More Age 60 perspective

[Flopgut]

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."

Cute story. I got a bunch of kids too. When two of them have a stand off on the last cookie, I handle it like this: One kid gets to break the cookie in half, then the other gets to pick which half they want. That way, one kid can't break the cookie unevenly and take the better half.

The problem with this change is one group is taking the better half, by a large margin. If your a Captain, or a very senior FO, your getting a heck of a deal; Way too much to call it even. I think it better to do one of two things: Let's abandon seniority and rebid the airlines with rostering and assignments. Or, lets let an age 60+ pilot go to the bottom of the seniority list, below any furloughs. The latter is a better idea I think. It patterns the accepted rule of age 60+ pilots who flew as FEs, keeps careers moving, and lets age 60+ pilots who want/need to work, work.

Are you on board with that?

 

[Sluggo_63]

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."

Is that how you handle it? Here's how it works in my house:
When both my kids want to use the computer, they know they have to share. I tell them that my daughter can use it for 30 minutes, then my son can use it for 30 minutes. When the first 30 minutes is up, my son gets on the computer. When my daughter asks if she can stay on an extra 15 minutes, I tell her "No, I promised your brother that he can use the computer now. In 30 minutes, after your brother is done, you can use it again." If she insists, I tell her that she's being selfish, and it's her brother's turn. Any argument after that, she knows that she'll probably lose computer privileges the next day.

That's how it's handled in my house. The rules are set out, then they're followed. Just a difference in opinion, I guess.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

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

Your numbers sounded suspiciously high to me, so I ballparked them myself, using values published in Airline Pilot Central for the top 3 cargo carriers and again the top 3 pax carriers. I discounted the top and bottom numbers in both categories.

The actual difference in pay rates between left seat and right seat tends to run between $50 and $60, not the $100 you indicated. That's pretty significant, because you're using 100% of that difference, compounded over 20 years, to generate these "million dollar" figures you're quoting. In reality, the numbers are MUCH less.

If you use $55/hr as the average difference in pay, it equates to about $55,000/yr in gross salary. BUT...the government isn't going to let you keep all of that. Neither are your wife, your ex-wife, your kids (or ex-kids), your mistress, your Pastor, or your ego. You'll be very lucky to put away $20,000/yr of that, meaning that your total contribution, compoounded, at the end of those 5 years will be closer to $100,000-$125,000, not the $700,000 that you quoted.

Six units of accounting and a CPA for an ex-brother-in-law didn't leave me with the numbers-crunching accumen that you have, but I would guess that the actual numbers at retirement, assuming that you're still married to the same woman (not a given by any means in this business) would approach $1,000,000, not the $5,000,000 you quoted.

Now let's look at what the job is likely to pay 20 years hence. Again, you probably have ready access to some general information in that area, but I think it's safe to say that most people still doing the same job they were 20 years ago are now making close to double the salary for doing it. I don't have any trouble believing that a $200K widebody Captain of today will command $400K for the same job 20 years from now. Five years at that rate equals...???

Any estimate of what health insurance runs for a couple between 60 and 65? It's a number you ought to know, because you'll be paying for it out of pocket every month for those 5 years. That's every month, at the rate that will be in effect 20 years from now...

Again, this whole argument is specious. It's like trying to explain the concept of delayed gratification to a 5-year-old. As in the example I cited in my prior post, they don't understand that what somebody else has now, they too will have in due course. A 5-year-old has little if any concept of "taking turns." All they know is that somebody else has something that they want.

Let's face it...company-funded and guaranteed retirements are all but gone in this industry. And given the lessons taught by our recent history, the few of us who may still have them aren't counting on them. Social Security isn't going to be there for us at retirement either. Unless you're one of the very few who have invested prodigously (and wisely) you ARE going to be working for somebody between the ages of 60 and 65, and maybe beyond. The only question to be answered is whether you'll be wearing a blue uniform or a blue smock while you're doing it.

 

[Purpled]

Hey WD,

However you refine BBB's math or argue about delayed gratification(which doesn't apply here, btw), you still can't change the fact that you are taking money out of other's pockets to put it into your own. I don't care what you do between 60-65, just execute whatever plan you've had in place for those years and I'll execute mine. I don't want to work those years if I don't have to; and I won't have to unless you force the rule to change.

ba bye!

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

Is that how you handle it? Here's how it works in my house:
When both my kids want to use the computer, they know they have to share. I tell them that my daughter can use it for 30 minutes, then my son can use it for 30 minutes. When the first 30 minutes is up, my son gets on the computer. When my daughter asks if she can stay on an extra 15 minutes, I tell her "No, I promised your brother that he can use the computer now. In 30 minutes, after your brother is done, you can use it again." If she insists, I tell her that she's being selfish, and it's her brother's turn. Any argument after that, she knows that she'll probably lose computer privileges the next day.

That's how it's handled in my house. The rules are set out, then they're followed. Just a difference in opinion, I guess.

What you're saying then, is that neither of your kids will EVER be able to use the computer for more than 30 minutes, because neither can agree on which should be the first to do so.

How sad for your kids. I hope you're not on dial-up.

 

[Purpled]

What you're saying then, is that neither of your kids will EVER be able to use the computer for more than 30 minutes, because neither can agree on which should be the first to do so.

How sad for your kids. I hope you're not on dial-up.

