Repeal of Age 60 rule

[phishn@daves]

This is Bullsh!T

1. If you need to vote yes you have not really thought about what it will do to this industry!

2. I agree that people are living longer healthier lives, great retire healthy have some fun, live your life!

But, Guys/Girls retiring at 60 have flown in the hay-day of this industry, when pilots were looked up to and paid accordingly!Those days are over, gone.

The 250,000 dollar per year days are over. You guy's who are retiring have lived the life in this industry, great money, young flight attendants (somehow that works here), NO TSA!!

If the age 60 rule changes to 63-66 yrs., people like myself will not upgrade to even regional captain for 3-6 years from now! We will be paid FO salaries at a regional well past 30yrs. of age. You older airline guys were getting major pay, some even capt. pay by your 30's!

If I am wrong here, someone point out the positves to raising the retirement age, but please don't tell me it's a "right" that they should stick around another 3-6 years while we have to work 2-3 jobs to own a house, and support our families, and live crappy life-styles!

If you love flying that much, flight instruct, new students would gain considerable skill and knowledge from someone who has so much experience!

I'm not trying to sound selfish, sometimes I lose my point when I am typing, I just think attrition is a strong part of this industry right now!

 

[Intruder One]

Think of all the regional pilots there will be in a few years,its the fastest growing segment of the industry.They have no retirement,zilch,zero,nothing.If they are forced to retire at 60,they have awhile before SS.Some will be 67 before they can draw depending on your age.Alot will be in a bad way with no income.Let it be increased to personal choice beyond 60 for those not fortunate enough to make six figures and retire early.

 

[Freak Biscuit]

I have struggled with this issue. Age discrimination is wrong! Whether you are forced to retire at 60, 63, or 66, you are still being forced to retire.

However, should there be an age limit? Does the flying public want to see some old geezer in the cockpit? I think it would just add more anxiety to an already nervous passenger.

I guess my point is this: If you are going to take a side in this debate, base your decision on what is "the right thing to do" and not just your own selfish reasons.

By the way, what would a Class I medical for a 66 year old involve? Bend over!

Freak

 

[Sugardaddy]

I too have struggled. But right now I look at it from my short viewed perspective: 1. I am waiting to get a job. 2. I do have a mortgage to pay and a family to feed 3. Extending the age limit beyond 60, would mean companies would need LESS new hires, since growth is slow and ATTRITION is the ONLY game in town.

Please... somebody smart explain to me how eliminating the age limit will benefit me (and the thousands of furloughed pilots), who are waiting to just work again.

 

[General Lee]

The major airlines are against it because they have to keep paying the higher wages to the senior pilots longer. Just think, if pilots retire at the majors, there is a ripple affect. People move up from one aircraft to another. The airlines actually get a semi-bargain to have the junior pilots flying the larger equipment. For example, pre- 9-11 there were many junior pilots flying the 757/767 as FO's---some in their first or second year. Delta was paying them far less than the normal pilots who flew them---like year 8 or 9 FO's---instead paying less for year 2 pilots. As people retire, pilots move up and occupy seats they could not hold before, and are paid less than those who just left. Delta would love it if the flight attendants retired, not only because there are a lot of older ones that are burned out and don't care, but because they all make huge wages. They have furloughed all of the younger, cheaper flight attendants. The main reason of course that they stay is because they don't really have a retirement. So, as their friends in that age bracket all go out and play tennis or golf on tuesday mornings each week, they have a Dayton turn. It sucks. The pilots do have a great retirment (so far anyway), and most are leaving with the low Gatt rate and enjoying their new life. That is why the regional pilots should want to come to the majors some day (or what is left of them). There will always be some sort of better retirement at the majors.(but it might not be as good some day compared with today)

Bye Bye--General Lee

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[AlbieF15]

Also remember part of the rationale for the creation of the B fund was the fact you couldn't draw Social Security until 62 or whatever the age is now.....

If this is passed, two parties will then attack B funds. The tax men will be there to get their share, and the airlines will try to eliminate the B funds as being "unnecessary" since you can work until you get social security.

