The Skinny on the Age 60 Rule

[3BCat]

i see your point...but if money is not the issue..what is ? the love of flying..it seems this issue was brought up again because of the lost pensions.. MONEY!!! my issue is that if i retire early, i get penalized...now i will get penalized even more...is that fair? what about my B-fund..what happens to that? so i am having trouble figuring out how money is not the issue...and as far as others controlling our lives...we are pilots..most of of fly where we are told or are scheduled...so we are controlled constantly..thanks

Hey Captain Mark!

The discussion here is pretty good. Thanks.

I keep thinking about my grandfather, a truck mechanic, retired after 42 years of work at age 60. He died at 63. He retired, and lived comfortably for a very brief time. Typical of the life expectancy for a man born in 1890's.

My father retired after 33 years as a school teacher, a noble profession, and is living modestly but comfortably and will be 83 this March. He has been retired for almost as many years as he worked. He has exceeded the life expectancy for his generation, and is in excellent health.

I have a wife, 2 children, 2 cars, a house and a modest used boat. I live in comfort, save and invest, and I expect to be looking for a new job at age 60.

The post 9/11 airlines have started a disheartening trend that is spreading to other industries. Defined Benefit Retirement plans are being scrapped.

With the life expectancy growing ever longer, do you really think this is all about the money? I will work 36 years, for multiple employers, none of which are willing, or capable, of sustaining a portion of my income for the remainder of my life after 60.

How does your individual plan get affected? I don't know. Usually the longer you work, the better your benefit...if it is still funded by the time you retire. I hope it's there for you. Mine is already gone, and I have fewer years ahead, than I do behind.

So, "Whats the point?" you ask. The point is I've worked, saved, and managed the best I know how, and will not be able to simply retire. The majority of the contributors to this thread, whether they know it or not, are going to join me. The right for each of us to earn his keep is what I'm talking about. I don't want charity, pity, scorn, or respect.

It's about dignity.

 

[Phaedrus]

Dignity, schmignity. It's about the cabbage. But hey, whatever gets you through the night, it's alright.

 

[Flopgut]

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

Chest, you work for SWA, so you are used to handling large sums of money, let me put my point into terms you might understand better. If the airline pilot business was a mutual fund, would you be happy with the terms of this proposed change? (Nevermind that it would probably be illegal) The fund has had a few bad years. A large number of participants want a correction that will accelerate their own personal gains in the plan. In exchange they are offering those remaining in the plan less returns over a longer period of time. Your financial interests in the plan are going to earn you less and you have to wait longer to get it. Sound good?

Future returns are not guaranteed at my airline, cash is king.

 

[Flopgut]

The airlines don't hire pilots because someone retires. Pilot hiring occurs when the airlines have growth. Period. Dot. Period.

What part of mandatory retirement don't you understand? Initiative got each of to where we are today. If your career is on hold, it's on hold only because of your personal choices.

None of us "In Favor" are asking for your charity. Only the chance to work at the job we love (and already have), while we are still capable. I say again, "If your career is on hold, it's not because I have a job".

If you can't see that what's mine is not yours, just give up our present job, and try to replace it, dollar for dollar! Let me know how that turns out for ya.

In a manner of speaking, what you have is mine, and others that will follow me. I intend to enjoy it, respect it, try to improve it, and then pass it on.

You get quite carried away with yourself. This is a seniority system. Growth may create some opportunities, but there is only one way to get more senior. (Think about what the word senior means) You get in this business what your DOH will give you--thats it! We don't compete for "senior" [better] positions based on our merits. They don't look at your reliability, your continuing educational efforts, how well you are liked, nothing like that. Would you like to go with rostering and equipment assignments and abandon seniority? Hey, it may not be the best for me I'll admit, but I'd rather take my chances with that than just forfiet five years to you. At least with that the junior pilots have a chance at timely advancement.

I think you actually understand seniority very well. I think you understand the timing of this effort very well. I think I know why you so easily shrug off the concerns of the recently retired and why you completely dismiss the notion that you could get another non 121 job. You know this is close and its a huge homerun for you. So your just BSing with the discrimination and "its not fair" stuff. You smell the dough. You reveal as much with the statement: "whats mine is not yours".

An age change attacks seniority, It has been attacked before. There is a term for those individuals and their names are written on lists. IMHO, this is only a slightly more noble attack. I feel for pilots in your position, but we should not be asked to give so much. Why don't you offer a compromise of some sort? Its hardly a "choice" when it is so lopsided.

 

[ivauir]

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. I do not believe you were promised to work past 60. 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. You want me to be an FO longer (and make less money) so that you can play by different rules than anyone who went before you. 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, (I doubt many will leave early) it allows them to go out on their own terms.

You want junior guys to stay longer in the right seat than you did so you can keep the job that everyone before you was kicked out of. You want the rules changed for your benefit but the FO's should just suck it up and it is too late to save the retirees. Not only that, you think I should support an adgenda that serves your needs above everybody else's. Sorry, you are not holding the moral high ground here, and I am not caving. You have a much better chance passing a change that the majority of pilots favors. You will never get the majority to favor something that benefits ppl in such a disproportionate manner. We can argue this until this thread is 100 pages long, but at the end of the day the majority of pilots will be against SR65. For better support don't argue with some idiot FO on the internet - craft better legeslation.

