Repeal of Age 60 rule

[Flying Freddie]

I would love to retire at 60 if I had Social Security and a pension. ALPA and Congress have deprived me of both. I want to live out my remaining days at the Ronald Reagan Home for the Aged.I could be drooling and voiding into my Depends while the younger pilots pay for my retirement. I don't ask for much. "Mommy, Tell me about the time I used to be President".

 

[AV8OR]

Eagleflip

""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."


Ok Eagleflip, but you still haven't answered the problem that these guy's, (since no one has refuted my claim I guess), have all benefitted from their age when they were hired by being placed ahead in seniority of someone younger. I haven't ever heard anybody bitching about being the most senior guy in a new hire class of 30. How about this as a possible "middle ground" proposition. When you turn 60, if you want to keep flying at the airline, you retain your seat position and longevity, but you go to the back of the seniority list?


Ought to be interesting to see how many guys on the high end of this debate won't think this is good enough.

"to alter an injustice is appropriate, not counter to some misapplied sport metaphor"

I guess misapplied is in the eye of the applier.

 

[Eagleflip]

AV8OR--
I'd say that the relative seniority issue you brought up (gaining seniority within a training class based on age alone) is a minor issue. Given the broader argument of continued employment past age 60, it seems to be a minor irritant.

JetBlue did indeed rank us seniority by age within our training class. I know of other airlines that do the same, but know of at least one (Delta maybe?) that ranks you within the class via the last couple of numbers in your SSN. Random it is.

I don't quite understand your proposal, though. Are you saying that Joe Pilot, once reaching 60, should go to the bottom of the overall seniority list?

If so, what is the point? If we are trying to change this rule based on age discrimination, what does changing your seniority at age 60 provide? A chance for the guys below you to move up just to remain "fair?"

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

I agree. It is age discrimination. I also suggest repealing the age 16 driving limit, the age 21 drinking limit, and the 23 ATP limit. The fact is, all of these ages are somewhat arbitrary. I feel strongly that I had the maturity necessary for an ATP before 23 (I still don't have the maturity to drink!). However, these ages have been selected for a simple reason: the majority of people under these ages would be unsafe exercising these priveleges. As would the majority of people flying over the age of 60. Could some? Most certainly. But once humans hit a certain age, their physical and mental performance degrades. Increasing the age limit reduces safety, and it should not be done.

Ironically, many who find 60 "discrimination" have no problem with an equally random age like 65. Perhaps their complaint is less with the discrimination than it is with their own finances.

More ironically, many decry the law because so few pilots have good pensions, yet ridicule me when I suggest that the lack of pensions is a contributing factor in the degradation of our careers. Perhaps if some of them (one mustard colored airline comes to mind) would fight as hard for a better pension as they do against this rule, far fewer of us would have to work into our golden years.

 

[GCAP]

Truth of the matter...Pre 1984 the majors would not hire anyone over 31yrs. There are many of us who had the interview...the job...or were very close when the arabs played the embargo game. No hiring till '77 but we were too old then. 1984 and several lawsuits later and the majors are hiring the over the hill 31 year old folks. The world was looking great, but then came Lorenzo, Lockerbie, the first gulf war, and all of a sudden we were back where we started.. But there were second and third and fourth chances for some of us. We are here flying for good companies, making a good living for the first time but we have to quit at age 60. I'm one of these guys and I'm hoping for the repeal of this stupid rule. I will do everything I can to continue to support my family. with or without the rule change. It would be a whole lot easier if they would just hurry up and change the rule

 

[DCitrus9]

Perhaps if some of them (one mustard colored airline comes to mind) would fight as hard for a better pension as they do against this rule, far fewer of us would have to work into our golden years.