Pilotyip....you'll be a great pilot when you are 80. However, you'll be a millionare in 5-10 years with your stock options. Please consider "going over the side" at 60 and allow those behind you the same opportunity for advancement you will have had all these years due to age 60 rules.

Emotional issue, isn't it?

Fly safe.

 

[fox3]

Albie,
Just like those 30 year Capts. @ FDX? YGBSM

 

[dlredline]

?????????

Canyonblue said:

[As far as retirement goes the UsAir guys would have a chance to at least double their pension, but that probably doesn’t affect YOU.


Ok guys, I'll bite. How do you figure THAT?

Sincerely,
DL (U furloughee after 15 years)

 

[burger flipper]

If you think the furlough situation is bad now (pilot job market in general), those people will take even longer to get back their jobs if the age ban is lifted, not to mention thousands of hopeful wanna be MAJOR airline pilots. How do you think the current pilots got their job?? I know it's only a few years, but it can make a huge difference in a particular age group.

If the issue is whether someone wishes to keep flying, then I might be able to understand. But if the issue is money, I don't care HOW MANY bad experiences you've had (furloughs I mean), if you haven't saved for retirement in a solid 30 years of work, you were definitely doing something wrong!!! Not to mention the greedy MAJOR guys who don't want to loose their $180,000+ job!! I have seen so many cases that are just pitiful!! You have a MAJOR airline guy who has been married several times and has lost half or more of his assets to his wifes!! Also, he has the $500,000+ home with all the expenses he has to maintain, not to mention the beach house, the boat (I have a boat, small and inexpensive to maintain in partnership), the airplane, etc. It is sickening!!

I'm in my early 30's and have been maxing out my 401(k) that has a great match, only been at it two years and have over $30,000, WITHOUT capital appreciation and dividends (I have invested carefully and have actually had positive returns, small but positive!!). So without having worked for a major airline (maybe I will maybe I won't!!) and without counting on a GREAT job like I have, I will easily have over $1,000,000 in TODAY's dollars by the time I'm 60!! Discipline and living life to provide your kids a great life, that's all!!

Maybe all this has to do with the fact that I'm a Certified Financial Planner, who realizes the value of RETIREMENT!!!!

 

[trainerjet]

Not to mention the greedy MAJOR guys who don't want to loose their $180,000+ job!! It is sickening!!

But somehow it's not greed that causes you to rant and rave over the prospect of the age 60 law being repealed, which would delay the possibility of you scarfing one of these $180,000+ jobs for yourself?

 

[AV8OR]

For those of you pro 60+ers

Here's my take.

I've worked at only two different airlines, but, at both, when seniority was assigned in a new hire class it was assigned based on age. Age discrimination, don't ya think? Well, why would that be the case? Because, everybody know's the older you are in the class, the less years you have to earn before you have to retire at 60. Well now, years later, after benefitting from the age discrimination on the front end for their seniority number, ahead of the younger pilots, these guys want to extend their ability to hold the seat, limiting others chance to have that opportunity.

I think the age 60 rule is stupid, but, if all airlines assign seniority based on age, on the front end, because of age 60, then I think changing the rules at the end of the game, screwing those behind you is a sorry thing.

Bottom line...."Ya gotta dance with the one that brung ya!"

OK, fire away!

 

[dlredline]

Re: For those of you pro 60+ers

Bottom line...."Ya gotta dance with the one that brung ya!"

One of the greatest quotes of all time. Spoken in 1969 by the genial Darrell Royal, then Head Coach of the University of Texas Longhorns, when asked by a reporter if he would abandon his "Wishbone" running attack for the increasingly popular passing game.

Sorry, not on line with this thread, but had to give credit.

Back to lurking . . . .

 

[pilotyip]

the bottom line

The bottom line is the closer you are to 60, the more you think the 60 rule is stupid, the further you are from 60 more stupid you think the people who want to repeal the 60 rule are. For those of you who can afford to retire at 60 congratulations, you I believe are extremely lucky, beyond any skill or desire you have. For many of us, burger flipping is the option at age 60. Having had 11 jobs since I left the Navy in 1977, 5 major moves (interstate), buying selling houses because of our old tax laws, paying more in reality commissions than most people make in a year. Period of underemployment, unemployment between jobs has built up debt, so retirement at age 60 is not even a close option as much as I might like to do it. Many of the career climbers on this board will find themselves in 20-30 years wishing they were not forced to retire because they can not afford it. I am fortunate I work for a 135 operator and I can fly jets until I no longer want to or am qualified to.

