Forecast for recalls, hiring, pension benefits if NPRM issued

[Phaedrus]

Just looking for some well-informed thoughts as to the impact of such a decision.

 

[GuppyWN]

WN is going to retire 140 per year for 5 years. That's 700 that won't retire. Plus the 600 that have retired that will sue to get back. That's 1300 we don't need to hire.

Two year hiring freeze.

Gup

 

[humuakalaka]

One of the main benefits being touted for removing the Age-60 rule is that it will give all of us the ability to work an extra five years and it will not be forced on anyone. At your option, you are free to retire whenever you desire. On the surface, it's a compelling argument. However, what removing Age-60 really does is almost guarantee that you will have to work until age 65. It effectively removes your option to retire at 60. Why?

Because of the delayed upgrade to captain. Most of the pro-65 crowd says that it won't delay upgrades by that much....maybe a year or two. However, most of the captains I have talked to suggest that they will continue on until age 65 and call in sick much more frequently than they currently do. If that turns out to be the case, then upgrades will likely be delayed very close to the full five years.

Regardless of whether the delayed upgrade period is two years or five years, however, postponing the receipt of captain's income severely impacts the ability of us FO's to save for retirement. Personally, I'd rather have the increased captain's income 20 years earlier with an opportunity to earn 20 years of interest rather than that income delayed by five years and be given an additional five years to build my retirement at the very end of my career. We've all heard the story of the 25 year old saver who begins investing a set sum of money on a monthly basis for ten straight years and then stops on his 35th birthday. This saver builds a bigger nestegg than another saver who begins saving the same amount on his 35th birthday and continues saving that same set amount for the next 30 years. The same principles apply to Age-60 debate. The pro-age 65 crowd completely ignores the substantial future value of the additional income we FO's would earn with an earlier upgrade. It's all about time value of money.

If age 65 goes through, we FO's ought to be asking for higher rates in our respective negotiations to compensate for the substantial hit we will all take in our retirement nesteggs. It practically guarantees that we will have to work to age 65...like it or not.

 

[Huck]

There are those who will be captains for 5 more years, and those who will not. Where you fall depends on if you can make captain before the rule changes. If you can't, you get 5 more years F/O and 5 years less retirement (and probably about 5 years off your life....)

 

[Phaedrus]

The upgrade issue concerns me. I want to upgrade just as soon as possible. But that pales in comparison to what I believe will happen to the option to retire at 60. It will simply disappear, either contractually or realistically by making you take such a huge hit you won't be able to do it.
As for FO rate increases, I highly doubt it. Absolutely zero leverage.

 

[ironspud]

Don't worry children. Everything will be all right.

 

[Phaedrus]

Thanks for you sarcastic, condescending response. Recall, however hard it may be, that I wasn't asking for your sardonic idiocy but what might happen if the windfall for some comes to fruition.

 

[Dizel8]

I didn't find it condescending at all, but very sarcastic

 

[AlbieF15]

Here's what will happen.

My Continental, FDX, and SWA interview prep will dry up--not quit but slow down. Jetblue will continue to hire, as will some regionals and UPS. However--Kit Darby is going to have less work, as will Emerald Coast. HPA, Pan Am, K&S, etc will also fell the sting--but the guys selling sims overseas will still do okay.

Netjets and the fractionals will continue to grow--and might even have to hire MORE since the over 60 crowd won't be leaving their airline jobs for a while.

Some guys will win. Senior guys on the property will get a windfall. Guys like me on the captain bubble will face the choice of either upgrading (maybe) but being a bottom feeder for a long, long time OR being an FO stuck for another 3-4 years. Not bitchin'...lots of folks would kill for those problems. Junior guys will hurt--no upgrades or line improvements of significance for a while--especially at companies with 3 hole planes that are moving to 2 holes. The real loser--that guy just outside the fence that thought he was competitive this year or next for an interview. Not so fast....sorry...

And the furloughed guys...geez...how about a hand for those guys at Delta who greenslipped for 4-5 years then get to hang on for another 5?

This is like air to air--a zero sum game. Someone will win, someone will lose. I hope I win. If I cannot, like a long defensive BFM engagement, my goal is a long, delayed, protracted implementation that removes as many over 60 guys as possible before it becomes law. Nothin' personal--its just business.

 

[scoreboard]

Costs:

Medical, Dental, Vision will go through the roof if/when the age gets extended. Loss of license will go to the moon, few if any will be able to afford the cost that will skyrocket.

