Fox News and age 60

[Andy]

The Fox News ticker is saying that the FAA is close to releasing it's decision on raising the retirement age to 65. For some reason Fox believes this is important enough for the national news. Go figure.

I thought this was dead for now. The drama continues.

Any bets on what they will decide? Any thoughts for you Andy?

The FAA will likely issue a statement saying that they are studying the issue further. No action will be taken.
The pro-change crowd has been going to the media and feeding them a message that change is coming. If you read most articles, the only direct quotes are from the APAAD or other pro-change group.

The only threat to change that I currently see is that S 65 got buried in FY07's transportation appropriations bill. It needs to be stripped out of there before all of the appropriations bills get rolled into an omnibus bill or it will change to age 65.

 

[pilotyip]

The Detroit Free Press on page 3 of the business section confirmed in today's paper that the age may be raised this year. Also said there are a number of piltos groups lobbying for the age increase.

 

[Caveman]

Why is that only the anti 60 guys are greedy bastards? The pro 60 crowd are just as greedy? Both sides want the financial benefits. The pro 60's hide behind the safety argument. The anti 60's complain about discrimination.

It is discriminatory (so is age 65 or any other age). There may or may not be valid safety concerns.

This is classic politics. The haves want to keep what they've got and the have-nots want to take it away so they can get theirs.

It's going to change eventually. There is no way congress is going to continue to allow ICAO pilots to fly in the U.S. while U.S. pilots can't. The public will kill them if they do.

 

[bigtexpilot]

So I guess those don't count in your mind??

Not in mine and I'm 42.

 

[Andy]

The Detroit Free Press on page 3 of the business section confirmed in today's paper that the age may be raised this year. Also said there are a number of piltos groups lobbying for the age increase.

I'll match my track record on forecasts and the details this issue with anyone.

The age will be raised this year IF the text of S 65 remains buried in the transportation appropriations bill. If it is removed, age 60 will remain in effect until at least 2009 and it will be a dead issue for the 110th congress.
The more people write to congressmen on the Senate Appropriations Committee, the more likely that it will be removed. We'll know after the omnibus appropriations bill is passed and published. I'm looking for a late February timeframe.

I also think that Sen Tim Johnson's medical condition will not help the pro-change crowd.

 

[Sluggo_63]

This is classic politics. The haves want to keep what they've got and the have-nots want to take it away so they can get theirs.

Remind me again... which group here are the 'haves' and which are the 'have-nots'?

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

To those who have no desire to be working after 60, if age 65 is approved you can always resign upon reaching 60 and live out your remaining years in bliss, unfortunately due to recent events some people will need to work the extra years to get financially back on track.

The Dogs,

This is a wrong assumption that pilots will still be able to continue to retire at 60 without any penalty. Managements make more money (read less training cycles) by having everyone go to the mandatory retirement age, whatever that age may wind up being. Here at AA, leaving at 55 and zero months is a 34.04% penalty.

It’s very rare at AA for someone to leave before 60 because of the massive penalty. The penalty starts at age 50 and goes to 59 years, 11 months. If the age is changed to 65, most likely the penalty will shift up five years to cover the last 10 years of our careers. Managements want the ability to plan for all pilots going the full way in their careers. This is done by enacting early out penalties. Managements also win big in the pension wars simply because if the age goes to 65, we will not have as many years spent in retirement.

Another consideration of an age 65 retirement will be additional downward pressure on our wages. The historically high wages we used to earn was based on our going out at 60. They didn’t pay us the wages because we are a bunch of nice guys. Age 65 will bring continued stagnation to our wages.

Don’t forget to factor in forcing us to spend another five years in an already unstable industry. What do you think the probability of another terrorist hit in the next 5 – 15 years? What will that do to our retirements and/or seniority progression?

The final straw of Age 65 will be the massive divisiveness caused between the haves/have nots. The only true winners are the pilots at the top of the heap. Many junior pilots will find themselves having to work the additional five years simply to make back the money lost in the first place. Just the dollars lost from compounding interest in our retirement funds will be astronomical. Pilot left out on the street another 3-5 years will never make up the difference. No unity in the ranks translates to bad contracts.

From most of us, working to 65 will net very little additional financial gains. The pilots at the top stand to gain over a $1,000,000 windfall by staying in their seats an additional five years. Ever wonder why all the guys pushing for this are in their late 50’s? There is a reason for this.

The only remotely fair solution to Age 65 is if a pilot wants to fly past 65, when they reach age 60, they go to the end of the seniority list.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[Big Beer Belly]

The Dogs,

This is a wrong assumption that pilots will still be able to continue to retire at 60 without any penalty. Managements make more money (read less training cycles) by having everyone go to the mandatory retirement age, whatever that age may wind up being. Here at AA, leaving at 55 and zero months is a 34.04% penalty.

It’s very rare at AA for someone to leave before 60 because of the massive penalty. The penalty starts at age 50 and goes to 59 years, 11 months. If the age is changed to 65, most likely the penalty will shift up five years to cover the last 10 years of our careers. Managements want the ability to plan for all pilots going the full way in their careers. This is done by enacting early out penalties. Managements also win big in the pension wars simply because if the age goes to 65, we will not have as many years spent in retirement.