 

[Eagleflip]

Repeal the rule!

I make no bones about it--I support abolishing the Age 60 rule. It is not that I'm that close to senility. It is a simple logic test. The rationale for maintaining that law does not pass the common sense test.

In simple terms, it is age discrimination. No one can support--with studies--the contention that pilots past the age of 60 are unsafe. But what about the other arguments I've read here on the board?

"It isn't fair to change the rules of the game once it has started." Hogwash. Does this logic imply that racial discrimination should not have been stopped because "that's how it has always been?" Rules change all of the time according to legal and societal evolution; this law is no different. Discrimination is shameful and ultimately unfair to those participating in the system; to alter an injustice is appropriate, not counter to some misapplied sport metaphor.

"Abolishing the Age 60 rule benefits the old geezers at the expense of the new hire's advancement." This is true to some extent. However, let's face it--cost effectiveness or not, ending the Age 60 rule will do one thing: allow pilots of that age the choice of continuing to do what they are trained to do. Not all of them will do so. I have no studies to back it up, but my bet is that many will still elect to retire and live the good life. Movement on the seniority list will be slowed, but not as much as one may think.

The issue remains a zero sum gain in the end, however. If I am allowed an extra three years of flying at the end of my career and I choose to take that time as an employed pilot, I theoretically delay a new guy a pilot position for three years. Once he is hired to replace me at the end of that three years, however, he still gets the same three year extension to fly during his career--his total time in the airline industry remains the same.

OK, I admit that given this scenario my total time in the cockpit is three years greater than my new hire buddy. Again, an injustice is being corrected and the new hire's life in the industry is delayed three years--but he is no worse off other than the time value of his deferred earnings during that initial three year hire period. He gains from the theoritical increase in pay at the end of his career, however.

"If a guy at the majors hasn't saved enough money to retire by the age of 60, then he's been doing something wrong." No arguments there, but why does that argument imply that he must retire at that age? How about a doctor? Shouldn't he or she have enough money to retire at age 60 and let the new docs have the potential customers? True, there is no seniority system in the medical profession, but they certainly should have made the money to retire at the august age of 60. And doing so would benefit the limited numbers of younger doctors in a given area with an increased market share of patients.

Here's a better example: Congressmen and Senators. They have a seniority system with no age limits for retirement, and certainly they make sufficient coin to retire at a relatively early age. Why don't we make them retire at a certain point and let the younger crowd take the majority and committee head positions?

Because THEY CAN STILL DO THE JOB, is why. So can we--safely--past 60. How far? Don't know, but a reasonable extension is prudent, say three to five years above the current limit.

"I've seen too many Captains that aren't safe now, much less past the age of 60." OK, so why don't you do you %*$& job and report them for incompetence? An inability to do the job is not a function of increasing age, it it symptomatic of attitude problems, training failures or neurological disorders. Treat these symptoms with action; don't correct non age-related problems via a de facto attrition program.

 

[jbucpt]

Phishn@daves writes "this is bull$h!t???

i would be very curious of his opinion if he was on the other side of the coin.

first, the days of company pensions are gone or in serious jeopardy.

second, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck. the age 60 is discrimination, plain and simple. if an individual can pass a first class medical, he has a right to work. (please explain to me the difference in responsibility of flying a GV part 91 and an airbus part121?? )

third, some might be able to retire at 60, others might not.(even for those who did not get divorce and have $400,000 homes) with the scaling back of payrates and the increase cost of living, increase life span, cost of college tuition, etc, etc.. its becoming more a necessity than a simple decision.

please dont give me this ALPA crap of "saving the profession". i feel horrible for my friends who are laid-off and will do everything i can to help them get hired here. however, WE all knew going into this profession that getting furloughed was and is a possibility. MAKING people retire so others can have a chance is a poor excuse for supporting the age 60 rule.