FDJ, I agree with your post except for this snippet. I think pilots do fight for their wages and benefits, but also realize they are limited by several factors. The largest to me in this scenario is time in business, and how long you've been negotiating for a proper wage. Comparing Delta wages and bennies to AirTran is ludicrous due to this. Unfortunately, most airlines don't follow Jet Blue's philosphy of paying a proper wage for services rendered. They would instead make you fight for every penny. We just signed our 2nd contract, and it had HUGE improvements in $$ and even improvement on retirements. Are we satisfied? No. We will strive to improve our collective lot each time around. Delta has been at it for many more years, with a greater amount time in negotiations, and therefore sets a standard for us to reach.
Also, who is the mustard colored airline? AirTran is light cream and teal, Southwest has some orange, but no one I can think of has Mustard...
I also don't belive it's any one airline fighting for this repeal, and actually most airline's pilot groups are split on this issue.

 

[Full of LUV]

No Carma left!

Flying Freddie wrote:

''I want to live out my remaining days at the Ronald Reagan Home for the Aged.I could be drooling and voiding into my Depends while the younger pilots pay for my retirement. I don't ask for much. "Mommy, Tell me about the time I used to be President".

Oh my god! You have no carma. If you think this is funny, you should loose you ticket for lack of human empathy alone. It is scary to think that people think this is actually cute. Someday you'll grow up to find yourself in less than perfect health.


As for age 60 rule, there is a vein of safety that is left out. Just as noone wants to inform grandaddy that he may be up to the standards of operating a motor vehicle ( just freeway drive in FL to see), over 60 pilots will place even a higher burden on aeromedical docs to level with pilots that they have known for decades. And just as in Florida, old people think old people drive just fine.

 

[Eagleflip]

over 60 pilots will place even a higher burden on aeromedical docs to level with pilots that they have known for decades.

OK, so you are saying that once over 60--an age selected almost 50 years ago--one is automatically unsafe? Come on--do you really believe that? If so, why are pilots allowed to fly under

FDJ is correct--any age established as a cutoff is age discrimination. If we want to totally abolish the age restriction, mandatory psycomotor testing will inevitably follow. This intrusive examination may well be the only way to weed out those not capable of continuing in this career.

Were one willing to accept some sort of age discrimination in this case, perhaps an alternate argument should be that the current age established oh so long ago is simply not valid. Heck, Social Security eligibility ages have increased substantially. Medicaid eligibility has increased as well. Both changes are due to the lifespan increases we've been priviliged to enjoy in the past thirty years.

One of our other posters asked how eliminating the age 60 rule would benefit those currently furloughed. In short, it won't to any large degree. Every major in the market experiences attrition each month. How many recalls have you heard about to counter this attrition? Attrition is not the key to wholesale recall and hiring; economic development and subsequent expansion is. Please keep in mind I'm not gloating over anybody--you folks on furlough have my deepest respect.

Sorry FDJ, but I reject the connection between fighting for a pension and the Age 60 rule. Remember, I advocate that most pilots, given the opportunity to retire, will still choose to do so. Those ill-prepared financially to retire at 60 have made their own bed, pension or not.

 

[JohnDoe]

I said it before on another age 60 thread....here it is again:


Another question for those taking the age discrimination "moral highroad."

What about the age 23 for the ATP? That is clearly age discrimination. Is a 21 or 22 year old any less safe or competent to act as an ATP? No. Has it ever been proven that 23 is the ideal and safe age for an ATP? No.

So why is nobody fighting this issue? Because, for the majority, it doesn't really affect them. They don't care. It isn't affecting them job-wise or financially. Which brings me to my next point......

For BOTH sides of this controversy, for the most part, this is all about personnal gain (or loss as the case may be).

For those who already have their position, they want to keep it longer so they can make more money, make more on their 401k, stay in the left seat longer, etc. etc. etc. (it is ironic, however, that they have all, at one point, benefitted from the age 60 rule).

Then there are those who are furloughed and waiting for their spot back, or in a pool, or just waiting for an airline job period. Their reasons are the same. Personnal gain. They want to get back, or in as the case may be, as quick as possible.

You can package your arguement with a pretty "morality" arguement as much as you want, but people need to see this issue for what it really is: one of personnal gain, personnal growth, personnal opinion.

Whoever "wins" this arguement does so at the expense of another.....there is no real winner here.

