More Age 60 perspective

[100LL... Again!]

You argue that I will benefit from the extra 5 years. Wrong.

The rule change will delay my chance to earn the extra money, and I will now NEED those extra years just to make up for the lost income.

These guys knew the rule when they signed up.

 

[HYPOXIC]

Your captain’s seat is my right. So the longer the age 60 rule stays, the more old guys go out the door, and that’s better for me. ALPA has been milking the Age 60 rule for all it’s worth. I say well done, and even if the rule does somehow change, age 60 will always be the best thing ALPA ever did for the junior guys.

 

[LEROY]

Age 60 Live (or Die) With It

Age 60 is arbitrary, just as is age 65, there's no evidence of decreased capacity - BUT
You all (everyone reading this forum) got into this business under that rule; folks had to retire so you could get here (even you crotchety old b@stards out there) so deal with it. The idea that I have to not only support my ancestors' pensions, but also allow them to tread ON MY CARREER for an additional five years is pure B.S.
If you're approaching 60, (albeit possibly without a decent pension), prepare yourself for gardening/woodworking, study the stock market, take a class in micro-economics. Bottom line, don't try to milk any funds from the under-sixty crowd because of "excuse number___"

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

Age 60 is arbitrary, just as is age 65, there's no evidence of decreased capacity - BUT
You all (everyone reading this forum) got into this business under that rule; folks had to retire so you could get here (even you crotchety old b@stards out there) so deal with it.

Hate to tell ya this, but this is 2006. The rules have changed. Most guys who are approaching 60 no longer have the retirement benefits they once did.

Those folks who "had to retire so [we] could get here" did so, for the most part, with very generous pensions. Most of us "got into this business" in the expectation that we too, would have similar pensions at age 60.

Obviously, that's no longer the case. Not only are the old guys not getting pensions, but you young guys aren't going to be getting them either. The difference is, that you're aware of that relatively early in your career, when you've got 20-30 years to make alternate plans. To a guy who learns 5 years prior to his planned retirement that most of his pension has been wiped out through bankruptcy, it's a different story.

All the "age 65" guys are asking for is a chance to make up for some of those losses. The "rising tide which floats all ships" will eventually float yours, too. It will just float it a few years later.

This argument isn't about "safety," and it's not about "tradition." It's about voting your fellow airmen out of a job, simply so that you can advance more quickly up the seniority list.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

[pipejockey]

Senior guys have been selling out junior guys as long as this profession has been around the way I see it. We may be living longer than ever before, but longevity has nothing to do with ones ability to fly an airliner. It comes down to mental acumen. And by the time this deterioration of acumen can be noticed, it is too late, you have already negatively affected safety in the cockpit. And as far as our minds go, it seems nothing has improved on this front. More people are getting alzheimers than ever before. For thos of you who have grandparents or parents over 60, you have to know what I mean. And like I said, once you have noticed the deterioration, it is too late, you have already potentialy been a detriment in the cockpit.

This is why company pensions should not have allowed to have been destroyed by the despicable airline management which abounds these days. I feel it should actually be mandated by law, since we must retire several years before full SS benefits. The fact that we are thrown to the wolves for several years is unconscionable.

 

[pipejockey]

This argument isn't about "safety," and it's not about "tradition." It's about voting your fellow airmen out of a job, simply so that you can advance more quickly up the seniority list.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

A perfect example of what I said about senior folks selling out the junior folks, especially the last 5 years. Its all about me me me! I guess it's human nature to feel that way, but why should these senior folks expect us junior folks to delay our advancement by 5 years. And if this age is increased, sadly, I hope it is done in small increments. Maybe 62 for 10 years then 65 in 2017 or something like that.

 

[LEROY]

THE RULES HAVE CHANGED
because those who have enjoyed the rules for so many years believe they need to change the rules to their benefit. Period.
Blame the companies that ROBBED YOU of your retirement; don't blame (and burden) the pilots who continue to work after you.
I don't owe you a pension... your company does. Don't be a moocher...

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

Senior guys have been selling out junior guys as long as this profession has been around the way I see it.

Yea man, it's all those senior guys, man! And it's not just THIS profession, man! It's like that everywhere, man! They've been like, "selling us out" ever since high school, man!

Think about it, dude! It was always the senior guys who had the hottest cars, man! They always had the best jobs, and the hottest chicks too, man! And the senior guys, they could all buy liquor long before we could, man!

The military was like that too, man! Always the senior guys running things, selling out the junior guys. We did all the dirty work, while they got all the glory.

