More Age 60 perspective

[jetpilotjay]

Whistlin' Dan makes a good point, on more than one occasion it's been a senior guy there to save the day.

P.S. that was hillarious about Texas

 

[Sluggo_63]

So then...

I don't think you'd find many guys with a decent pension wanting the age changed. Those guys who were banking on a fat retirement however, only to have it yanked by even greedier management types, probably want the rule changed. Heck, they might even NEED it changed. I'm seeing a thread here pointing to greed by those approaching 60, yet how many oppose it simply b/c it delays their own fat paycheck or thier own selfish desire to retire when they want to? Personally, I'd like to retire at 60. I've got over 20 years to change my mind, however. You should have the ability to work in America to whatever age you'd like - but only to the extent you're not dangerous. If 60+ guys can pass a rigorous physical every 6 mos, handle the training and the sims, then they should get to keep flying.

So, all these 58+ year old pilots want what's right and good since they had the misfortune of having their pensions yanked. I'm sure when all these guys/gals were 43-45 years old in 1990-1991, they were very concerned about how all of the now out-of-work and out-of-a-pension pilots from Eastern and Pan Am were going to recoup all of their pension losses. I'm sure these then-younger pilots lobbied their airline and union to put all out of work Eastern/Pan Am pilots ahead of them on their seniority lists, to 'help them out.' I'm sure it would have been fine with this group of selfless aviators... delaying their upgrades and pay raises so those poor pilots who were out of work could earn back what was so greedily taken from them. That's how it worked then... didn't it?

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

So, all these 58+ year old pilots want what's right and good since they had the misfortune of having their pensions yanked. I'm sure when all these guys/gals were 43-45 years old in 1990-1991, they were very concerned about how all of the now out-of-work and out-of-a-pension pilots from Eastern and Pan Am were going to recoup all of their pension losses. I'm sure these then-younger pilots lobbied their airline and union to put all out of work Eastern/Pan Am pilots ahead of them on their seniority lists, to 'help them out.' I'm sure it would have been fine with this group of selfless aviators... delaying their upgrades and pay raises so those poor pilots who were out of work could earn back what was so greedily taken from them. That's how it worked then... didn't it?

Noooo... that's NOT the way it worked then. The way it worked then was that those of us who had jobs, did what we could to secure interviews for our friends who had been displaced from the airlines you mentioned. We didn't "delay upgrades" on their behalf, because we had no say in the matter. We did what we could.

Not once did I hear anybody say to a displaced pilot, "Why should I help you? You knew what you were getting into when you took the job at Pan Am/Eastern/Braniff/TWA/US Air," or wherever. We certainly didn't gloat over their misfortune, nor hold ourselves as somewhat "superior of intellect" because we'd had the foresight to somehow know that their airline was doomed to failure, while ours was not.

As for "putting [them] ahead of us on our seniority lists," that has no bearing on this argument. Nothing in the move to repeal the "Age 60 rule" changes anybody's relative seniority one bit. True, it does keep guys at every strata of the seniority list for an additional 5 years, but that's only because the seniority list is, in theory, 5 years longer than it was. They'll get an additional 5 years at the top of the list, when their earning potential is at it's highest.

And of course, nobody is mandating that every pilot work those additional 5 years. When your 401K is fat enough to take care of you, you can hang up your Ray-Bans, buy a boat, and go smoke dope if you like. Working to age 65 becomes an option, that's all.

If this apparent notion that "pilots are not 'entitled' to anything more than they could reasonably expect at the time they joined their airline" has any merit, then a LOT of people are in for a rude awakening. Northwest 747 Captains, for example, who started out at Republic when the biggest airplane they flew was a DC-9. Or the Fed Ex guys who started out in Falcon 20's, with no idea that 727's would be coming along a few years further down the road. And of course, anybody who joined a non-ALPA carrier whose pilot group later voted for representation.

Of all the key issues that have received special attention from pilot groups and negotiating committees over the years, repeal of the age 60 rule is probably the most egalitarian. It surprises me that pilots, who are supposed to be accustomed to "situational awareness" and "thinking ahead," are so behind the knowledge curve on this issue.

 

[pilotyip]

WslnDan, nice touch. You took it away from the what's in it for me slant of most age 60 threads.

 

[Purpled]

Having to wait that 5 years is not a trivial consequence. You get more now, others have to wait 5 years to get it. That's wrong.

 

[LEROY]

Anybody that thinks you'll be able to retire at 60, or whenever you want, if this rule is changed is probably ALREADY smokin' dope. Airline managements aren't going to be willing to hire and pay a new replacement pilot and simultaneously pay a fully funded retirement to someone who still has legal years left in them. I certainly couldn't retire from my airline at age 50 right now without taking a big hit financially.
Couple the fact that pilots with night-flying careers have a considerably shorter life expectancy with a change in the rule that will allow (and subsequently DEMAND) they work until 5 years closer to that average life expectancy, and management scores twice - less retirement to pay and fewer new-hires to pay.
No thanks...

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

Having to wait that 5 years is not a trivial consequence. You get more now, others have to wait 5 years to get it. That's wrong.

The point is, we BOTH get it. Get it?

That's not "wrong," that's seniority. If you have a problem with that, take it up with your parents...they're the ones who determined your seniority number.

Two of my 3 kids don't have any problem understanding this. When the 17-year-old asks to extend her turn on the dirt bike from 15 minutes to a half-hour, the 14-year-old knows that his turn will be extended to a half-hour as well.

It's the 5-year-old that cries because his big sister "gets to ride the motorcycle all the time."

