The Skinny on the Age 60 Rule

[Phaedrus]

The only thing I ask is some understanding and compassion from those that are going to benefit from this change.

That's a hoot! I wish you luck with that request.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Can anyone against change explain how they would tell someone being forced to retire/fired at 60 how that is more fair than changing to 65? Admittedly those that have already passed their 60th are left out, but they are also left out with no change. The arguement that it is about money is a wash on both sides. I do not understand the entitlement attitude that one is owed an upgrade at X years and X months. Everyone enjoying an airline carrier under the same rules is impossible. ivauir, how about you examine some of the upcoming retirements at SWA and see what those guys made their first year, as well as their benefits and work rules. Even adjusted for inflation, you got a much better deal. If 60 is fair, why don't we just limit the nuber of years you can work 121. They pilot hired at 45 gets to work as long as the one hired at 30. Yeah, that would be fair.

Arguing that someone at age 60 shouldn't need the money and it is their own fault that they are not in a position to retire doesn't hold water. Why not just have an earnings cap? If you can perform the job to the established standard, you should be able to keep your job, period. Advancement based solely upon seniority is the real culprit in this business.

 

[ivauir]

Can anyone against change explain how they would tell someone being forced to retire/fired at 60 how that is more fair than changing to 65? Admittedly those that have already passed their 60th are left out, but they are also left out with no change. Ok, you made my first point for me. Secondly, the senority stagnation and upgrade delay that has been discussed here quite a bit. The arguement that it is about money is a wash on both sides. I do not understand the entitlement attitude that one is owed an upgrade at X years and X months. I do not understand the entitlement mentality of those on top of the senority pile who think that they are special and we should all agree to change the rules to thier benefit. Everyone enjoying an airline carrier under the same rules is impossible. ivauir, how about you examine some of the upcoming retirements at SWA and see what those guys made their first year, as well as their benefits and work rules. How about you examine current upgrade expectations/stock option values for the junior guys. Even adjusted for inflation, you got a much better deal. If 60 is fair, why don't we just limit the nuber of years you can work 121. They pilot hired at 45 gets to work as long as the one hired at 30. Yeah, that would be fair.

Arguing that someone at age 60 shouldn't need the money and it is their own fault that they are not in a position to retire doesn't hold water. Why not just have an earnings cap? If you can perform the job to the established standard, you should be able to keep your job, period. Advancement based solely upon seniority is the real culprit in this business.

I apprecate your opinion and the emotional nature of this debate. I am not saying the current rule is fair or that any change needs to be perfectly fair. I am saying that SR65 is quite unfair and I will never support anything so onesided. I understand your point of view, and there are excellent reasons to change the rule, but you cannot ignore the effects on ppl out side of your demographic.

I still do not hear anyone supporting retiries' right to return.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Okay, I will support retirees right to return. I will admit that is an easy stand since it is unattainable.

How can you say that it is entitlement to expect to stay at a job that you are qualified for. The basis for the age 60 law has zero merit. The same argument can be made again for 65, but common sense would lead most to believe that it will allow more to leave on their own terms.

 

[ivauir]

Okay, I will support retirees right to return. I will admit that is an easy stand since it is unattainable. How so? No more unattainable than changing the rule right now.

How can you say that it is entitlement to expect to stay at a job that you are qualified for. The same way you are saying it is an entitlement for me to expect my advancement to depend on the same set of rules that those who are now senior advanced under. The basis for the age 60 law has zero merit. The same argument can be made again for 65, but common sense would lead most to believe that it will allow more to leave on their own terms.

SR65 in a generational windfall. You cannot honestly expect me to support delaying my upgrade by four to five years in exchange for being allowed to work until I am 67 (if I can pass a medical that long). Let the over 60 crowd work as FOs. Let retirees return. That way there is always someone in the cockpit below 60, upgrades will continue, those who really want to work still can, and those who just want to sit at the top for another 5 years can move on. Or find some other compromise.

Let me phrase it another way. Age 60 has been the law of the land for some time now. What is so special about our current crop of gray beards that they deserve special treatment?

I continue to support a change to the age 60 rule, just not SR65. Continue to ignore the effects on the younger crowd and will continue to be a house divided. Even if you convice me the majority still opposes you. Why not pursue a compromise and get your legeslation passed for a change?

 

[b757driver]

Wow. Thanks for the not-so-subtle jab at how my career is progressing. You're a class act. Look, I didn't even get a shot in this business until I had a bunch of time. I could fly captain in EWR, I just really don't want to go back there yet.

This business is kinda like sports. The hardest part of all is getting on the field and getting some playing time. You can make the team, and you can be a good player that can contribute, but it is hard to make it onto the field as a starter. You get overlooked, traded, injured or whatever...something can keep it from happening. In the case of this business, there is a lot of talent riding the bench. We have bad owners, bad coaches, and team captains with questionable leadership. The game is not going so well that you can strike from consideration the idea that the JV could do better. I don't want to give this group of starters another down, another series, inning, or quarter. I want the team to win the game.

You can characterize my position how you want, but it is certainly not one of greed. Unlike you, I'm not asking for a windfall. I want the same chance everyone gets, and I want to see those same terms passed on. I have lived through some rough times in this business, I know all about it. If you can't see any way to make a living other than being an airline captain , I have zero sympathy for you.

Excellent analagy, Flopgut! I couldn't have put it better myself and I agree 100% with what you say.
Far too many people (usually those that have never been there!) assume that every pilot has had a perfect career (sounds like that inane interview question: "where would you like to be in 5 years time?" Duhhh,.....still in this job with this company!)and started at age 20. Also, that your on your third set of alimony and have to sell the yacht. Boy, are those people living on another planet! Not ALL pilots are like that. And if you are talking about "bad" career decisions, pray tell me how read a crystal ball?
The point is bad things happen to lots of good people. Most of what has happened in the airline biz the last 2 decades are completely outside the control of the individual line pilot. So, don't talk to me about bad decisions or not being committed to a company. You couldn't be more wrong there!!!
For some, it's just about making ends meet and being able to AFFORD to retire, not about making more and more and more and sod the rest.
Flopgut spelled it out nicely.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

So you think someone should loose their job or seat position so you can upgrade sooner?

Yes, it is a generational windfall. Everyone, under age 60 will have a greater window to leave on their own terms. I do not believe that any of use were promised an upgrade at a set time when we were hired. The losers are those that are past 60. The airlines will lobby against the cost associated with bringing back retirees. I know of no one who thinks that bringing back retirees is winable at this time.

You want the senior guys to take a pay cut (become an FO) or loose their jobs so that you can upgrade (and make more money) sooner. On each side of this issue there is a winner and loser. With age 60, the loser takes a 100% pay cut. With age 65 that cut is delayed. Although I doubt that most would stay until the mandatory age, it allows them to go out on their own terms.

Yes, those yet to upgrade will be delayed which will delay a monetary gain. They will also have the opportunity to work longer, if they choose to do so. Will this result in a better retirement for the junior guy/girl? We can come up with examples to support either side of the equation.

Age 60 is not fair, period. Changing it to 65, 67, or whatever is not fair either. Which one is less unfair depends largely on your perspective/seat.

 

[Flopgut]

Age 60 is not fair, period. Changing it to 65, 67, or whatever is not fair either. Which one is less unfair depends largely on your perspective/seat.

Clearly then, the lesser of two evils is to treat everyone the same.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

The lesser of two evils would clearly be for no one to be fired because of their birthday.

 

[b757driver]

So.......we are all agreed that, in principle, no one should be mandated to leave a company solely because he/she has reached a certain age and it's been that way for almost 50 years?