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

[kwick]

The age 65 rule will mean at least a billion dollars additional income for the pilot group, as a whole. Probably, a lot more. The airline fleet is projected to double by 2020, so there is plenty of opportunity for everyone. And Learherkjay, you're right, it means 5 more years of income. It's the ultimate "Win-Win" situation. Any other profession or industry would jump on this deal in a heart-beat. To be against this is putting your personal issues above the group, as a whole. If your a team-player, and are in reasonably good health, then you stand to gain a lot in terms of total income and increased retirement benefits. It's hard to look long-term when you're in you're thirties, but it looks like common sense is going to prevail to all of our benefit.

 

[vixin]

Not to mention it is worth billions in social security payments for the gov't. Most SWA Captains (and other airline captains) have maxed out or will max out the benefit from SS (like it will be there when I retire). They do this well before 60. Thus they pay SS without getting the additional benefit. Push this to 65 the govt gets more free money. This helps pay the old blue heads that are getting more then they paid into it now.

I say have a Grandfather clause in the 65 debate. The day it goes into effect. If you have a seniority number with an airline you are subject to 60. If you are hired after it goes into effect you can goto 65. We all knew when we were hired what the retirement age was. No animosity this way. Why isnt 65 age discrimmination or 70 heck 85. A 15 year old should be able to get his ATP also. We should have 100 year old firefighters to.

 

[kwick]

Any pilot worth his salt can adapt to change, that's what they pay us for. If you can't you're in the wrong business. Maybe you should be flying a desk. Not everyone is cutout to be an airline pilot.

 

[PCL_128]

Vixin, you've got it half right. Safety, according to the recent Flying magazine article, dictates that we keep the experienced heads in the cockpit. The flying public deserves no less.

Yes, because Flying Magazine is a well-respected medical institution that is capable of accurately determining the effects of aging on the pilot population. [/sarcasm]

 

[vixin]

Any pilot worth his salt can adapt to change, that's what they pay us for. If you can't you're in the wrong business. Maybe you should be flying a desk. Not everyone is cutout to be an airline pilot.

What does my statement have to do with me flying an airplane or flying for an airline? I can answer that....NOTHING! This is one of the dumbest statements I have read. I adapt just fine. Just saying it would cut down on the animosity. Lets adapt and have 100 year old firefighters and policemen.

I have flown with plenty of retired airline pilots. I can think of 1 maybe 2 that should have continued flying after 60. The first 1 was and is as sharp as a tack. The other was and you could see a huge decline in his abilities year after year. There were plenty that you had to babysit. Now I am not saying I couldnt and didnt learn from some of these guys. I have and always will be very open to learning anything from anybody. Whether its a low time FO or a high time retired airline pilot. The fact is I have seen plenty of retired guys that just should not have been flying on a regular basis.

 

[kwick]

Maybe read the article, wise guy. It quotes the most recent studies.

 

[Flopgut]

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



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

I'm going to decline to tell you who it was. I had a very candid discussion and probably got more info than most.

You were the only FO. Everyone else on that group knew the plan before they started. The BRP and all other associated activity was part of an elaborate scheme to bat the issue around a little bit and see if they could change ALPA's stance on the issue. Looks like it's going to work, doesn't it? Proof? You should need no more proof than to look at ALPA's history in these sorts of instances. ALPA eats their own, and they care about senior type as a first priority. You've done exactly what they wanted you to do. Carry the seemingly harmless message that you were just handling secondary concerns when in fact the opposite is true. They played you perfectly; You still believe you've stayed on mission with the BRP despite the facts we have before us. Stop disagreeing with me and look at where we have arrived.

 

[Flopgut]

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.

Jay: It's never one thing that puts your airline retirement future in doubt. It's a chain of events that lead to a result. This is one [very large] link in a chain of events that can put our retirements in jeoprody. It's what may come next that we have to worry about. The supply curve Andy speaks of, disability, collective bargaining, time value of wages, are all issues we will have to deal with. And apparantly, those of us in ALPA won't be able to count on our union, and we will all be attached at the hip to a bunch of old senior pilots who will no longer have ANYTHING to worry about! And in fact, these guys aren't going to want to lift a finger to help any flatspotted junior pilot out and place their windfall in doubt.

 

[PCL_128]

I'm going to decline to tell you who it was. I had a very candid discussion and probably got more info than most.