Then came the airlines, and there they were again, man! The senior guys, I mean. Always with the best seats, the best schedules, the best F/A's. No justice, man! No justice!

Now they want to raise the retirement age to 65, and who are going to be the first guys to benefit from that? Effin-A dude...the senior guys, AGAIN!

Man, I HATE those senior guys! I am NEVER gonna be one, myself...

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

I don't owe you a pension... your company does. Don't be a moocher...

And I don't owe you an upgrade. Don't be an azz...

 

[jetpilotjay]

age 60

Let me start out by saying that I'm not in the airlines, so I don't have a real opinion of the age 60 rule. I can see the validity of both sides' arguments, but don't know how I would feel if I were in you guys' situation. I normally won't post in the airline boards, I just like to browse and keep up with where aviation is in general. I just had a few comments this time, not trying to take a side.

I fly with several retired airline guys at my charter company. They all wish they could afford to retire, I think maybe a few could. They are all nervous about their future just as you guys are. One day you will be there, but you will have had the benefit of preparation for a retirement without a pension garauntee. I'm glad these guys can find work after the airlines, and maybe thats the solution, move on to 91 or 135, I don't know, but don't lump every senior pilot as senile(sp.?).

I fly as captain on our King Airs and f/o on ours jets, I get to fly with these guys a great deal. I haven't really found these guys mental capacity to be that diminished(or maybe I pick up the slack and don't know it). I enjoy learning from them, thay have such vast experience to learn from. I learn things from them I can't get in books. The places where I find deficiencies is in the things they were not used to doing in the airlines. It drives them crazy when we do visuals in these small jets. They usally want to pick up the approach even in severe clear or they setup for a 10 mile final. I guess they're just used to the big jets. Outside of flying, the things they usually have a hard time adapting to is loading luggage, fueling the plane, washing the plane and things like that that were done for them at the airlines. They do get tired a little sooner after 5 or 6 legs on a 14 hour day.

The point of this post being, the mental ability argument of the age 60 rule isn't very valid, from my point of view. I think money is a more substantial reason, I'll let ya'll figure that one out. There are many retired airline guys out in the corporate, charter,and fractional world that do a great job everyday. They have the ability to pass their physicals, pass checkrides, and learn new aircraft types. It's not very logical that you are safe at 59 years, 364 days, and 1 day later you are unsafe. Thats just a ridiculous assumption. There are guys I fly with in there 40's that I have to pick up more slack than the older guys. I'm sure if you think hard, you could probably think of pilots that you fly with in the airlines that are probably not as sharp as some of the older guys. A better practice would probably be to start giving a cognitive test at some earlier age, but then you would probably start weeding out guys before 60 and some probably not until in their 70's, but hey, I could be wrong.

This has all just been food for thought from a charter guy with nothing to gain or lose in this. Take it for what it is, just opinions. I wish you guys the best and I hope the airline industry turns up for ya'll and there won't be a need for these types of debates. I have some good friends at the airlines and I hate seeing their wages and benefits being jerked around so much. I've made my bed with corporate and charter and it would be too big of a pay cut to get into the airlines now, but I do like to keep up with things. What effects one segment of aviation, effects all. Good luck guys.

 

[m80drvr]

That said ask me about the 63 yr old guy I took a ride with in a very fast citation jet. I was single pilot on my pic portion and single pilot on his pic portion. I did the box on BOTH rides. While I working an emergency on his PIC portion we got 300 BELOW MDA. He had no clue. I had to talk him through the whole ride, no joke. It was bloody. He had been on the plane for YEARS. I'm not slamming the guy but he should have retired years ago, he knew it and I knew it. Just because you have flown with guys that are spot on does not deminish the fact that declining skills can happen Very fast above age 60. Even in between first class physicals.

Same dude tried to take off on the centerline lights on a runway with me in the right seat. Thing is there were NO centerline lights on that runway. (Think about it)Thank god the brakes work well and their were no pax. I think the tower heard me screaming at him to STOOOOOOPPPPP...... I thought he was making a wide md80 turn till he poured the coals to it. Then he blamed me for the whole thing. Something to the effect that he knew what he was doing. yada yada yada. That made me laugh.

Sorry guys, I've flown with too many over 60 guys that were weak. Yes I also flew with many that were great but should we or the paying public hope that the Geezer in the left seat is one of the 50 % that is still on his game? Don't think so. Not on my ticket and not with my family in back.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

as professional pilots should know, always have a plan B. Not just a B Plan. Too bad, you had your shot and you blew it. Get out of the way and let a furloughed guy, in real crisis get his job back.

