Fox News and age 60

[XJTAv8r]

I don't see how ALPA can support keeping age 60 with a straight face since they also represent Air Canada Jazz and Air Transat who have contracts that go to age 65--and those ALPA members can now fly in US Airspace at 60 or above yet dues paying members of ALPA who fly for US carriers cannot.
I read in the posts about how all of you will be irreperably harmed by raising the retirement age--how you all want to retire at age 60 or before--you all must really hate aviation and hate your jobs.

To put it simply, a rule change will provide a tremendous financial windfall (5 more years at the top of the pay scale) to those who are approaching age 60 at tremendous expense to those who are not approaching age 60 (higher LTD and insurance costs, diluted pay rates on future contracts, stagnant seniority movement, etc.) It's quite a bit more "greedy" to want 5 more years at the top pay scale at the expense of your younger co-workers than to want to maintain the status quo.

 

[BiffF15]

In my humble opinon I think it doesn't matter about winfalls, expectations, hopes or aspirations. It will be boiled down to whether or not 60 is age discrimination. Once that occurs the outcome will be what I think is obvious.

 

[banger]

I have also heard all the arguements, and would like to see it stay at 60 for the sole reason I don't want to work beyond that. However I think it will come down to age discrimination and nothing else. While it may be dead for now I also think it will come up again and again until it matches ICAO.

Well you may have other reasons but if you just don't want to work past age 60 then don't. Would having the option be bad for you?

 

[BiffF15]

Banger,
I would hope to have the option to not work past 60, both financially and lifestyle wise. It's my opinon as well that it will depend on your contract at the time you pass the 60 mark. Or in other words what gets negotiated between now and then regardless of the "mandatory" retirement age.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

In my humble opinon I think it doesn't matter about winfalls, expectations, hopes or aspirations. It will be boiled down to whether or not 60 is age discrimination. Once that occurs the outcome will be what I think is obvious.

This issue has been addressed many times on this MB. With Age 65, all ICAO would do is replace one discriminatory age with another. So tell me, by rising the age to 65, what age discrimination has been solved? Why not go to 55?

The real motive behind the Age 65 group is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. Once the age is increased, this crowd will still keep fighting to get a full repeal of any retirement age. The real aim is to hold on to their jobs as long as possible without a care in the world about the negative ramifications it will bring to the industry. It will never end.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[BiffF15]

AA,
You are probably correct about the "nose under the tent". However, you missed the point of what it will come down to (age discrimination) not why (financial gains of senior pilots). The day in court is inbound, and financial gains will probably be brought up to cloud the issue however in the end it will be based soley on age discrimination.

 

[Andy]

The day in court is inbound, and financial gains will probably be brought up to cloud the issue however in the end it will be based soley on age discrimination.

The day in court has already passed.

 

[BiffF15]

The day in court has already passed.

Andy, the "day in court" is a metaphor. If it's over why are we still talking about it? I'm not debating the right or wrong of the change, just why I think it will change.

 

[Andy]

Andy, the "day in court" is a metaphor. If it's over why are we still talking about it? I'm not debating the right or wrong of the change, just why I think it will change.

There are three possible avenues for change - judicial, legislative, and regulatory.
The judicial side is no longer an option; it has been ruled that age 60 is not age discrimination. You stated that you thought that the rule would change due to it being discriminatory.
Two paths remain for change. Legislatively, there's a possibility that the text of S 65 will remain embedded in the transportation appropriations bill. I am making every effort to have it stripped from the bill. I anticipate success.
On the regulatory side, the FAA is very unlikely to rush into a change. The fact that the ARC report was released with no accompanying press release tells me that the FAA just wants to bury the issue.

While this is a huge issue to pilots, the American public has little, if any, concern on this issue.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

I have emailed everyone on the senate appropriations committee.

It was very easy with Andy's compiled list. Andy could you please paste the list with the senate link on this thread.