Companies will have to budget for those seniors who hang around, dropping trips, burning those hundreds of thousands of hours of sick leave. Junior folks will have increased time with lower QOL, but will be able to increase income by picking up the old guys dropped trips.

Retired guys will form groups and will sue, company and unions. Unions will be forced to spend millions defending same, raising dues. Good thing the junior guy will be able to pickup those extra trips...

 

[KCPilot]

This is like air to air--a zero sum game. Someone will win, someone will lose. I hope I win. If I cannot, like a long defensive BFM engagement, my goal is a long, delayed, protracted implementation that removes as many over 60 guys as possible before it becomes law. Nothin' personal--its just business.

Ditto!

 

[trnsprt]

I have no problem with going to 65. Starting with everyone hired the day after the rule goes into effect. For the rest of us... we knew what we were getting when we signed on. Retire at 60. Personally it benefits me to see 65 happen. I am furloughed but would like more time to get things in order with my options before having to face a mandatory recall.

People can go on all day about how 9/11 was unexpected and whine about how the pensions were affected by lousy airline management. But it is no worse than the situation that so many were put in with the extended furloughs from this most recent recession. Deal with it.

As the old guys used to tell me when I was a new hire 1011/fe. You better have something to fall back on in this industry. I guess some of them should have listened to their own advice!

 

[PCL_128]

Guys, this NPRM isn't an "if" anymore, it's a "when." Captain Prater sent out a briefing to the BOD a few days ago that stated the FAA will be issuing an NPRM in the second half of this year. That process usually takes a little while, but expect some form of a change in the rule in '08.

 

[capt. megadeth]

The upgrade issue concerns me. I want to upgrade just as soon as possible. But that pales in comparison to what I believe will happen to the option to retire at 60. It will simply disappear, either contractually or realistically by making you take such a huge hit you won't be able to do it.
As for FO rate increases, I highly doubt it. Absolutely zero leverage.

Yep. I agree. Except for a few near 60 guys that will benefit, I am sure people will live to regret pushing for this change.

 

[michael707767]

Companies will have to budget for those seniors who hang around, dropping trips, burning those hundreds of thousands of hours of sick leave. ...

interesting observation. I have already heard several senior pilots at my airline say they plan on sticking around past 60 and sicking out of every other trip. They figure they will fly just enough to be able to hang on to 65 and then retire with SS and Medicare in hand. Whats the worst the company could do to them? If it ever looked like they were going to get into trouble they could stop sicking out for a while or just go ahead and retire.

 

[CF34-3B1]

interesting observation. I have already heard several senior pilots at my airline say they plan on sticking around past 60 and sicking out of every other trip. They figure they will fly just enough to be able to hang on to 65 and then retire with SS and Medicare in hand. Whats the worst the company could do to them? If it ever looked like they were going to get into trouble they could stop sicking out for a while or just go ahead and retire.

I've flown with several guys who have that exact same plan.

I think a lot of the old guys plan to semi retire at 60 or so and fly part time. (But at full time pay)

 

[thruthemurk]

Just curious as to whether this elderly sick out trend would be more than what already exists for pilots between 55-60?

 

[Falconjet]

Because they will be even older (5 years) than they are now and they already account for most of the sick time as it is.

FJ

 

[Falconjet]

The upgrade issue concerns me. I want to upgrade just as soon as possible. But that pales in comparison to what I believe will happen to the option to retire at 60. It will simply disappear, either contractually or realistically by making you take such a huge hit you won't be able to do it.
As for FO rate increases, I highly doubt it. Absolutely zero leverage.

We will have leverage, but I doubt that we will have the collective will to carry it out.

IF the rule changes and one of the pilots has to be under 60, then the under 60 pilots simply need to have their own sickout. Over 60 Captain, the FO goes sick. Call in a reserve, they go sick. Repeat throughout the industry and maybe all the dumbazzes that think this is fair will figure out how bad they are screwing the under 60 people.

Doesn't need to be union endorsed or driven, just the under 60 pilots exercising their rights to call in sick just like the over 60 pilots will.

Can't wait to hear diccklicker chime in about how that is unfair and or illegal.

FJ

 

[Andy]

This is like air to air--a zero sum game. Someone will win, someone will lose. I hope I win. If I cannot, like a long defensive BFM engagement, my goal is a long, delayed, protracted implementation that removes as many over 60 guys as possible before it becomes law. Nothin' personal--its just business.

It's a negative sum game, not zero sum. The net result will cost the entirety of the pilot group more than is gained by the few. The shift to the right of the pilot supply curve will result in lower wages for all pilots.