Fox News and age 60

[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

 

[Caveman]

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? I don't know, go ask them because your scenario doesn't apply to me. I'm an anti age 60 guy and I'm still an FO.

Is it discriminatory? The Constitution has age discrimination in it--minimum age for a President is 35. Should we change the Constitution? The age 6o rule isn't a part of the Constitution. It's a regulation and subject to change. You like the rule as is. I don't. I want it changed and I'm using an administrative and a legislative process to try and change it. That's the way things are done in America. Don't like? Then make your case through the same process as to why it should remain as is. You're going to lose. The law is squarely on the side of antiage discrimation. Remember, the age 60 rule is just that, a rule and it doesn't trump law. The LAW says you can't discriminate because of age and finally the rule is in the spotlight. It will be changed eventually because it simply can not withstand the scrutiny and the simple test of whether or not it's arbitrary and discriminatory. 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? As long as they can do the job I don't care how old they are.

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? If and when Saudi Arabia ever starts stoning people in the United States you'll have a point. Until then your argument isn't valid. We're talking about an activity that's taking place within our boundries and is codified by international treaty.



Bye Bye--General Lee

......

 

[XJTAv8r]

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.

So has S65 (Freedom to Fly Act?) already be reburied into the new 2007 Transportation Appropriations Bill? Will e-mailing these Senators do any good, or will postal mail go much further? Thanks.

 

[gutshotdraw]

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.

Andy, you are assuming the only way Age 65 will happen is legislatively. The way I read some of the Administrator's latest comments is that it will come via NPRM. Right or wrong, I have a gut feeling the FAA will issue the Notice and open the public comment period. Then, hooo boy! Let the fun begin.

As long as we're talking hypocrisy, I guess airline passengers are more important than corporate jet passengers since you have to jump out of a Part 121 cockpit at 60 but you can run around in a Part 91K BBJ until you croak at 92. So maybe the Adminstrator has this up her sleeve: the mandatory retirement age FOR ALL COMMERCIAL FLYING including corporate 91, 91K and 135 will now be 65. Hmmmmmmm. Naw, never happen.

 

[Andy]

So has S65 (Freedom to Fly Act?) already be reburied into the new 2007 Transportation Appropriations Bill? Will e-mailing these Senators do any good, or will postal mail go much further? Thanks.

There is no new FY07 transportation appropriations bill yet. All of the appropriations bills should have been passed in the last session of congress; now, they will likely jam through all of them in one omnibus appropropriations bill (nine were not passed).
Keep in mind that Washington is a zoo right now and everything's in turmoil. With that in mind, the new appropriations committees will rush to get the bills completed and will almost certainly use the old appropriations bills which did not get voted on as templates for the new bills. In this case, I expect them to use HR 5576.RS as the template.
I expect an omnibus appropriations bill to be completed and voted on before the end of February.
As far as the best method to correspond, I e-mailed, faxed, and sent snail mail. I can't say which one is best. It's whichever one gets the attention of a senate staffer who is responsible for transportation appropriations issues to the senator. The goal here is to get visibility on the issue. Fortunately, congress finds it distasteful to include legislative amendments in appropriations bills.

 

[Andy]

Andy, you are assuming the only way Age 65 will happen is legislatively. The way I read some of the Administrator's latest comments is that it will come via NPRM. Right or wrong, I have a gut feeling the FAA will issue the Notice and open the public comment period. Then, hooo boy! Let the fun begin.

BS. Show me those comments. I've read articles where reporters made speculations, but I've never seen ANYTHING in print from the FAA stating that they are moving toward changing it.

The FAA posted the ARC report without an accompanying press release. They're letting the issue die.

 

[FoxHunter]

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

Well I guess you had better start working on your contract. At FedEx early out takes a hit at 3% a year. Age 55 takes a 15% reduction. FWIW the last contract at Flying Tigers had no reduction starting at age 50 if the pilot ha 25 years service.

 

[fartknocker]

Well I guess you had better start working on your contract. At FedEx early out takes a hit at 3% a year. Age 55 takes a 15% reduction. FWIW the last contract at Flying Tigers had no reduction starting at age 50 if the pilot ha 25 years service.

I believe the point he was trying to make is that the penalty may now be applied when we retire at age 60 instead of 55. It's still 5 more years we will be REQUIRED to work if we want to retire with no penalties applied. :crying:

 

[TheDogsBollocks]

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

A very thoughtful post, as for myself if I got hired by a major tomorrow I would be up for a 17yr career at the current retirement age. Whilst I make no claim to be pertinent to all the "politics" of the profession I do acknowledge that when applied logically there is no real reason for cap the retirement age at 60-from a medical standpoint.

As I expected and received are the posts from the pro age 60 crowd stating their positions from a political point of view and those points are certainly valid. However, I do know full well if I get that major airline job that a raise in the retirement age will probably be coming.

I also know that this will affect my seniority progression,upgrade,pay, retirement and other working conditions. Hopefully, although this is probably wishful thinking is, that if such a change is implemented the nuts and bones of this change can be mitigated to make it a painless as possible for all affected.

 

[furloughed dude]

Caveman,

So you are 48 and recently got hired with a carrier that has absolutely no retirement benefits (oh, yeah that 3% 401k matching). It doesn't surprise me that you want to keep working.

Again, this is coming from someone that has a lower-end career. Am I supposed to be sympathetic towards you? Save whatever you can and expect to retire at 60.

If these other guys would have taken care of themselves financially, this wouldn't be a problem. Anyone that gambled and trusted management would take care of their pension probably needs to retire anyway. At least they have PBGC.

 

[airfogey]

I for one wanted to fly for an airline prior to 1980 when ALPA changed its stance--primarily they threw in the towel cause everybody had a decent pension--thats not the case now--in the next downturn those who currently still have an a plan may lose them since most majors right now do not--I predict the only two "airlines" to have defined benefit pensions eventually will be FedEX and UPS--primarily because they are not airlines--they are shipping companies that happpen to have a lot of airplanes.
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.
BTW the FAA now lets controllers work to age 61--yet they still have to be under 30 to be hired.
If it truly had any safety aspect than the FAA would not let any pilot fly anything bigger than a light sport aircraft after age 60--if it truly had anything to do would safety the government would give airline pilots full social security, full medicare and a full PBGC pension at a minimum because of our years of faithful service in such a dangerous and stressful profession.
The genie that has made the "profession" not what it used to be was let out of the bottle by Jimmy Carter and Alfred Kahn in 1978. If the only reason you got into aviation is for the "benefits" of the career than you truly aren't a professional aviator in my book.

Standing proudly with Pakistan, Columbia , and France to protect the travelling public.