Over AGE 60 PILOTS TO FLY IN UNITED STATES

[CaptainMark]

The proudest act in this business should be letting it go.

amen to that!!!!

 

[FoxHunter]

So they perjured themselves in court testimony when they said otherwise?

There is a new guy in town. The old guy has retired, people say in part because he could not answer some tough questions on the issue when he last testified.

 

[pilotyip]

never never never let go, I am flying with some fantastic B-17 pilots in their 70's all still love doing it and do a great job.

 

[ivauir]

The point I made is that, if you choose to fly past 60, it becomes cost-neutral. You can't change the math, buddy,

I'm not going into the math (because I am too lazy) but a year of Captain today traded for a year of Captain 20 years from now in NOT cost-neutral. The concept is the "time-value of money". It is covered in every econ 101 course if you care to look at the math. All other arguments not with standing SR 65 is not cost neutral for very many people; it is either HUGE windfall (current senior Captains), a significant reduction of career earnings (really Junior FOs at stagnant companies) or something in between. It will be cost neutral for a few people in the bubble, but they get to work an extra five earns to make the same amount.

Ignoring these economic realities is going to doom this and every other effort to defeat the age 60 rule. The lawmakers have little to gain by supporting a change, even less when the pilots are deeply divided in their feelings.

Instead of dissmissing the economic impact this WILL have on junior folks why not address it? Maybe then the lawmakers would see a (somewhat) unified pilot group requesting the change and have a reason to support something that the public doesn't care about, the FAA, most airlines and most unions wants to leave alone.

Or just ignore us junior guys, you don't need our support - it has been going SO well without us.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

The above post is a bunch of crap.


Here is Math 101, this a repost of #106:

IT IS A GREAT FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE TO BE ABLE TO FLY TO AGE 65 FOR TOTAL DOLLARS EARNED AND FOR RETIREMENT.

JUST LOOK AT THE NUMBERS:


Here is how much more a person would have by working to age-60 or by working 5 extra years to age-65.

Using an example of a 40-year old new hire F/O who earns 60K and will be a captain in 5 years. Captains earn 100K at this generic airline.

By retiring at age-60 that pilot will have a career earnings of $1,800,000.

If he puts 10% of what he earns in a 401k and gets a 10% return on investment (very optomistic ROI) at age-60 he will have $475,513. That is all he will have to last 20 years if he dies at 80. This is no where near enough money.



Using the same 40-year old but by delaying his promotion by 5 years if age-65 (wouldn'd really be 5 years because some pilots will still leave early) becomes law for pilots, that pilot would have a career earnings of $2,100,000

If he puts 10% of what he earns in a 401k and gets a 10% return on investment. At age-65 he will have $749,324 to last that 15 years. Better but still not good enough money.



Now if the pilot was 30-years old when he started then his career earning by retiring at age-60 would be $2,800,000 and his 401k would be $1,233,533. Better but still not good enough.

Now if that 30-year old worked until he was 65 his career earnings would be $3,100,000 and his 401k would be $1,943,725 to last just 15 years. This is enough to retire.



Do you want to retire poor or with enough money. Anyone can clearly see that age-65 and starting to put money away at age-30 is the answer.


Of course one divorce with children will put even the best case into poverty.

Also, this model assumes a 10% return on investment. That number may really be 5% or less which make it even more important to work to age-65. With a 5% ROI the 401k amount would be about 60% of the numbers shown.

 

[pilotyip]

undaunted, please this is a pilot board, it is no place for reality

 

[Lear70]

I'm not going into the math (because I am too lazy) but a year of Captain today traded for a year of Captain 20 years from now in NOT cost-neutral.

Yes, it is.

The concept is the "time-value of money". It is covered in every econ 101 course if you care to look at the math.

I'm well aware of the concept, as I said, I've testified in Federal Courts about pilot salaries and expected career income potential.

All other arguments not with standing SR 65 is not cost neutral for very many people; it is either HUGE windfall (current senior Captains),

When I said it was cost-neutral, I was referring to the first officers who will be delayed in upgrading. You're absolutely correct about the huge windfall to near-60 Captains.

a significant reduction of career earnings (really Junior FOs at stagnant companies) or something in between.

Incorrect. See post below.

If you like, I can forward a spreadsheet to you or post it on my website to download that details this. A 5 - 7 year delay in upgrade with a 10% B-fund or max 401k deduction and match (also assumed at 10%) with a modest 7% growth will cost a pilot around $250,000 to $300,000 over his entire career, depending on the salary base.

At just about every airline out there, that can be made up in 2-3 years at max CA pay, then they can retire cost-neutral OR continue to work for that extra $$$.

Read the above post, then PM me for the spreadsheet if you like.

Ignoring these economic realities is going to doom this and every other effort to defeat the age 60 rule. The lawmakers have little to gain by supporting a change, even less when the pilots are deeply divided in their feelings.

Instead of dissmissing the economic impact this WILL have on junior folks why not address it? Maybe then the lawmakers would see a (somewhat) unified pilot group requesting the change and have a reason to support something that the public doesn't care about, the FAA, most airlines and most unions wants to leave alone.

You might want to make CERTAIN you have the mathematical FACTS, IN WRITING, before you start such a campaign. Would hate to get egg on your face by raising a concerted effort based on erroneous information when we, as pilots, are supposed to double- and tripple-check every piece of data we use.

Not trying to flame you or piss you off, just trying to educate people.

 

[ivauir]

You can repost the same junk over and over again but you are failing to win over the junior guys.

Yelling louder isn't getting the job done. Try a different approach, or just keep failing. Junior folks have legitimate concerns; ignoring, trivializing, and even disputing those concerns won't make them go away or earn our support.

 

[vetrider]

You can repost the same junk over and over again but you are failing to win over the junior guys.

Yelling louder isn't getting the job done. Try a different approach, or just keep failing. Junior folks have legitimate concerns; ignoring, trivializing, and even disputing those concerns won't make them go away or earn our support.

Its just airline reality, its always about the senior guys. Always has been, always will be. Union heirarchy, same thing.

 

[pilotyip]

Yea if all the 121 union pilots want this age 60 retirement thing, then put it in your contract and leave the rest of the world alone.