Please vote NO on S.65!

[HalinTexas]

I have been preparing for my retirement as much as my ever diminuative ALPA contract, corporate malfeasance, cyclical economics, and public perception, via government policy, will allow.

I turn 40 in 4 days, I have over $100,000 in my retirment now, inclucing my wife's. That won't be enough to make it to 80-90 if I retire at 60. Even though I would like to retire at 60. There will probably be at least 2 more downturns similar to this one in the next 20 years should I continue in this profession. My taxes will probably be raised to support those baby-boomers in their retirements. That not withstanding, I will not be a burden to my children.

 

[Steve Di.]

Walk a mile....

The better question is "Why" didn't you prepare for retirement?

You have to have been there to understand. Many pilots thought they were prepared for retirement, but with A-plans being stolen, stock market crashes in the 90s, displacements back to the right seat, pay cuts, furloughs, etc. Need I go on????

I once thought the age 60 rule should stand. But now that I am older and my career was up ended I can see why many pilots not only want the rule changed, but actually need it changed. I lost my A plan to Carl Icahn, was displaced out of the left seat to the street, started from scratch a career that was on track to retire at 60, was unable to contribute to my 401(k) for 2 years. I have 2 kids just about ready for college.....

I am not looking for one shred of sympathy. I just want the right to work, just like the folks working in other professions.

 

[Flopgut]

You've got your facts all wrong!

HR Diva

OK Diva, what are the facts please?

You said you were an attorney on another thread, so lets here some good info.

 

[El-Rushbo]

You have to have been there to understand. Many pilots thought they were prepared for retirement, but with A-plans being stolen, stock market crashes in the 90s, displacements back to the right seat, pay cuts, furloughs, etc. Need I go on????

I once thought the age 60 rule should stand. But now that I am older and my career was up ended I can see why many pilots not only want the rule changed, but actually need it changed. I lost my A plan to Carl Icahn, was displaced out of the left seat to the street, started from scratch a career that was on track to retire at 60, was unable to contribute to my 401(k) for 2 years. I have 2 kids just about ready for college.....

I am not looking for one shred of sympathy. I just want the right to work, just like the folks working in other professions.

But don't our furloughed brothers and sisters also deserve the right to work? Extending the age 60 rule will prolong jobs for those of us who are lucky enough to currently have one, while it will deny work to those who lost theirs for several more years. Seems a bit glutinous to me.

 

[Terry Hunter]

I support raising the mandatory age rule.

To receive the full benefits of Social Security, the retirement age the government has determined for me is 67, not 65 as it was for several years. Now, I'm not here to argue the health of the SS system, or to claim that as a legitimate source of income at retirement.

My point is that the government has upped the full-benefit age (for people in my age group), and I can assume that it is because of increased life expectancy, or maybe the government is just delaying payment to fix the shortfalls.

Anyway, if it's increased life expectancy, then raise the Age 60 rule; at least to 62. I'm probably going to have to work until 65 anyway. I would prefer to fly, even as a FO for the last 5 years.

 

[RAC396]

Please vote No on S.65

I just sent Trent Lott A vote yes email.I am aproaching 60,Have my retirement secure,love my job,QOL is good,I am healthy as a horse,why would I want to retire now. My wife of 37 years likes me out of the house a few days a month,the money let's me play with my toys when I am home .Life is good.

 

[JohnDoe]

Rac396:


So in other words.....life is good as you have enjoyed the benefits of the age 60 rule your entire career through quicker upgrades etc.. Now that you have your's, pull up the ladder and change the rules.

Everybody at a 121 airline knew the rules when they got into this profession. The rules didn't change mid-stream for anybody that is currently at a 121 carrier excpet for maybe a very few individuals.


Somebody else mentioned just wanting "the right to work".....Well, how about the thousands and thousands of furloughed 121 pilots out there right now that may never get to come back to their jobs because of this change?? What about their "right to work??" Again.....you've got your's, pull up the ladder. And yes, it is about personnal gains or losses on BOTH sides. Anybody that tries to dress up their arguement with some BS "it's age discrimination" or crap like that is a hypocrit.

 

[Andy Neill]

OK Diva, what are the facts please?

You said you were an attorney on another thread, so lets here some good info.

Well for one, its to change the age restriction to Social Security eligibility and not 65, and two there is no mention of the under 60 first officer in the bill printed in its entirety below:


A BILL
To amend the age restrictions for pilots.

• Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AGE RESTRICTIONS.

• Section 44703 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

• `(k) LIMITATION ON AGE RESTRICTIONS-

• • `(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator may not, solely by reason of a person's age, if such person has not attained the person's social security retirement age as defined in section 216(l) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 416(l))--

• • • `(A) deny, defer as to, or fail to renew for, any such person an airman or medical certificate to serve as a pilot of aircraft operated by an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, or take any other action by regulation or otherwise under this section, including the imposition of restrictions or limitations on an airman or medical certificate following initial or periodic competency or medical testing, which has the same age discriminatory effect on any such person; or

• • • `(B) require an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to terminate the employment of, or not to employ, any such person as a pilot of an aircraft operated by such air carrier, or take any other action by regulation or otherwise under section 44705 of this title which has the same age discriminatory effect on any such person.

• • `(2) APPLICABILITY- Nothing in paragraph (1) shall provide the basis for a claim of seniority under any labor agreement in effect between a recognized bargaining unit for pilots and an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, made by any pilot seeking re-employment by such air carrier following the pilot's previous termination or cessation of employment as mandated by section 121.383(c), title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.

• • `(3) AMENDMENT OF REGULATION- Upon the enactment of this subsection, the provisions of section 121.383(c), title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this subsection) shall cease to apply and the Administrator shall take such action as is necessary to carry out this subsection.'.

 

[Cyclone]

just say no to s.r. 65

for those who are making the argument that the rule should go away because it is "arbitrary and age discrmination." ok you're right about that ladies and gents. so what is your solution...tie it to social security or age 65 (the current s.r. 65 proposal in front of the commerce committee)? by doing so your solution will have exactly the same "flaw" (the one you are crying about) as the current rule...it's still arbitrary and age discrimination...just a different number. the 55+ year olds that think this is a good solution are hypocrites.

as far as who is against and who is for age 60...let me guess...the 58 year old captain without a defined benefit plan who likes his job wants to fly more...oh when he started flying for an airline 30 years ago he thought he was going to be able to fly until 65? NOT!

meanwhile...for the young f.o.--surprise--your upgrade just delayed two years...too bad so sad for you the early babyboomers once again get to have their cake and eat it too.

so should it change? your opinion is probably based on where you sit in the cockpit. ted stevens is 82 years old...he's the big kahuna on the senate commerce committee. guess what he thinks about mandatory retirement age? hopefully reason will prevail but don't hold your breath.

call your senators and tell them the age 60 rule makes sense and to vote against s.r. 65...let them know that the folks arguing for the change are not in the majority...they're just louder and have thicker wallets.

 

[STL717]

Somebody else mentioned just wanting "the right to work".....Well, how about the thousands and thousands of furloughed 121 pilots out there right now that may never get to come back to their jobs because of this change?? What about their "right to work??"

Changing the age 60 rule doesn't necessarily affect when a furloughed pilot is offered recall from furlough.

Those thousands and thousands of furloughed pilots can get a job at one of the airlines currently hiring.

An airline that furloughs employees may be in financial trouble and consequently never offer the furloughee a prosperous career.