News reporting FAA raises age to 65

[AA717driver]

What everyone against the change is missing (or failing to acknowlege) is that until recently, there was no reason to save for retirement independent from your company retirement.

Unless your company went out of business (like BN or Eastern) you would have your pension. After 2000, when 1113 was first threatened, that all changed. By then it was too late.

No ALPA pilot (other than TWA whose A plan was frozen but not dissolved and was replaced by a Directed Account Plan) was advised to save--their pensions were secure. (I would like to see how many AA pilots have fired up their 401k and are maxing out the contributions even today.)

But, post 9/11 (not 1980), the rules changed.

So, it's ok to screw a bunch of people because of one rule change but not another group? If you don't like getting screwed by rule changes, you'd better get out of aviation--or get into management. TC

 

[Huck]

Rumor is we are stopping hiring after March, due to this thing. I dare you to write a post to the guys in the pool and tell them, "Relax children. Everything will be all right."

 

[Flopgut]

What everyone against the change is missing (or failing to acknowlege) is that until recently, there was no reason to save for retirement independent from your company retirement.

So, it's ok to screw a bunch of people because of one rule change but not another group? If you don't like getting screwed by rule changes, you'd better get out of aviation--or get into management. TC

Point taken. It's bad that the pilots who've gone out recently had a bad deal, sure. But, I think we're going to begin to realize now that this rule change will so disproportionally deliver benefit to a small group that our problems have multiplied. A minority few are going to enjoy cradle to grave gainful employment with 2 times the earnings of a majority of pilots who were either marginalized or totally screwed.

Combine this with the effects on collective bargaining for the next 25 years and you begin to see, we just screwed up royally.

 

[aussiefly]

So you want to hold the vast majority of the pilot community to ransom for the select few ???

I'm sorry but that does not make sense. The rule is already in place and should stay there. By changing the rule for your benefit you are efectively costing me thousands of dollars (read the previous post on the cost of the rule change).

I agree it sucks that they got their pensions dumped, It really sucks. But why then penalise everyone else???

That is what this is tantamount to. You are lining your pockets on the rest of the pilot community. Are you happy with that ???

What everyone against the change is missing (or failing to acknowlege) is that until recently, there was no reason to save for retirement independent from your company retirement.

Unless your company went out of business (like BN or Eastern) you would have your pension. After 2000, when 1113 was first threatened, that all changed. By then it was too late.

No ALPA pilot (other than TWA whose A plan was frozen but not dissolved and was replaced by a Directed Account Plan) was advised to save--their pensions were secure. (I would like to see how many AA pilots have fired up their 401k and are maxing out the contributions even today.)

But, post 9/11 (not 1980), the rules changed.

So, it's ok to screw a bunch of people because of one rule change but not another group? If you don't like getting screwed by rule changes, you'd better get out of aviation--or get into management. TC

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

I have to give Boiler credit.. He actually seems to know what he's talking about. What you guys forget, is the money you put away when your young is the most important money there is.... Basically, if you get hired by a major at 28 and you figure to upgrade at 35, but now you can't upgrade until 40, they extra money you would have made being a captain for 5 years, when invested for 20 years, would be worth more than the money your gonna make between the ages of 60 and 65. Now, pilots are gonna have to work an extra 5 years to make less money.. Can someone please explain how this is a good thing for us?? The only people this helps is the old guys who didn't plan accordingly, or the guys who had all their eggs in one basket and got screwed. I would almost be willing to say that the only people this is gonna help is the guys who get hired after about 40 years of age, with those between 35 and 40 being about a wash. Those who got hired under 35 are getting screwed..

For those of you who don't get it. Take the extra 60K or so a year of being a captain 5 years earlier, put it in a good investment account, and that money will be worth more in 20 years than what you will make your last 5 years of flying. Hopefully this makes sense now. This is not a good thing for pilots...

Thank God. Guys are starting to get it. Except for those at the top, for most of us, we will end up working an extra five years for very little net gain. It will force most of us to spend an extra five years in an already unstable profession.

