S. 65 and H.R. 1125 still alive (age 65)

[Andy]

Thanks for posting that. Do you also have a copy of that handy template/form letter you posted several months ago?

I'll PM out some stuff late today/early tomorrow.

 

[Flopgut]

I don't delight in this at all FlopGut as you know my personal opinion on the issue. The limited scope of the Panel is real. We were tasked with a specific mission and we are accomplishing that mission. The policy and politics of the issue are being dealt with well above my pay grade. Do you know where the CAL MEC is on this issue? Have you talked to Captain Donaldson about where he thinks this issue should go? He will be representing CAL at the Executive Board and voting on this resolution on behalf of all CAL pilots. I suggest you point your frustration in the appropriate place...I'm not the right target unfortunately.

-Neal

I wasn't trying to sound as snide as I guess my question did, I beg your pardon. I am quite frustrated. About two weeks ago you suggested I start calling national and that I would be pleased with what I learned was going on around this issue. I put two calls into national 9 days ago. I talked to one person in R&I and left a message for a guy with a last name that starts with J. I've followed up every other day since and heard nothing, but I wil continue to try.

Neal, you must feel some frustration with this too? Your collective bargaining reputation is outstanding. You've been put on this panel with a very limited scope and are the only FO. The polling isn't even done and a Fastread goes out telling the membership that ALPA may change the rule in spite of any official polling results. How can that be anything but frustrating? I think Prater wanted to trade on your reputation but really never intended to allow you input.

 

[Flopgut]

You'd actually be wrong in your bet then. But the only time we discussed our personal opinions was in the first 5 minutes of our first meeting. After that we never brought it up again (rightfully so). The BRP is not about the merits of changing the age or not changing the age. That is a common misconception unfortunately. We are just technicians studying the effects of a possible change and what ALPA should do IF the age does in fact change.

-Neal

Just got off the phone with ALPA National. Had a very candid discussion with a person familiar with what's going on.

Neal: You got 5 minutes, everybody else knew exactly what they were going for. I'm sorry to say, you've been duped! Prater sought to trade on your reputation and it worked. There's no way you could have known what was going to happen, so don't feel bad. You were the token FO and carried great credibility.

The membership majority favors age 60 retirement. However, factor the "it is going to change so should ALPA be a part of it?" semi-false slant, and the vote is 50/50. That is what ALPA leadership is going to term sufficient cause for them to rule for us!

This could come into effect as early as September this year. There is a possibilty it will be sometime next year, but it's very unlikely to take the full 18-24 months. This recent polling, the BRP, and the latest revelation that the rule may be unilaterally changed by National is nothing more than an effort to expedite the change. Nothing has changed with the membership's support of age 60, they simply re-phrased the question.

Most importantly, I asked "what's coming next, could this grow more lopsided and even more heavily favor more senior members?" Answer: "Yes".

 

[Andy]

This could come into effect as early as September this year. There is a possibilty it will be sometime next year, but it's very unlikely to take the full 18-24 months. This recent polling, the BRP, and the latest revelation that the rule may be unilaterally changed by National is nothing more than an effort to expedite the change. Nothing has changed with the membership's support of age 60, they simply re-phrased the question.

That echoes the conversation that I had a couple of days ago. The only difference that I got was that the phone poll was 52/48 in favor of status quo.

And anyone thinking that ALPA national is not behind the fast track on this is smoking crack. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that this train has already left the station. This will get buried in the FAA Authorization Bill. Whether the Authorization Bill can get implemented before September is up for debate. My guess is that this will take effect early '08.

Interestingly, the airline industry is behind the power curve on this one and the person that I spoke to at national very much doubted that the change could be done 30 days after passage ... and he indicated that everyone's aware of that. I wouldn't be surprised if the FAA asks for a longer implementation time.

 

[learherkjay]

Can some one provide me with an intelligent (ie. no immature rants) on the opposition to raising the retirement age to 65? I guess I just am not understanding why this is a bad thing.

 

[Andy]

Can some one provide me with an intelligent (ie. no immature rants) on the opposition to raising the retirement age to 65? I guess I just am not understanding why this is a bad thing.