Another consideration of an age 65 retirement will be additional downward pressure on our wages. The historically high wages we used to earn was based on our going out at 60. They didn’t pay us the wages because we are a bunch of nice guys. Age 65 will bring continued stagnation to our wages.

Don’t forget to factor in forcing us to spend another five years in an already unstable industry. What do you think the probability of another terrorist hit in the next 5 – 15 years? What will that do to our retirements and/or seniority progression?

The final straw of Age 65 will be the massive divisiveness caused between the haves/have nots. The only true winners are the pilots at the top of the heap. Many junior pilots will find themselves having to work the additional five years simply to make back the money lost in the first place. Just the dollars lost from compounding interest in our retirement funds will be astronomical. Pilot left out on the street another 3-5 years will never make up the difference. No unity in the ranks translates to bad contracts.

From most of us, working to 65 will net very little additional financial gains. The pilots at the top stand to gain over a $1,000,000 windfall by staying in their seats an additional five years. Ever wonder why all the guys pushing for this are in their late 50’s? There is a reason for this.

The only remotely fair solution to Age 65 is if a pilot wants to fly past 65, when they reach age 60, they go to the end of the seniority list.

AA767AV8TOR

EXCELLENT post sir! :beer:

BBB

 

[Caveman]

Remind me again... which group here are the 'haves' and which are the 'have-nots'?

Relatively speaking, of course.

 

[General Lee]

Why is that only the anti 60 guys are greedy bastards? The pro 60 crowd are just as greedy? Both sides want the financial benefits. The pro 60's hide behind the safety argument. The anti 60's complain about discrimination.

It is discriminatory (so is age 65 or any other age). There may or may not be valid safety concerns.

This is classic politics. The haves want to keep what they've got and the have-nots want to take it away so they can get theirs.

It's going to change eventually. There is no way congress is going to continue to allow ICAO pilots to fly in the U.S. while U.S. pilots can't. The public will kill them if they do.

I never saw the pro-65 guys cry when they moved to the left seat from the right seat, and also watched the captains move to the FE seat when we had them. Why didn't they stand up back then?

Is it discriminatory? The Constitution has age discrimination in it--minimum age for a President is 35. Should we change the Constitution? What about retirement ages for policemen and firemen? Should we raise those? How old do you want the fireman carrying your family out of a burning building?

Do we have to follow everything ICAO says? Why do they say not to allow 2 over age 60 pilots in the cockpit at the same time? Those countries that allow it are very short on pilots, and we are not. There will probably be an accident, and it will be changed. Saudi Arabia allows it, but they also allow public stoning. Should we?


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[jetjockey#1]

How about we make that the Captain? When you turn 60 you roll back to the bottom of the list and end up as an FO on the most junior equipment. You're still flying, and at your same airline. Who wouldn't like that deal? Oh, right - the greedy bastages that want to camp out in the left seat of a widebody for five more years.


Exactly. It has nothing to do with "age discrimination". It's all about the money. I've become sick and tired of hearing the "discrimination" excuse. It would truly be refreshing to hear a WB captain tell me:
" F@#k you guys, I wanna be on top for 5 more years, and the hell with your career expectations."
I still wouldn't like it, but would at least appreciate the honesty....

I must've heard that about 100 times. Not in those words, but just like this, " I have so much sick time I figure I can call in sick 2 trips a month, and if they say anything I get a chronic back pain that allow me to call in sick as often as I want to, even if they don't pay me for the trips that I drop, two trips a month, 6 days, that's about 6-8K plus I have insurance, I can do that"

I literally had this conversation with more than one senior captain, funny enough, most of these individuals were hire in 83-85 here at CAL!!!

ALPA is very clear on this issue, almost 7 out 10 members don't want to change the age 60 rule, I know, I know ALPA doesn't represent every pilot group, I guess they only represent what? about 65,000 airline pilots!!

You know something else they tell me when I make a comment about the crappy first year pay,

IT WAS YOUR CHOICE TO COME HERE, YOU KNEW WHAT THE PAY WAS.

How long has the rule 60 has been around???

 

[Caveman]

... Ever wonder why all (emphasis added) the guys pushing for this are in their late 50’s? There is a reason for this.

All the guys pushing for this are not in their late 50's. I'm only 48, not a Captain and I'm in favor of eliminating the age 60 rule.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

where is congressional (sen. inhofe) outrage over the FAA's controllers and their mandatory retirement age?

Now...now...first things, first. As soon as we get this one sorted out...we'll move on to the next problem.

Tejas

 

[CitationLover]

Now...now...first things, first. As soon as we get this one sorted out...we'll move on to the next problem.

Tejas

also the reverse discrimination of the FAA only hiring controllers UNDER the age of 30.

what about the military discriminating against pilots and not allowing them to enter flight school after age 30?

government double speak and bs!

 

[Tejas-Jet]

How old do you want the fireman carrying your family out of a burning building?

If you are ever in that situation ( and I hope you never are) you telling me you are going to ask for some ID?...with flames all around...?

Tejas