You were the only FO. Everyone else on that group knew the plan before they started. The BRP and all other associated activity was part of an elaborate scheme to bat the issue around a little bit and see if they could change ALPA's stance on the issue. Looks like it's going to work, doesn't it? Proof? You should need no more proof than to look at ALPA's history in these sorts of instances. ALPA eats their own, and they care about senior type as a first priority. You've done exactly what they wanted you to do. Carry the seemingly harmless message that you were just handling secondary concerns when in fact the opposite is true. They played you perfectly; You still believe you've stayed on mission with the BRP despite the facts we have before us. Stop disagreeing with me and look at where we have arrived.

Those are some pretty serious allegations. Especially since you refuse to corroborate them with a source. I call BS.

 

[Flopgut]

Those are some pretty serious allegations. Especially since you refuse to corroborate them with a source. I call BS.

Just look at where we have arrived. I'm not pi$$ed at Neal; we are both frustrated. Some of you guys are not ready to accept how ugly ALPA can get, but it's going to sink in. We can't assume anything.

Scariest thing the guy admitted to me: "could we replace this issue with say, cabotage and see the same thing happen?" [meaning this group of senior pilots sell out the rest of us] His answer: "yes". NOT suggesting or admitting that they going to go seek out this negative sort of thing. But understand, if junior members get between the senior ones and another nice & easy, enormous wad of cash again, this is what is going to happen. And this change is going to occasion many such negative things. How are we going to sustain disability? How are we going to divide up anything we can get out of collective bargaining? What's going to come out of the many lawsuits we will undoubtedly face? Medical changes?

But please, do feel free to not believe me and call BS. I don't care if anybody thinks I'm right. Just interpret the situation and consider where this may take us.

 

[Flopgut]

Neal: Check your PMs

....Ooops, your box is full.

 

[BluDevAv8r]

Neal: Check your PMs

....Ooops, your box is full.

Fixed, sorry!

 

[Freight Dog]

Flop... PCL128 is an ALPA newbie. He's a young, ambitious guy who hasn't been around long enough to know better.

At Aloha, we have a pilot who was elected and served as EVP at ALPA while he was at his previous carrier... Let's just say that his experiences and views of ALPA National and especially ALPA leadership... at least under Duane Woerth(less) differ significantly from those of our esteemed resident ALPA cheerleader from Pinnacle.

 

[Falcon Jet 1]

This week's Blitz was one of the most productive we have ever had. Thanks to the efforts of over 40 pilots who attended no fewer than 70 meetings, we now have over 100 bipartisan cosponsors on the House and Senate bills. Most importantly, we got the good news that the legislative effort has really gone wheels up this week. On Thursday, the last day of the Blitz, the Senate Commerce Committee introduced the FAA Authorization Bill which includes the complete S.65 language included in Section 706. Earlier this week Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and ranking member Trent Lott (R-MS) signed off on the language being in the FAA bill (The Aviation Investment and Modernization Act of 2007). We expect this bill to begin to move very quickly. The Senate Commerce Committee will markup and vote on the bill the week of the May 14. A lot of hard work by our bill champions, SWAPA and others made this possible.



Make no mistake; this effort could still be sidetracked. It is critical that that we proceed very carefully. It is important to express our thanks and our complete satisfaction to our champions, and all Members of Congress that this provision has been included as a part of the Senate FAA Authorization bill and to urge the House to include the same language in its draft of the bill. Many staff members-- including those who have been opposed to change in the past, have commented about the impact of our lobbying efforts-- and the importance of keeping the pressure on S.65 and H.R. 1125; Boots on the ground = results. We will follow-up with a plan for our next blitz shortly, but it probably would be a good idea for some folks to plan be here the week of the 14th when the committee marks up the bill to make the rounds in support of the effort.

This is from the SWAPA lobbyist, time to start calling to get this bs sidetracked

 

[humuakalaka]

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.

You are 34. I am 35. You may or may not see "getting to work 5 more years as a good thing" 25 years from now. If age 65 passes, then it won't really matter what you think. You will be forced, due to financial reasons, to work five more years to compensate for the time value of money lost as a result of your extended period to upgrade. I don't know about you, but I'd like to have the financial ability to retire at 60, as opposed to having to work until 65 because I haven't been able to build a sufficient retirement nest egg.

