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

[Flopgut]

I'll tell you what guys and gals, there is going to be two different ALPAs after this deal happens. It's going to be clearly split and one side is going to have to work against the other. The more junior ones can't fall into the trap of thinking the association is going to help them. The "association" is the more senior contingent. The sooner we figure out they are only going to help themselves the better. We need our own reps, PAC, MEC...everything!

It's not unlike how the age 60 rule came into being. The oldsters at AA weren't going to be able to fly the jets so they came up with age 60 retirement. The old guys now may be able to fly the jets, but they are NOT equal to the task of effective collective bargaining in this environment, only bargaining for themselves! That's just one more aspect where age 60 retirement is just as appropriate today, as it was back then. Renewal is an important thing, and we're about to put it on hold.

 

[learherkjay]

Okay, thanks to everyone for offering up those thoughts on age 65. I have only been in this business for three years and we have no furloughees at my company; so I can see how that would be a negative development in pay and future earnings. Also, I think your type of retirement plan at your company has a large affect on whether you are pro or con; just my opinion. I can see disability insurance changing too, so that is a good point. I suppose the health issue is one I have difficulty with. With Open Skies happening, I have a hard time with foreign guys flying more often in our skies that are older than our guys. As far as health, I lived overseas for 4 years and flew to many countries; I wouldn't say that "across the board" foreign pilots are healthier than American pilots. So, I don't buy the "health" argument, but I do feel more educated about the pay side of the argument and the overall economic slippery slope. I suppose, like anything in life, nothing is black and white, only shades of grey. Thanks to everyone for their input.

 

[lostplnetairman]

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.

Except for those that never got the chance to advance due to company failures...There are a whole lot of pilots who were forced to bounce around from one failed carrier to another who are perfectly healthy. They saved what they could, by law, but would need to work to 65 to accrue more and be eligible for Medicare. So do you lump them in with the United 30 year pilots complaining?

 

[The Prussian]

Don't go away yet, Learhercjay....

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.

Windfall....schmindfal l!!!!! When I got hired, there were lots of guys in front of me on the seniority list who were already millionaires. Their timing was great, and I thought- good for them...their timing was great, and in this industry, timing can be everything. I didn't begrudge them that, nor do I now.
But, we need to put class envy aside.
Presently, I see some union diehards trying to protect the vestige of a world that is fast vanishing. For me, I would love to see a world that is protected from the ills and hurts of the real world. Whether some of us call that nirvana the Railway Labor Act, or something else,...I think everybody needs to
open their eyes to what reality is. The reality is that many, if not most of ALPA's pilots have lost very sizable percentages of their pensions due to the harsh realities of free market competition. And whether anyone wants to open their eyes and recognize that fact or not...those forces that were
set in place back in 1978 are still in force, and not abating anytime soon....if ever.
Therefore....IMHO, though it is a harsh reality, those of us that recognize those facts, and adjust their game plans to accomodate these new realities are the ones to benefit the soonest. To disregard these new forces and realities is to do so at your own peril. Therefore, I think it behooves
the pilot community as a whole, to embrace this new reality and adopt a policy that accepts the concept of additional earning years as a very beneficial option, if needed.

 

[Flopgut]

Windfall....schmindfal l!!!!! When I got hired, there were lots of guys in front of me on the seniority list who were already millionaires. Their timing was great, and I thought- good for them...their timing was great, and in this industry, timing can be everything. I didn't begrudge them that, nor do I now.
But, we need to put class envy aside.
Presently, I see some union diehards trying to protect the vestige of a world that is fast vanishing. For me, I would love to see a world that is protected from the ills and hurts of the real world. Whether some of us call that nirvana the Railway Labor Act, or something else,...I think everybody needs to
open their eyes to what reality is. The reality is that many, if not most of ALPA's pilots have lost very sizable percentages of their pensions due to the harsh realities of free market competition. And whether anyone wants to open their eyes and recognise that fact or not...those forces that were
set in place back in 1978 are still in force, and not abating anytime soon....if ever.
Therefore....IMHO, though it is a harsh reality, those of us that recognize those facts, and adjust their game plans to accomodate these new realities are the ones to benefit the soonest. To disregard these new forces and realities is to do so at your own peril. Therefore, I think it behooves
the pilot community as a whole, to embrace this new reality and adopt a policy that accepts the concept of additional earning years as a very beneficial option, if needed.

You are NWA, right? Are you telling me you never begrudged anyone anything? Why do you guys have red, green and pink [or whatever] book? Yeah, you guys are tolerant allright?!

I'm really tired of hearing about class envy. Are we all NOT doing the same job? This is more like a failed work action than anything else. A minority of pilots are vying for seniority they have no claim to. Please tell me when a pilot group has not begrudged a group of replacement workers? I don't recall them being "embraced" at NWA, did I miss something?

