Get ready for Age 67+

[Andy]

Here's my mentoring to wendy and the rest of the senior idiots at ALPO. SPEND LESS MONEY THAN YOU EARN. Max out your 401k (b fund/c fund/whatever you want to call it) and max out your and your spouse's Roth IRAs. After that's done, bank a minimum of 10% of net pay remaining in your paycheck. Stop being financial morons. That way you can enjoy your 'golden' years rather than having to push tin until you die.


Second mentoring to wendy. The old guys didn't fukc you over at every turn, yet you and your peers do it to the junior members of the list at every turn. What kind of mentoring is that? I hate these jerkoffs who live in mirrorless houses.


Anyway Flop, I look forward to being below you on a combined seniority list one day. I don't have high expectations to have any CAL pilots below me, as I am ~halfway up the UAL furlough list.
Frats,
Andy

 

[sleeves]

Ya have to die sometime. Can't raise the age limit there. I want a few years to myself, not chained to the boat rowing for a few pieces of silver.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Age 60 was artificially low. Age 65 made it a little less artificial. Age 67? Probably in 10 years or so (but then it will be pushed by the Flopguts, etc. of the world that railed about the injustice of changing the age to begin with)

I think you'll see more pilots willing to give up pay to protect their health insurance in the coming years, unless the airlines just dump everyone into ObamaCare. Then any medical issues arising become everyone's/no one's problem and the airline's could care less about retirement age. This will parallel the push by airlines for pilots to pay for their own recurrent and upgrade training.

But, SURPRISE, the pie won't get any bigger moneywise.

 

[Flopgut]

It's not a safety issue until there's a hull loss.

It will be a safety issue. Probably sooner than later. I don't think we're going to make it through these next few years without some more in-flight heart attacks.

I hope we are on a seniority list together some day and we have stable work.

 

[Flopgut]

Age 60 was artificially low. Age 65 made it a little less artificial. Age 67? Probably in 10 years or so (but then it will be pushed by the Flopguts, etc. of the world that railed about the injustice of changing the age to begin with)

I think you'll see more pilots willing to give up pay to protect their health insurance in the coming years, unless the airlines just dump everyone into ObamaCare. Then any medical issues arising become everyone's/no one's problem and the airline's could care less about retirement age. This will parallel the push by airlines for pilots to pay for their own recurrent and upgrade training.

But, SURPRISE, the pie won't get any bigger moneywise.

Why don't you go lick your cat's butt! If any of that crap happens I will be long gone...

 

[Fubijaakr]

I agree with you on several points:

It won't be a grassroots effort this time around. And it will be a much more effective plan of attack.

Especially since it makes economic sense for the bean counters to do it. If the corporate overlords get on board, especially considering they're in full control of the Supreme Court, it will be a done deal.

And don't mistake the public as caring how young or old their pilot is. They don't care. All they care about is cheap tickets and airlne management can deliver cheaper tickets if they don't have a large annual pilot training bill.

I would argue that the public prefers older, experienced pilots, especially in the left seat. Everyone's heard, "Man, am I glad to see some gray hair up there." Its usually after they've connected from "Teen Air" Regional.

Read my lips. No hull losses. It's not a safety issue until there's a hull loss.

EXACTLY. And considering the last hull loss was with a young Captain at the controls, the "safety" issue is non-existant. The last two pilot flight deck deaths were pilots well younger than 60.

There goes the "safety" argument.

If the retirement age doesn't increase, this will probably result in some routes getting less frequency with upguaged aircraft ... an upguage from two RJs to a single 737 or A319. An upguage is cheaper than using RJs but frequency is also a big player for high yield frequent flyers.

The upgauge issue will be driven by economics, though I believe it will be more direct costs than training costs, but you might be right. The cost of flying 50 seat RJs is already prohibitive and the 70 seaters are quickly becoming too costly as well.

The frequent flyers might just have to take a hit on this one. Look at Japan...how many years have they flown widebodies in domestic service? Why? Primarily airspace restrictions and slots. Same thing is happening here, especially at the large hub airports. An RJ uses the same slot a 777 does. At some point it will be so congested the RJ will have to give way.

The good news, more mainline jobs.

 

[wanagethi]

Baby boomers or the entitlement generation, need to go, lower the age to 55!!!

