Gray Skies

[FlyGuppies]

Repeal age discrimination

Some issues are greater than one's self interests. I have read these posts for a while and am struck by the hint (to be kind) of selfishness abound. Discrimination based on age is no less deplorable and that of sex or skin color(s).

I am a 38 yr old SWA Capt. I have supported the Age 60 Repeal as an FO as I do now.

For those of you that want to retire at age 60, do it. How would that be different than retiring at age 55 with mandatory at age 60? Personally, I like the idea of working a bit longer at my peak earnings level and taking some great vacations or buying that new toy instead of finding a part-time job in retirement with poor wages and no benefits to bridge me to the soon-to-be-gone-as-we-know-it SocSec system.

I understand companies may desire to change benefit parameters to reflect any changes in the law that suits their interests. How is that different than defaulting on your defined benefit plans and giving them wholesale to the PBGC?

I don't pretend to have many answers (any of which are popular) to this problem. Having parents that have worked their tails off well into their sixties I can't escape the notion that I have it easy.

There are no guarantees in life and there is certainly no god given right to retire at age 60.

 

[semperfido]

it IS going to change....

 

[80drvr]

Some issues are greater than one's self interests. I have read these posts for a while and am struck by the hint (to be kind) of selfishness abound. Discrimination based on age is no less deplorable and that of sex or skin color(s).

I am a 38 yr old SWA Capt. I have supported the Age 60 Repeal as an FO as I do now.

For those of you that want to retire at age 60, do it. How would that be different than retiring at age 55 with mandatory at age 60? Personally, I like the idea of working a bit longer at my peak earnings level and taking some great vacations or buying that new toy instead of finding a part-time job in retirement with poor wages and no benefits to bridge me to the soon-to-be-gone-as-we-know-it SocSec system.

I understand companies may desire to change benefit parameters to reflect any changes in the law that suits their interests. How is that different than defaulting on your defined benefit plans and giving them wholesale to the PBGC?

I don't pretend to have many answers (any of which are popular) to this problem. Having parents that have worked their tails off well into their sixties I can't escape the notion that I have it easy.

There are no guarantees in life and there is certainly no god given right to retire at age 60.

Do you support those over 60 being allowed to come back?

 

[-9Capt]

For those of you that want to retire at age 60, do it.

Mr. Guppies,
Work till 65 and you can kiss our retirement plans goodbye. It will become impossible to keep the current A/B funds if we are allowed to work to social security benefit age. Personally I like the extra $15,400 AirTran deposited in my Oppenheimer account last year.

That's the main reason I'm against it.

 

[FoxHunter]

Mr. Guppies,
Work till 65 and you can kiss our retirement plans goodbye. It will become impossible to keep the current A/B funds if we are allowed to work to social security benefit age. Personally I like the extra $15,400 AirTran deposited in my Oppenheimer account last year.

That's the main reason I'm against it.

Urban Myth

 

[Purpledog]

For those of you that want to retire at age 60, do it. How would that be different than retiring at age 55 with mandatory at age 60? Personally, I like the idea of working a bit longer at my peak earnings level and taking some great vacations or buying that new toy instead of finding a part-time job in retirement with poor wages and no benefits to bridge me to the soon-to-be-gone-as-we-know-it SocSec system.

It would be different b/c we would be forced to take a huge hit on our retirement plans if we wanted to leave early, as we are now if we want to leave before 60. Oh wait you don't have a A/B retirement plan, hence your motive. If you want to fly 10 legs a day until you keel over, knock yourself out, just not in 121. I don't mean to make this a have/have not discussion, however, this whole thing is driven by selfish people who think they need more than they do or are living outside their means. If you are a SWA Capt at 38, you should easily be able to retire comfortably at 60 hands down. If not you need to sell the big house/nice car/boat and go live like the paid labor we are.
The only people that have a dog in this fight are the guys forced to start over at 50+. These are the same ones that would have punched a LCC whipper-snapper in the nose 5 years ago if he suggested that he had to work into the golden years. Sorry senior pilots, that's the way the ball bounces and I agree you can't change the rules midstream to suit your ill planning and misfortune. I feel sorry for those, but not sorry enough to ruin the collective lives of most of my peers.
Once again this is an unstable industry. Plan as if you won't have any retirement at 60 and you won't be surprised. My company should have the best chance of paying me a pension but I'd be a fool to count on it.

Take the ALPA poll and voice your opposition to amending the 60 rule!

 

[semperfido]

"I don't mean to make this a have/have not discussion, however, this whole thing is driven by selfish people who think they need more than they do or are living outside their means."


pdog: who made you the arbiter of what people need to live within their means? this aint no dress rehersal and if someone is fit to fly past 60 then who are you to question their motives? It is none of your business whether or not i have a bmw or a vw beetle. change is inevitable...external forces like Soc Sec, company retirement plans and industry economics change and so will the rules that we have lived by in the past.

it is NOT all about greed and selfishness. it IS about changing to adapt to changing environment. it isn't a static deal.

 

[FoxHunter]

Take the ALPA poll and voice your opposition to amending the 60 rule!

I really think you will find this time ALPA would really prefer not to take a position. It would be in their interest for Congress to pass the change so they don't piss those off nearing age 60 or those who have lost their pension like UAL and USAIR or if they support the change they will piss off junior guys.


"United ALPA Council Vote Results on Age 60"



"Resolutions calling for ALPA to change its National Policy on Age 60 have been passed at the following United ALPA Local Executive Councils:



SFO (March 3), LAX (March 16) and DCA (March 18). Votes are coming in April at the DEN and ORD Councils. This sends a clear signal to ALPA National that the pilots at United are ready for the change in National Policy on mandatory retirement at age 60."

 

[Purpledog]

pdog: who made you the arbiter of what people need to live within their means? this aint no dress rehersal and if someone is fit to fly past 60 then who are you to question their motives? It is none of your business whether or not i have a bmw or a vw beetle. change is inevitable...external forces like Soc Sec, company retirement plans and industry economics change and so will the rules that we have lived by in the past.

SemperMe,
Go buy a Ferrari for all I care, just don't expect me to support your poor decisions with my golden years.

 

[semperfido]

pdog---- not to worry---i'm not an airline pilot but i used to play one on tv

 

[wahoo250]

i wish they would make it 30, this way i can get out of this industry without people on the outside of it questioning why.