Even at SWA, growth doesn’t last forever. All it takes is a terrorist hit or a bad buyout to bring things to a screeching halt.

This is a screw job by the older generation against the younger pilots. Think of it as the B-scale of the 21st century.

Now is the time for the younger guys to get off the sidelines. The next 12-18 months will be very important. If you don’t like it – get involved and vote. We are dealing with a well organized and vocal minority.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[Andy]

What everyone against the change is missing (or failing to acknowlege) is that until recently, there was no reason to save for retirement independent from your company retirement.

Unless your company went out of business (like BN or Eastern) you would have your pension. After 2000, when 1113 was first threatened, that all changed. By then it was too late.

No ALPA pilot (other than TWA whose A plan was frozen but not dissolved and was replaced by a Directed Account Plan) was advised to save--their pensions were secure. (I would like to see how many AA pilots have fired up their 401k and are maxing out the contributions even today.)

But, post 9/11 (not 1980), the rules changed.

So, it's ok to screw a bunch of people because of one rule change but not another group? If you don't like getting screwed by rule changes, you'd better get out of aviation--or get into management. TC

What you fail to acknowledge is that more airlines have gone out of business than are currently operating. Every airline hits a bad streak; if you've got 20+ years at a single airline, you're going to experience financial turbulence at your airline. Some of those bad streaks end up causing airlines to go chap 7. If a pilot thinks that the company that he gets hired at will be the same in 20 years, then he's a fool. Anyone who counted on an airline pension pre-911 was a fool. Period.

 

[hoover]

It seems to me that you younger guys are opposing age 65 for the same selfish reasons as the older guys are supporting it: me, my career, my advancement, my pocketbook. So which one do you want to be? The pot, or the kettle. It doesn't really matter. They're both black.

 

[gt1900]

Im sorry a lot of those guys lost thier retirements, I really am. But I agree, to screw everyone else for a fews misfortunes is ludicrous... I'm sorry those guys put all thier eggs in one basket, but every financial advisor in the world will tell you to diversify, that way, when the chit hits the fan, your not completly decimated finacially... This rule is gonna screw hundreds of thousands of pilots for the next 30 or 40, or hell, even 50 or 60 years... Why, because a few thousand got screwed after 9/11... AA717.. I'm not trying to bash or offend you. But, to say there was no reason to save because of a company retirement is just piss poor planning. I'm sorry to say this, but if that is your idea of finacial planning, you really need to talk to a couple financial planners or at least read a few books. That is one of the most uneducated comments I have ever heard about finances. And that is the reason so many old guys want to change the rules. They simply don't understand how to gain wealth. All they see is how much they make a year and how much their gonna loose if they have to retire at age 60. If they even had half a brain they would have probably lost all their pensions, and still had twice as much money as they needed to retire......... Hoover, its not the pot calling the kettle black. Those old guys had thier chance under the same working rules we have now (about to change). So, it other words, they had the same oportunitys as everyone else, now they want more??? B.S... Im just asking for the same oportunity they had. Explain to me how thats the pot calling the kettle black.. They knew the rules comming in, and now they want to change them.. I just want the same rules they have worked under for the last 20 or 30 years...

 

[SWA/FO]

Anyone who counted on an airline pension pre-911 was a fool

I find this funny, since this was the major slam on SWA for years. "But you guys have no pension"....etc... Out wit da old in wit da new!!!

 

[Andy]

Incidentally, you forgot option D. "My dad is over 60 and lost his retirement to a bad investment just prior to the crap hitting the fan".

His own fault for not playing more reserved with his retirement so close to the end game, but I'm willing to take an extra 5 years if it gives him an extra 5 as well, but that's 'cause he's my dad and for everything he's done for me, I'd say I owe him one (or two or three or five).

Lear70, your dad's a friggin' idiot. And when he loses everything in another high risk 'investment' at 64 1/2, I guess that we should raise the age limit again, eh?
He deserves to live in a van down by the river.