Reformers have entered the market with thier own rules and enforced them on others. SWA has no A plan, so now [almost] no one does. That is one example. What is absent is our own reformers in the ALPA realm. Our most senior and allegedly esteemed members are not ahead of the curve. They are NOT thinking, they are reacting and coping, nothing more. And they won't! Until someone in ALPA starts thinking no age limit is going to suffice!

We have some tough work ahead of us in this business. We need renewal and members with new standards and philosophies that can be our own reformers. UAL and PW is a perfect example. He exiled half the list into low cost oblivion in a failed attempt to save the UAL A plan. I don't know anyone at UAL that did not realize that wasn't going to work. (No surprise that most of the UAL types I know are junior) Nothing personal, but when you screw up that bad, you've got to go! You've got to have some gall to think you could hit your fellow pilots up for some more relief after that. But they shamlessly support the notion that they have the right to work to 65 and enjoy unprecedented seniority (save crossing a picket line).

Reality is this: pilots have lost pensions before. They have dealt with it. I'm tired of saying it, but it happened in my family. I've understood, and lived with, this harsh reality since day 1 in this business. No one cared when my fathers pension was gone (and we were flat BROKE BTW). Why should I give flying F about theirs? Feel free to pretend you know what that was like (because everybody does anyway). But bear in mind: Many of these guys who took it in the shorts recently were dancing in the streets when my family's mealticket tanked. Giving these guys 5 more years isn't going to teach them anything about reality (trust me). It suspends reality. They just won't be able to deal with 65 either.

 

[The Prussian]

Sorry...guess I broke your 'train' of thought!!?!

 

[BluDevAv8r]

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

Who did you speak with? If you are uncomfortable posting it in public, PM it to me please.

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.

When I said 5 minutes, I meant that each of the 7 of us gave our personal opinions and then we moved on. Are you saying that you spoke with the other 6 people on the BRP and they are all working outside of the mission of the BRP to affect this change? If so, please provide a source and evidence for such a statement.

-Neal

 

[BluDevAv8r]

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.

I know you are frustrated. Many pilots are. I'm frustrated by certain things with the politics (congress, etc) but not by my direct interaction on the BRP. Again, the BRP's mission and our actions have nothing to do with this possible change to ALPA policy, etc. My input has been taken...but the input has been on negotiations issues and communications issues going forward IF this change sees the light of day. It isn't the BRP's mandate to push (or not push) for any sort of change. Nothing in our presentation to the EC (and soon to the EB) will even talk about the merits (or lack thereof) of a change.

-Neal

 

[humuakalaka]

learherkjay...

This is a MUCH more complicated issue than simply giving yourself the option to work past age 60. That is one of the pro-65 crowd's favorite arguments; "it gives you the option to work to 65...nobody will force you to work past 60."

This issue has much to do with the time value of money. If you understand the idea that a dollar earned today is worth more than a dollar earned twenty years from now, then you know what I mean. For junior FO's at my airline, the difference in money saved at age 60 is $1.3 million. That's A LOT of money. In other words, if today's FO's were to upgrade on time vs taking a significant delay due to age 65 coming into place, they would be $1.3 million ahead of where they will be at age 60 as a result of the retirement age being extended. When you compare apples to apples (total earnings and savings at age 60), today's FO's will be well behind where they would have been without age 65.

The net effect of this impact on earnings is to essentially force today's FO's to have to work past age 60. It is true that no one will force you legislatively to work past age 60. However, for all practical purposes, you will be forced financially to work until age 65.

Listening to the pro age 65 crowd's arguments without a very skeptical ear is akin to trusting a used car salesman.

 

[learherkjay]

Well, for sure, I have never been accused of being smart (government education), hence me asking for the con argument to raising the age to 65. As a young FO (only 34) I generally see getting to work 5 more years as a good thing, but I know I don't have the whole picture. Yes, things are complicated and more importantly timing is everything. While, the age 65 does make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer - this if for a limited pilot population. Yes, I know a lot of variables come into play - but I am seeing the scope of who this affects. If you are at an airline that is not hiring, you have furloughees, and have limited growth, raising the age definitely affects your bottom line. If you are at a growing airline and are a lot younger, then I think your bottom line is affected less (perhaps even negligible when adding the 5 years of extra income in the mix). Then again, today's growing airlines could be tomorrow's BK queen. What about the young FO yet to be hired? If the age limit raises then the guys 5-10 years out from being hired, will have the ability to make more money in this industry over their career. So, I am still a little confused as to which side (pro or con) actually benefits the universal American (not the airline, the pilot) pilot group, future pilots included.