Would that guy "in real crisis" be you? When you got in this industry, you knew that furloughs do happen, right? So how did your Plan B for your furlough work out?

Hope you're not in a "crisis"

Tejas

 

[Purpled]

Would that guy "in real crisis" be you? When you got in this industry, you knew that furloughs do happen, right? So how did your Plan B for your furlough work out?

Hope you're not in a "crisis"

Tejas

He's not asking that the law/rules be changed to his advantage. That's markedly different. Don't take opportunity out of his pocket, just to put it in yours...if you are supporting the change.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

That said ask me about the 63 yr old guy I took a ride with in a very fast citation jet. I was single pilot on my pic portion and single pilot on his pic portion. I did the box on BOTH rides. While I working an emergency on his PIC portion we got 300 BELOW MDA. He had no clue. I had to talk him through the whole ride, no joke. It was bloody. He had been on the plane for YEARS. I'm not slamming the guy but he should have retired years ago, he knew it and I knew it. Just because you have flown with guys that are spot on does not deminish the fact that declining skills can happen Very fast above age 60. Even in between first class physicals.

Same dude tried to take off on the centerline lights on a runway with me in the right seat. Thing is there were NO centerline lights on that runway. (Think about it)Thank god the brakes work well and their were no pax. I think the tower heard me screaming at him to STOOOOOOPPPPP...... I thought he was making a wide md80 turn till he poured the coals to it. Then he blamed me for the whole thing. Something to the effect that he knew what he was doing. yada yada yada. That made me laugh.

Sorry guys, I've flown with too many over 60 guys that were weak. Yes I also flew with many that were great but should we or the paying public hope that the Geezer in the left seat is one of the 50 % that is still on his game? Don't think so. Not on my ticket and not with my family in back.

Well, you've convinced me! Nobody should be allowed to pilot a transport-category aircraft past the age of 60.

Now let me tell you about my last SVT. I had an F/O that was so weak, that...well...I won't bore you with the details. But he was weak.

And...he was from TEXAS.

Your post set me to thinking about how many other guys I've known who were from Texas, and how many of them were weak. Quite a few, actually. Oh, most were pretty good, but some were bad, and who wants to take a chance when lives are at stake?

Some of the worst airline disasters in history have occured in Texas. Others have happened in other places when pilots who lived, or learned to fly, in Texas were at the controls.

Where did the Space Shuttle Columbia blow-up? Why, Texas, of course!

C'mon...the evidence is everywhere! You can't tell me there's no connection between all these disasters, and the state of Texas, can you?

So...we'll leave the retirement age at 60. That alone won't address the problem of the younger guys not upgrading fast enough, but it will keep our skies safe from doddering old guys like Al Haines and Dick Rutan.

The other thing we'll do is deny (or revoke) airman certificates issued to anybody who listed Texas as their state of residence on, say, "January 1st of this year." THAT will help junior guys at virtually every airline, (especially Southwest) upgrade more quickly. (Which, after all, is what this is really all about anyway, right?)

Of course, if your upgrade doesn't come quickly enough to suit you, we can always take a look at those guys from Florida. I hear they're a real weak bunch, too...

 

[jetpilotjay]

age 60

m80drvr,

You're absolutly right, it is a crap shoot, you just don't know. There are a lot of clueless younger guys too. A cognitive test would probably be a good idea at some point in everyone's career. I'm 32 now, but I hope when the time comes, I'll know when to say when. It'll be hard, even on the worst days, there's nothing else I'd rather do. There are those guys flying that that probably shouldn't be(young and old). Be nice if their were an avenue to let them know they shouldn't. My grandfather is the perfect example of not knowing when its time to stop. He was just a private pilot, but he was sharp in his day. When I was little, I flew with him everywhere. He sold his Bellanca Super Viking in the late 70's and didn't fly whole lot in the 80's, but kept current. In the late 80's he had a couple of mild strokes, they didn't affect him physically. You could tell though, that something wasn't quite right. My father bought an archer in the early 90's and would let my grandpa fly with him. He would get so flustered with the radio's, he never used to. Things that used to come so natural, just really confused him or he had to stop and think about it. It just wasn't safe. We knew he could never take the plane alone. He was more than capable of passing a medical, based on physical condition alone, but we had to stop him. It would have been nice for us not to have had to be the bad guys. It would have been nice for the medical examiner to have some test for the mind as well as body. When it comes to cognitive ability, we ALL self certify. My only point was to not lump everyone together. Like you said, it's a 50/50 shot. But that's true with alot of people you fly with. I guess the real answer to the safety issue would be to know how many pilot error accidents are due to age related shortcomings.

 

[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