No, he's teaching his kids about discipline and sharing and expectations. Also that there is more to life that sitting in front of a computer for 30 minutes(ironic, huh?).

Imagine if the older kids always got what they want when they whined and the younger always had to wait or go without. After a while the younger would grow resentful of the older and probably end up stabbing them in the back.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

Cute story. I got a bunch of kids too. When two of them have a stand off on the last cookie, I handle it like this: One kid gets to break the cookie in half, then the other gets to pick which half they want. That way, one kid can't break the cookie unevenly and take the better half.

The problem with this change is one group is taking the better half, by a large margin. If your a Captain, or a very senior FO, your getting a heck of a deal; Way too much to call it even. I think it better to do one of two things: Let's abandon seniority and rebid the airlines with rostering and assignments. Or, lets let an age 60+ pilot go to the bottom of the seniority list, below any furloughs. The latter is a better idea I think. It patterns the accepted rule of age 60+ pilots who flew as FEs, keeps careers moving, and lets age 60+ pilots who want/need to work, work.

Are you on board with that?

You're forgetting that in a seniority-based system, "my half" will ALWAYS be better than "your half." (assuming that I was hired first)

"We" as a profession decided that this is the way we would determine who would get which positions, bases, and equipment. Anytime the company buys a bigger airplane or opens a better route, the senior guys get it. Anytime there's a furlough, the junior guys "get it." Any time there's a change in the rules, we ALL "get it."

Is it "fair" that a guy who spent 20 years herding AMC transports around the world is in the back making coffee, while a guy who can't give a simple d*** position report is up front giving them?

Is it "fair" that a guy whose family lives in a city served by his airline can't hold layovers in that city, while a bachelor hired the week before (or born the day before) can?

The answer to the above questions is NO, it's NOT fair...it's seniority. And seniority is still the best and most orderly system we have, even if it does mean that the some people, unworthy as they may be, are going to benefit by it.

If you now want to change that by "abandoning seniority" and otherwise restricting who can bid what, by all means present it to your MEC. There's nothing in the FAR's that requires pilot positions be filled in order of seniority. But before you do that, you might want to check with some of the old hands at Evergreen, to see how things were "B.S."...Before Seniority.

Your anecdote about the cake is cute also...that's how I did it with my kids as well. But in this case, it doesn't apply, because whatever is decided regarding this "cake" (our careers) will appply to ALL pilots equally, not just the senior guys. However big my piece of cake is now, is how big yours will be also.

Maybe a better analogy would be to have one of your kids to cut the cake into equally sized pieces. One of your kids (probably the daughter in my case, because she's still the bigger of the two) will be the first to reach for a piece, and therefore, the first to start eating it. At that point, the other child will either; A) realize that while his sister is the first to start eating her cake, she will also be the first to finish it as well, meaning that he will still have cake when she has none, or; B) start pi$$ing and moaning because she got the first piece, and how it's not fair that she got the first piece, and how she always gets the first piece, and how she took the piece with the thickest icing, and how she's so FAT because she always eats cake, and......

 

[Flopgut]

Whistlin Dano: Ok, I understand you want seniority respected. You especially want your seniority respected. But you don't want to respect my seniority, that's a problem. This is different than bidding a new piece of equipment, and it's different than a furlough. This is a specific attack on seniority that is not much different than having a picket line crossed. Emotionally different with results that are exactly the same. You take my seniority from me.

 

[Deuce130]

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

Finally a decent argument besides 1) Who's greedier 2) Who's using the computer 3) wah wah wah you can't change the rules - even though the rules are arbitrary to begin with. Someone talk to managment about changing these supposed "sacrosant" laws 4) Old people can't fly. I like your thinking but I don't think the decision makers will care about our health or savings account.

Personally, I don't want to work past 60. I'd retire at 55 if I could. If I win the lotto tomorrow, I'll quit now. But, in a world where people are having to work beyond 65 for financial reasons, forcing healthy people to stop working at 60 just because you want to upgrade earlier (get paid earlier) doesn't make much sense. Especially if the person can still safely fly people around past 60. Again, I'd bet my upgrade money that this is going to happen regardless of how we as a pilot group feel about it. Now, if management at the majors decides it's a bad idea, then it won't happen - it's all about the dollars for them. If it doesn't get changed, it'll only be because Fred Smith and his ilk think it would cost them money in the long run.

 

[LEROY]

I think WD was that kid who always got picked on and has had a chip on his shoulder ever since; SENIORITY RULES always...we are senior, we can change the rules, we can adapt policy to fit us...I bet if your daughter asked why you said no to her you'd say, "Because I SAID so, and I'm SENIOR to you!"
Imagine a MLB playoff game, bottom of the eighth, losing team (home team, BTW) is at bat, down by five. Home team's manager goes to the umpire and says, "We want to play this game to TWELVE innings, because it'll give us a better shot at the Pennant."
Here are the world's most prominant lies (and this stuff hasn't changed in years)
- The check is in the mail...
- I promise I won't XXXX in your mouth...
- Maintenance is buttoning the bird up right now, you should be ready to go in 10 minutes...
- Your defined benefit plan is well-funded and rock solid...
Some will learn, some will plan, others will decry the arbitrary nature of a rule they entered the game with.
Here's my solution; pass a change to the FAA age 60 rule. Anyone hired subsequent to the passing of that rule abides by it. Anyone hired prior to it is "grandfathered in" to the old rule. Period.