 

[Sacha]

Age 60 was artificially low. Age 65 made it a little less artificial. Age 67? Probably in 10 years or so (but then it will be pushed by the Flopguts, etc. of the world that railed about the injustice of changing the age to begin with)

I think you'll see more pilots willing to give up pay to protect their health insurance in the coming years, unless the airlines just dump everyone into ObamaCare. Then any medical issues arising become everyone's/no one's problem and the airline's could care less about retirement age. This will parallel the push by airlines for pilots to pay for their own recurrent and upgrade training.

But, SURPRISE, the pie won't get any bigger moneywise.

Why don't you go lick your cat's butt! If any of that crap happens I will be long gone...

Bringupthebird,

I think you are dead on unfortunately.

Flopgut,

One can only hope you are long gone way before it happens. Your fellow employees thank you.

 

[Andy]

Age 60 was artificially low. Age 65 made it a little less artificial. Age 67? Probably in 10 years or so (but then it will be pushed by the Flopguts, etc. of the world that railed about the injustice of changing the age to begin with).

How come you didn't direct that comment at me? You and I have clashed on this topic many a time.
Is it because, due to the age 65 change, I've been furloughed for the last 2 1/2 years?

 

[Andy]

I agree with you on several points:

Excellent. This is a contentious topic. Let's see if we can keep it somewhat civil, even on FI, for a few days. I know, I know, I might as well try parting the Red Sea...

Especially since it makes economic sense for the bean counters to do it. If the corporate overlords get on board, especially considering they're in full control of the Supreme Court, it will be a done deal.

For carriers with a diverse fleeet, you're probably looking at ~8 pilot months in training (students, instructors, LCAs). That's only the labor cost; there are facility and logistics costs associated with training events. If three of four students are from other domiciles, each retirement generates three months' hotel and per diem bills. It's not an inexpensive proposition to have a widebody captain retire.

The Supreme Court is a bit too much conspiracy theorist stuff for my taste. Nor is the Supreme Court pertinent to the discussion.

I would argue that the public prefers older, experienced pilots, especially in the left seat. Everyone's heard, "Man, am I glad to see some gray hair up there." Its usually after they've connected from "Teen Air" Regional..

1) Are there any 'teen air' regionals left?
2) Gray hair works for a while but there is a point at which it will raise some concern. 70? 75? Every individual is different.

EXACTLY. And considering the last hull loss was with a young Captain at the controls, the "safety" issue is non-existant. The last two pilot flight deck deaths were pilots well younger than 60.

There goes the "safety" argument..

Let's not open that can of worms. Whenever I discussed this issue prior to 2009, I was always told that 'you can't prove age was a factor'. And I could pull up the graphs of accidents per 100,000 flight hours based on age. There's a definite upturn in the graph.

The upgauge issue will be driven by economics, though I believe it will be more direct costs than training costs, but you might be right. The cost of flying 50 seat RJs is already prohibitive and the 70 seaters are quickly becoming too costly as well.

The frequent flyers might just have to take a hit on this one. Look at Japan...how many years have they flown widebodies in domestic service? Why? Primarily airspace restrictions and slots. Same thing is happening here, especially at the large hub airports. An RJ uses the same slot a 777 does. At some point it will be so congested the RJ will have to give way.

The good news, more mainline jobs.

The economic models are MUCH more complicated than pure CASM. Otherwise, we would see very few RJs.
Frequency is hugely important to business travelers - I speak from experience as a former 1K on that one.
Let's just look at one city pair - DEN to OMA on 28 Sep. There are 6 daily flights; 4 RJs, 1 A319 and 1 A320. I remember going through Independence Air's quarterly reports and their CASM on the A319 was ~6cents while their 50 seat RJ was ~25cents. I'm sure that those numbers are tighter for UAL but I'm not going to try to dig them up because UAL contractually pays for fuel and that never gets factored into UAL's RJ CASM.
United could cut DEN-OMA service down to 4 A319/320s per day and reduce costs. But then those flights would need to synch up with the banks of flying done daily. I'm sure you'll find that the current 6 flights (756A, 954A, 128P, 349P, 744P, 951P) all line up with DEN's departure banks. Which of those departure banks will not have a DEN-OMA flight? And what happens to the passenger that can go to Southwest or Frontier instead of waiting 5 hours for the next flight to OMA?