I'll try, but like all guys, I'm just a big kid.

1) Safety. The FAA CAMI reports show a definite increase in the number of accidents per flight hour for pilots starting at age 55. It is a U shaped curve (actually, a bowl would probably be a more correct description), where those in their 20s have a high accident rate which tapers off in the 30s and remains fairly constant until 55, where a rise is seen.
I could get into the medical differences in other countries along with the generally poorer health of US citizens, but I could write for days on the subject. If you compare the average US pilot's health to an Asian/European pilot's health, you'll quickly see that we are a lot less healthy than our international counterparts.

2) Supply/demand. Having pilots fly for an additional 5 years will end up depressing wages due to the supply curve shift to the right. This will result in additional pilot jobs, but at a lower wage scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_demand_curve

The winners in this will be those pilots who are 55-59 when the age changes. Those 50-54 will break even. Anyone under 50 will end up working longer for lower lifetime earnings.

I could go into other reasons, but you asked me to keep it intelligent. Hopefully those answers suffice.

 

[learherkjay]

Andy,

Thanks for the "intelligent" response. I suppose it is the not seeing the forest through the trees syndrome in my opinion. As an individual pilot (especially with today's life expectancies); I would think everyone would want the option to work past 60. Nobody says you can't retire early, but it seems for those who are interested, it is an extra 5 years of income into your bank and into your retirement fund - extra wealth building or maintaining until you have to start drawing retirement. While I can see the argument in the list that you gave me, it seems to me that the arguments you provided are collective group think; as for the individual pilot - raising the age seems to be mostly a reward versus a cost.

 

[BoilerUP]

While I can see the argument in the list that you gave me, it seems to me that the arguments you provided are collective group think; as for the individual pilot - raising the age seems to be mostly a reward versus a cost.

Changing the retirement age from 60 to 65 provides a career windfall to those 55-59 pilots Andy mentioned. They will have benefited their entire careers from the seniority advancement Age 60 provided, only to gain 5 more years at the top those before them didn't have, at the expense of those on furlough and those making their way up through the ranks.

 

[Andy]

As an individual pilot (especially with today's life expectancies); I would think everyone would want the option to work past 60. Nobody says you can't retire early, but it seems for those who are interested, it is an extra 5 years of income into your bank and into your retirement fund - extra wealth building or maintaining until you have to start drawing retirement. While I can see the argument in the list that you gave me, it seems to me that the arguments you provided are collective group think; as for the individual pilot - raising the age seems to be mostly a reward versus a cost.

You are failing to understand the economic impact of the supply curve shift. You are falsely assuming that your company will pay you the same wages as you now receive. The concessionary contract pattern will continue due to the oversupply of pilots which will result in lower lifetime earnings for those under the age of 50.
Mark my words, the management of airlines will exploit this change which will result in lower wages and retirement contributions. As an individual, you do not operate outside of the economic forces of the group as a whole. It's truly a pity that most pilots are unable to comprehend this fact.
I would think that, after watching legacy carriers drag down the wage scales to that of the LCCs that most pilots would catch on to this.

 

[Flopgut]

Learherkjay:

First of all, it IS a safety issue.

Pitfalls that are closer to becoming reality:

1: We are going to have a difficult time with collective bargaining. Mgts are going to be able to say "you just got a million dollar raise, you don't need any more $!" And some will get a million dollar raise. A senior CAL retiree with the number of years right now, that I would have at age 60, leaves with a minimum of 250k more than I would get. Go to 65: That disparity grows to well over 500k. This is a worse disparity at some airlines; Huge transfer of wealth to the senior members on the part of the junior.

2: Disability ins will be decimated. It will still work for the senior guys, junior ones will foot the bill and then see it disappear.

3: Lots of guys are going to leave on time. The ones who made a plan and stuck to it, kept a back up plan, and were reasonable are going to retire. The ones that stay will be the chronically broke types who are going to use this as another chance to get another bubba mansion and wife number 3 or 4. The ones that stay are going to want more, standby for age 70. That is going to be to our detriment big time.

3: 65 will end up becoming normal retirement age. Go at 60 and it will cost you.