Then again, today's growing airlines could be tomorrow's BK queen.

Exactly. What will your airline be doing 25-30 years from now? I don't know either. However, the greedy senior pilots are pretty certain that their current airline, where they sit atop their respective seniority lists, will still be around for the next five years or so. It's a sure thing for them.

On the other hand, in exchange for giving them the ability to fly an extra five years, the greedy senior pilots are asking us to finance their extended work lives with a significant delay to our upgrades. AND, on top of that, they are asking us to make the shaky bet that our current airline will still be around to fly for when it comes time for us to work past 60. Tell me again who gets the better deal? It's entirely possible that us FO's could get shafted at both ends in this deal: A) our upgrades are delayed by two to five years with an accompanying large impact on our career savings due to the time value of money, and B) when it comes time at the end of our careers to recoup the money lost due to the slower upgrade, our airline very well might not be around. This is fair how?

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.

"Limited pilot population"? You mean, like all of the pilots currently hired at an airline? This effects everyone. The more junior you are, the larger the impact (in general). If you have already upgraded, then it should not effect you at all financially but, depending on your seniority, it could have a large effect on your quality of life. If you are 55-60, then this is pretty much money for you.

There are only three viable solutions to 65 that I can think of:
1) don't do it
2) determine a date after which all pilots hired after that date can work until 65. Write into the legislation or rule that all pilots forced to retire at 60 have hiring preference at their current airline if it is still hiring when they retire. Therefore, virtually all pilots would be able to continue working until 65. The only caveat would be some might have to go over to the FO seat and start over on the seniority list from 60 to 65.
3) raise FO pay rates to eliminate the impact of the delayed upgrade on their career earnings and savings.

 

[humuakalaka]

***Whoops-Double post***

 

[Flopgut]

Great post Humuakalaka.

It IS possible we will get shafted on both ends and it will more than likely be from these same pilots. Here is an example of a very real potential problem we may face sooner than later: Age 65 may not work from a physical standpoint. Airline pilots may not hold up too well to the change physically and it may create a backlash from employers and insurance providers. This will result in some proposed medical requirement changes. Now, of course, ALPA has said this won't happen, and we would all be surprised if they didn't resist on our behalf. But what if our illustrious leader were made aware the changes were going to happen anyway? Just like the age 65 rule supposedly is being occasioned? You can fully expect that ALPA will then be interested in grandfathering everyone around the age of...say 52-53, maybe even 49 (whatever age he can get 51%) into the old criteria. JP [ALPA] isn't interested in grandfathering the age 65 rule in some way, but you can bet he will when it comes to any physical requirements!

 

[Flopgut]

Flop... PCL128 is an ALPA newbie. He's a young, ambitious guy who hasn't been around long enough to know better.

He's lost, but at least he's making good time!

I tell you though, thank God for guys like him. I hope that as he learns the finer points of this business he doesn't withdraw enthusiasm.

I'd probably vote for him. In fact, I'd wager that if we had 10 guys like him running ALPA the entire business would be better off! He'd take better care of Prater than Prater is going to take care of him!

 

[Huck]

It's the ultimate "Win-Win" situation.

On the day the flag drops on this disaster:

- An F/O with young kids and a stay-at-home wife will get five more years at the same job for the same pay;

- An S/O will get to look at the panel for 5 more years for the same pay;

- A regional captain raising babies on $45k a year gets another five years to enjoy it;

- A military guy who wants to leave the sandbox and the SAM's behind for his dream job gets to wait another five years;

- A regional F/O who is stacking lumber at Home Depot on his off days gets another five years of explaining to his girlfriend that this really is a good career;

- A CFI gets 5 more years (if he survives) of bug-smashing;

- A CFI-wannabee gets to sell cars, or insurance, or frame houses for 5 more years.


Think I'm exaggerating? O. K. then change each line to 4 years. Make it any better? There's only so many jobs folks. It's a zero-sum deal.

 

[Freight Dog]

He's lost, but at least he's making good time!

I tell you though, thank God for guys like him. I hope that as he learns the finer points of this business he doesn't withdraw enthusiasm.

I'd probably vote for him. In fact, I'd wager that if we had 10 guys like him running ALPA the entire business would be better off! He'd take better care of Prater than Prater is going to take care of him!

AMEN Brother....