami or somewhere, he definitely would need the money past age 60!

 

[PurpleInMEM]

VaB wrote:

"but how are you going to feel when you're 59.5, feeling great and being forced to retire?"

I'm gonna feel relieved that I made it and don't have to work myself to the grave like the rest of the population. I'm gonna feel ready to give up hub turns and box lunches, dealing with bosses and the FAA, PT's, PC's, CMI, and Class 1's every 6 months. I'm gonna have the opportunity to actually spend some uninterrupted time with my wife (assuming she continues to tough this out) and family....for once. Selfish thoughts? Absolutely. But I don't play this game for fun...it's about money and security.

Increasing the retirement age will have a tremendous impact on everything from hiring to annual retirement contributions and not in a good way.

My only hope is that I'm able to liquidate in an 'up' market and can retire early.

There are lots of sides to this issue; this is mine and I doubt I'm the only one.

 

[F18-FDX]

Senator John Warner of Virginia. He's been around forever, so honestly I can't imagine he doesn't know the real scoop, but not much seems to surprise me these days.

I can also see both sides of the story, but I happen to oppose it, call me selfish. What really pi$$ed me off though, and actually got me to send an e-mail in the first place was the fact that it was attached to the HSB. If it had anything remotely close to do with Homeland Security, ok, but please, I’m not Einstein but I’m not an idiot either. It was introduced by proponents hoping it would get in under the radar, and probably not get the attention or debate that it should. I’m not as upset about basic support for it as I am about 1) Those supporting it not having the balls to at least be honest and up-front about it, and 2) Insulting my intelligence by telling me we “need” it because we don’t have enough experienced pilots. Give me a break.

 

[A4Forever]

To all you young guys out there: Let me tell you how it feels to turn 60 and have them tell you that you are too old! I flew for a big outfit for 34 years after flying in the Navy for 5. My last flight was a non-stop to Auckland NZ with a full load. The next day, I was too old to fly the plane back to the US. Why? Because someone set an arbitrary age of 60 for me to retire. Still have a first class medical, can pass my check rides, in fact was an FAA examiner on the plane! I know you young fellows cannot understand why after flying for 39 years I would not want to retire. Thats the point. I want to retire when I want to, not when someone else says I have to. I can remember when I thought 60 was OLD. Well, now that I'm here, let me tell you that is isn't. I will be willing to bet you that when you reach age 60 you will feel the same way. I was so bored in retirement that I got a job with a frac, bid captain the 4th day there and have been flying with them for a year now. Great fun flying a little jet. Now about the rider to the Homeland Security Bill. I agree it is a back door way of getting this thru. I would prefer it to stand on its own merits. As for a shortage of pilots, give me a break. I know there are thousands of furloughed pilots out there. Hope all of you are recalled soon. While I would love to be back at the controls of the big jet, I don't think this is the right time or vechicle to raise the age to 63. And why 63 in the first place? I'll pass on returning and be happy flying my CE560XL for a couple of more years and retire when I want to.

 

[jjbula]

The way the game of politics is played its hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys.

Please don't think I'm criticizing Senator Warner. I'm not. This subject just reminds me of what I think of politics. Writing your congressman is all well and good, but it won't matter if they don't pay attention.

We should always, I repeat ALWAYS, vote people of the highest character into office. It's virtually impossible to get an idea of what is really happening behind closed doors until it's too late. Politicians change positions and make deals to get the job done, but their character will manifest itself throughout. That's why I want the best to lead the country. I won't vote for anyone with poor ethics, no matter what their platform.

Alright, I'm off my soap box.

I don't have an informed opinion on this legislation or Senator Warner. I hope both are best for the country.

I'm probably preaching to choir...If so, please forgive.

 

[P3tarbaby]

Can't confirm but "browntail" posted on the Aviation Message Board-General that the age 63 rider was removed from the Homeland Security Bill because of objections from a number of senators. Anyone heard or seen the same info?

 

[F18-FDX]

As of a month ago when I got the letter, it was still there. Wow, that would be great if it is true...maybe lots of people writing their reps actually can have an impact, better yet, maybe there are some honest and smart politicians out there...naaah.

 

[Beaver]

I also hope it was thrown out. I think we will have to stay on top of this one in the future. I really dont believe that ALPA has a dog in this fight. ALPA is interested in the bottom line as well as in Its members best interest. In this case I dont think they would be too upset at getting dues off of age 60-63 widebody Captain vs 1-3 year pilots. Its all about money and politics.

 

[SleepyF18]

If you want to read what is and isn't included in the Homeland Security Act, go to either the House or Senate website (house.gov or senate.gov) and look for the bill online. I cannot find any mention of the Age 63 rider, only that the armed pilot section now states "passenger" airline pilots. Cheers.

Sleepy

 

[Purple Haze]

ouch, my head!

I spent way too much time researching this. Here's what I found: Senator MURKOWSKI (of Alaska) tried to attach an amendment to HR 5005, just as he tried last year with S 1447. He failed, and (good or bad) here is the senate record of his failed attempt:

SA 4829. Mr. MURKOWSKI submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 4738 proposed by Mr. GRAMM (for himself, Mr. MILLER, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. THOMPSON, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. HAGEL Mr. HUTCHINSON, and Mr. BUNNING) to the amendment SA 4471 proposed by Mr. LIEBERMAN to the bill H.R. 5005, to establish the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. AGE AND OTHER LIMITATIONS.
(a) GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, beginning on the date that is 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act--
(1) section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, shall not apply;
(2) no certificate holder may use the services of any person as a pilot on an airplane engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, if that person is 63 years of age or older; and
(3) no person may serve as a pilot on an airplane engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, if that person is 63 years of age or older.
(b) CERTIFICATE HOLDER.--For purposes of this section, the term ``certificate holder'' means a holder of a certificate to operate as an air carrier or commercial operator issued by the Federal Aviation Administration.
(c) RESERVATION OF SAFETY AUTHORITY.--Nothing in this section is intended to change the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration to take steps to ensure the safety of air transportation operations involving a pilot who has reached the age of 60, including its authority--
(1) to require such a pilot to undergo additional or more stringent medical, cognitive, or proficiency testing in order to retain certification; or
(2) to establish crew pairing standards for crews with such a pilot.

If you are interested, I can post the senate debate for and against.