I will say, however, that the age issue does need to be addressed at some point. I do agree that health is a factor. As far as the "as long as you can pass a medical" arguement goes, give me a break.......we all know about the "quality" of some of the medical exams out there.

Good luck to everybody, as I've said before, we all need it.

 

[100LL... Again!]

The issue is this:

They have enjoyed advancement due to this rule for years. It is an accepted and understood part of the profession. I am not willing to be one of those whose carrers are slowed so that they current group of almost-retired pilots can get a windfall. Sorry guys - you had your turn. Share the wealth.

I see it this way:

The senior pilots got there via older pilots being forced to retire. Now they want to STAY there at the expense of the junior pilots.
Pretty sweet deal, if they are able to pull it off. Seems greedy to me.

The ONLY WAY to make this fair would be to slowly phase in the changes in one-year increments.

Age 61 for the next 2 years.
Age 62 for the next 2 years.
Then Age 63.

This, although still unfair in my view, would at least not cause sudden and drastic changes to the carrer expectations of junior pilots WHO DESERVE THE SAME ADVANCEMENT THAT THE SENIOR PILOTS GOT!!!

Sorry for shouting.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Citrus,

I was referring to LUV.

I appreciate that you are fighting for what you deserve. While I disagree that B6 is an example of an airline that pays a "proper wage," I agree that many airlines have not been negotiating long enough to secure some of the things many of us feel they deserve.

My point was directed at the multitude on this board who criticize me for pointing out that lesser contracts are negatively affecting this industry. I believe that some of the reasons (financial) given for overturning the age 60 rule are perfect examples of this.

I wish EVERY pilot group luck in any upcoming contract negotiations. It may keep us from having to fly until we are 90.

 

[100LL... Again!]

John Doe-

I believe my post explains why the 'moral equivalency' argument is not valid.

The senior guys HAD theirs. NOW they want mine.

 

[JohnDoe]

Ummmm....100LL...again,

First, I hadn't even read your post when i posted mine.

Second, I don't think you understood my post......I'm making the same argument you did after me: the "age 60 rule is morally wrong and is age discrimination" stance is a little b.s. in my opinion.

Also, here is a part of my post again:

". (it is ironic, however, that they have all, at one point, benefitted from the age 60 rule)."

Again, kinda what you just said.....


I'm in your boat...all these people who are now arguing against the rule, have at some point in their careers, benefitted from the very same rule (providing, of course, they are currently at a 121 carrier).

 

[Eagleflip]

You know, you guys are right. There must be an age discrimination involved in this business. After all, why not give that ATP to a 15 year old? Why not allow a 12 year old to fly jumpers, or God forbid, oust Avbug out of his fire fighting job?

Ludicrous? Of course. We make fine line determinations every day.

One can own a handgun, but not a live bazooka. One can speak freely without fear of retribution, but don't threaten the President. To me, these rules make sense.

The Age 60 rule doesn't make sense. Either a pilot is qualified to fly or he/she is not. 60 and one day makes you inelligible to fly 121, yet you can fly the same type jet on charter all you want. This doesn't pass the common sense test.

As for "personal gain," yes, I'll buy into that argument. But you have to take it further. It is not entirely an issue of money, but of the right to work in a given profession.

Finally, I'll retire from this thread (I think) with this thought: I was against the Age 60 rule from the outset of my career, even though I knew it would work against me at the beginning.

Fighting this rule isn't about depriving those "below me" in hiring and seniority of a job--it is about enforcing an unjustifiable act of health and ability discrimination.

My best to all on the board--sincerely. I hope we all find ourselves working in the cockpit of our choice within the next year.

 

[100LL... Again!]

-----------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------

This, to me, is a nice politically correct way of saying 'screw the junior guys.'

This can represent a lot of earning potential for new guy, shortening and delaying the careers of others.


Your refence to racial discrimination is invalid.

ALL airline pilots are subject to the age 60 rule. You can not compare a rule that all pilots will eventually be subject to racial discrimination. Period.

Not all people are of a certain race. All WILL age. Therefore the argument is invalid. I will accept the retirement age when it comes. You know why? Because I want the guys behind me to have the same shot. Honor is dead, hm?