I think I've made my point. I am offically abandoning this thread.

Peace - see you in the lounge.

 

[The Prussian]

You want junior guys to stay longer in the right seat than you did so you can keep the job that everyone before you was kicked out of. You want the rules changed for your benefit but the FO's should just suck it up and it is too late to save the retirees. Not only that, you think I should support an adgenda that serves your needs above everybody else's. Sorry, you are not holding the moral high ground here, and I am not caving.

Realize that many of us have been supporting these changes for well over 20 years.

TP

 

[Klako]

Click-on to sign-up http://www.apaad.org/blitz/blitz.htmland attend the March 14-15 Airline Pilots rally to the United States Congress in Washington DC, which will hopefully help change the age 60 rule for pilots to age 65.
We are loosing our nation’s most qualified airline pilots. Thousands of Airline pilots in the United States are being forced out their profession simply because of a harmful and seriously out-dated law.
Important legislation is now under consideration in both the United States Senate and House of Representatives. Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) introduced Senate Bill S. 65, which would correct this injustice. This bill would raise the arbitrary, yet mandatory; Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) retirement age of commercial airline pilots to reflect the age when Social Security benefits can begin. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has now approved S.65, with an amendment offered by Senators Conrad Burns (R-Montana) and Ted Stevens (R-Arkansas). This bill would adopt the new international standard, now proposed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The ICAO is currently in the process of formalizing age 65 as the mandatory retirement age for airline pilots. Bill S.65 now proceeds to the full Senate for its consideration. There is a companion bill in House of Representatives, H.R.65 that was introduced by Congressman Jim Gibbons (R-Nevada).
The rest of the world does not see piloting an airliner past the age of 60 as a safety issue. Most of the world is moving to a retirement age of 65 for airline pilots. Japan and the Netherlands, to name but two, have done extensive studies which showed raising an airline pilot’s age is not a risk. Countries such as Japan, Australia, those of the Joint Aviation Authority in Europe...all have raised their pilots’ retirement age. Some 45 nations now allow their airline pilots to fly past the age of 60. Some of these pilots do so in United States airspace. The ICAO Secretariat has recommended a new upper age limit, with restriction to multi-crew, of 65 years. This recommendation is based on extensive studies, global experience (data compiled from 63 States) with older pilots, totaling 25,500 pilot-years, and the expressed wish of 93 States. The International Civil Aviation Organization—ICAO, now recognizes the harm of the age 60 rule standard and Proposes to amend the international standard to age 65, which should become applicable on 23 November 2006. The Burns substitute amendment to The U.S. Senate Bill S. 65, if voted into law by the U.S. Congress, would direct the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary to adopt the ICAO standard or recommended practice within 30 days after the ICAO acts on the matter.

Plan on being in Washington, DC on March 14 and 15 with a group of airline pilots from all companies with the intent of influencing Congress into voting in favor of changing the age 60 rule. This will likely be voted upon in late March. We need lots of help, would you be interested in being there also? If so you can Click-on to sign-up here. http://www.apaad.org/blitz/blitz.html

​

​

Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination​

CAPITAL HILL BLITZ

March 14-15.
BID ACCORDINGLY—WE NEED YOUR ATTENDANCE

SPREAD THE WORD
I know a lot of folks think changing the rule is a done deal. Nothing could be further from the truth! Although, ICAO (the world) is changing to 65, having the US change will only occur if we MAKE it occur. And that means political effort on The Hill.

Our chore in March will be to bring over the Republicans who voted 'nay' before; ensure the Democrats who voted 'yay' stay yes; and to try to bring over a few 'nay' Democrats as well.

And that is only in the Senate! We need to begin work in the House as well.

PLEASE JOIN US IN DC

​

It is not necessary to have BOTH March 14th and 15th off to attend.​

One day is better than none.

​

 

[71KILO]

Hey there 71K libertarian guy: You don't like government and you don't like Hillary's vision of "it takes a village"? Well you sure aren't shy about asking the "village" to help you out!

I give; what the H3LL are you talking about? This ought to be good...

 

[71KILO]

I see the age 60 rule not only as pure age discrimination but it is also in a sense socialism, taking from those who have earned their seniority and giving it to those who do have not. What one earns does not belong to others. Pilots should expect to gain seniority not at the expense of others but as a result of their hard work, fortunes and success gained within the company they work for, i.e. expansion and natural attrition. We earn our profession and our seniority; it is in a sense our property. The state must not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property, without due process. The FAA’s age 60 rule deprives qualified pilots of just that.

EXACTLY!!!
This aint Sherwood Forest Robin Hood. You earn it; you keep it. I'm not paying my dues to get tossed just because I've gone around the sun 60 times. Screw that!

 

[Flopgut]

I give; what the H3LL are you talking about? This ought to be good...

You and those who share your perspective want everyone else in this business (the village) to stand down with our normal career progression and support your desire to continue to work. A "right" you claim uniquely for yourself. You don't care about the recently retired, the furloughed, the junior or anyone else. Just yourself.

Note to those who want to retire at 60. If your carrier still has a DB plan this will hurt you. Normal retirement age will follow any rule change, so retirement at 60 will be termed early. At CAL that means (for example) if you have 25 years at age 60 and you want to retire, you will lose 450K plus of your lump sum. This is according to a CALALPA committee member.