 

[Purpled]

The point is, we BOTH get it. Get it?

That's not "wrong," that's seniority. If you have a problem with that, take it up with your parents...they're the ones who determined your seniority number.

Two of my 3 kids don't have any problem understanding this. When the 17-year-old asks to extend her turn on the dirt bike from 15 minutes to a half-hour, the 14-year-old knows that his turn will be extended to a half-hour as well.

It's the 5-year-old that cries because his big sister "gets to ride the motorcycle all the time."

Don't be so obtuse as to portray that these are logical arguements.

Comparing your kids riding a dirt-bike to taking money from other working adults demonstrates that you don't understand economics...perhaps you're blinded by your own greed.

A more fairer example would be if the sun set and the dirt-bike lost power about 10 minutes after your 17 year old got off it; then your 14 year old died 20 minutes later...think he'd want to spend 10 of his last 30 minutes on earth riding a dirt bike?

 

[Big Beer Belly]

Whistlin' Dan apparently DOESN'T get it!

The point is, we BOTH get it. Get it?

Whistlin ... here's a recycled post I've made before when an old fart tries to con a younger guy into believing he won't be harmed financially by an age change from 60 to 65.

>>Say you are 40 now and delay your upgrade to 45. In those 5 years you would lose 100k/yr (salary and B-fund) at my airline. I don't have a FV calculator handy at the moment, but at 45 you would have given up approx 700k by not upgrading. 700k over 20 yrs (age 45-65) at market 50 yr avg of 10% (actually 10.3%, but we'll round) return would yield approx $5.5 MILLION!

You will need to be paid in excess of $1 MILLION/yr by your airline from age 60-65 to come close to breaking even! The young guys are getting conned by the old geezers into believing this is a good thing for the younger pilots. Quite the opposite, this is a huge financial loss for the young pilots!! <ng> <<

BBB

 

[Deuce130]

So, all these 58+ year old pilots want what's right and good since they had the misfortune of having their pensions yanked. I'm sure when all these guys/gals were 43-45 years old in 1990-1991, they were very concerned about how all of the now out-of-work and out-of-a-pension pilots from Eastern and Pan Am were going to recoup all of their pension losses. I'm sure these then-younger pilots lobbied their airline and union to put all out of work Eastern/Pan Am pilots ahead of them on their seniority lists, to 'help them out.' I'm sure it would have been fine with this group of selfless aviators... delaying their upgrades and pay raises so those poor pilots who were out of work could earn back what was so greedily taken from them. That's how it worked then... didn't it?

I have no clue what happened in the early 90's - I was busy chasing girls, graduating from High School, and drinking beer back then. Nor, frankly, do I care. I never said anyone had unselfish reasons for doing what they do. I merely offered up what I thought was the potential reasoning on thier part. Let's face it, they want the money. Let's also face this, you want the money. We all want the freakin' money! For you to sit there and call BS on this simply b/c you want to upgrade as soon as possible is really no different than the age 60 guys wanting to continue to work. Point fingers and complain all you want, but the same could be said of you or me. it's coming and I would learn to deal with it if I were you.

 

[Deuce130]

Whistlin ... here's a recycled post I've made before when an old fart tries to con a younger guy into believing he won't be harmed financially by an age change from 60 to 65.

>>Say you are 40 now and delay your upgrade to 45. In those 5 years you would lose 100k/yr (salary and B-fund) at my airline. I don't have a FV calculator handy at the moment, but at 45 you would have given up approx 700k by not upgrading. 700k over 20 yrs (age 45-65) at market 50 yr avg of 10% (actually 10.3%, but we'll round) return would yield approx $5.5 MILLION!

You will need to be paid in excess of $1 MILLION/yr by your airline from age 60-65 to come close to breaking even! The young guys are getting conned by the old geezers into believing this is a good thing for the younger pilots. Quite the opposite, this is a huge financial loss for the young pilots!! <ng> <<

BBB

Isn't that assuming you save or invest every nickel of your salary?

 

[MECH]

Whistl'n Dan

I feel your pain! Now every pilot junior to you. Will work hard, to get you an interview for a job overseas or at a 135 carrier. These jobs will be at the bottom of a seniority list, but those are the rules and we must play by them. Just like you did in the early 90's.

 

[Judge]

I think we shouldn't let old people fly, lets throw in women, black people, hispanics, Jewish folks. I flew with a black guy once and he went 300 ft below MDA. That is evidence enough!

I see both sides, but the rule is age discrimination pure and simple. I'm not sure how you can argue that it's not.

 

[Big Beer Belly]

Isn't that assuming you save or invest every nickel of your salary?

Yep. The broader point is the value of compounding that Whistlin' is failing to acknowledge. The numbers are purely illustrative.

Another angle to consider:

The medical FACTS are well documented and unambiguous. As we get older statistically the body starts failing and we require more medical services the older we get. By losing 5 years as a captain when you are young (say 40-45) and then hoping to remain healthy enough to recoup them at the end of your career (60-65) is (statistically) not a wise bet. Again, statistically only a small percentage will medical out late in their careers, but to these few who were "promised" by Whistlin' and others that they would get their same years in the left seat, they're in for a financial surprise should their health fail in those last 5 years. If I were a gambling man, I'd put my money on the captain successfully maintaining his medical qualification from years 40-60, versus 45-65.

BBB

 

[Big Beer Belly]

I see both sides, but the rule is age discrimination pure and simple. I'm not sure how you can argue that it's not.

I take it that you are OUTRAGED that Congress is considering raising it to an equally offensive arbitrary age 65?

BBB