The Skinny on the Age 60 Rule

[71KILO]

In this changing environment, age 65 does not move us forward. It is a lateral step at best. It is wasted effort. Lets not just work longer, lets work better.

Lateral step yes, only if they restrict it to 65. You missed my point entirely. ANY government mandate as to a max age is crazy and definately not a free market philosophy toward workers or business in general.

I only get wound up when I talk to people who try to use a verbose vocabulary to sound smart when their ideas are bad overall. The 2004 presidential election was proof of that, otherwise Kerry would have been elected. Thank God for the red states.

As far as the legacy carriers unions not helping to cause there demise... Can you please tell me how they helped to keep them alive despite Lorenzo.

Even DAL and UAL pilots have taken numerous pay-cuts to keep the airlines alive. UAL's recalling pilots and Delta may just make it out of bankrupcy. NWA is a slightly different deal in my opinion, they may actually strike.

The traditional view is killing this industry. Time to think outside of the box; Herb at SWA figured that out (and no I don't have a 73 type). Dump the 60 rule, that will take care of workers. Passengers want the most qualified not the youngest, as well as the lowest fare. Imagine how much an airline would save on training alone. Your attitude, no matter how much you try to show your knowledge of the industry, is all about you. Don't try to tell me how you're thinking of the younger guys. You just don't want to be delayed one minute in your career.

 

[Flopgut]

Flop-
you gotta look at your post for a second before you hit the Submit button and see what crazy crap you're writing. Management would like everyone to retire after 2-3 years. No top of scale, no retirements and no expensive health care. You know this! Now grab a paper bag and breathe into it, you'll calm down in a minute.

If you could get CALPA to write an age 60 retirement into their CBA, CAL would probably give up something valuable to the junior folks. Getting such a CBA ratified by your pilots, well that's something else entirely.

Ease up on the defeatist stuff. Lets stick to what is in play. Our starting point is much better than what you are talking about mgts wanting. This issue is vastly more valuable to mgts for it divisive nature. Its basically 50/50 with a slight majority standing against a change. Which is contrary to how things may go with legislation. So the opportunity for mgts to exploit this is huge! At CAL we still have a remaining A plan benefit that the company can threaten the old pilots (the ones that should be retired) with. Old pilots would sell out the younger ones at any cost to save that A plan and the young ones (with no A plan) can't get caught up because the old ones are holding us back. We won't be able to negotiate in any forward thinking manner. The geezers, who are supposed to be retired, will be screwing the whole thing up!

 

[Flopgut]

Lateral step yes, only if they restrict it to 65. You missed my point entirely. ANY government mandate as to a max age is crazy and definately not a free market philosophy toward workers or business in general.

I only get wound up when I talk to people who try to use a verbose vocabulary to sound smart when their ideas are bad overall. The 2004 presidential election was proof of that, otherwise Kerry would have been elected. Thank God for the red states.

As far as the legacy carriers unions not helping to cause there demise... Can you please tell me how they helped to keep them alive despite Lorenzo.

Even DAL and UAL pilots have taken numerous pay-cuts to keep the airlines alive. UAL's recalling pilots and Delta may just make it out of bankrupcy. NWA is a slightly different deal in my opinion, they may actually strike.

The traditional view is killing this industry. Time to think outside of the box; Herb at SWA figured that out (and no I don't have a 73 type). Dump the 60 rule, that will take care of workers. Passengers want the most qualified not the youngest, as well as the lowest fare. Imagine how much an airline would save on training alone. Your attitude, no matter how much you try to show your knowledge of the industry, is all about you. Don't try to tell me how you're thinking of the younger guys. You just don't want to be delayed one minute in your career.

What you're supporting in the current legislation is an age change only. You are not promoting free market philosophies in the least! What you are supporting is selfish and only about you! If that were not true you would be supporting a change to the retirement metrics but not be satisfied with the current proposed legislation, or at least have some alternatives. But you don't! You have only the narrowest of visions: give me what I want, now!

You don't know enough about unions and I don't have time to teach you everything. Consider this: Seniority (the way we have it set up now) is not unlike the uniform we all wear. Uniforms make those of us who know how to dress well look worse, and others who don't know how to dress appropriately look better. But everybody ends up looking the same. The entire rank and file look uniform and are treated uniformly. An age change upsets the uniformity. A small group of pilots get to stand out and absorb a larger portion of what we are all working for. Not through discipline, effort, or any thing that is truly free market-like. So, I say we don't change it (ever), or if we have to change the age limit then we should also consider letting more than simple longevity determine advancement. You have to agree with that if you want to bring free market initiatives to our profession. Thats thinking outside the box!

 

[Phaedrus]

Flop, you d@mn commie, Hitleresque, Mussolini lovin', Che Guevarra-havin'-over-to-dinner, free market hatin', Adam Smith killin' fascist.

 

[pilotyip]

Phae, how many people you think know who Adam Smith is? Who have actually read "Weath of Nations". Even with all the college grads out here.

 

[71KILO]

What you're supporting in the current legislation is an age change only. You are not promoting free market philosophies in the least! What you are supporting is selfish and only about you! If that were not true you would be supporting a change to the retirement metrics but not be satisfied with the current proposed legislation, or at least have some alternatives. But you don't! You have only the narrowest of visions: give me what I want, now!

You don't know enough about unions and I don't have time to teach you everything. Consider this: Seniority (the way we have it set up now) is not unlike the uniform we all wear. Uniforms make those of us who know how to dress well look worse, and others who don't know how to dress appropriately look better. But everybody ends up looking the same. The entire rank and file look uniform and are treated uniformly. An age change upsets the uniformity. A small group of pilots get to stand out and absorb a larger portion of what we are all working for. Not through discipline, effort, or any thing that is truly free market-like. So, I say we don't change it (ever), or if we have to change the age limit then we should also consider letting more than simple longevity determine advancement. You have to agree with that if you want to bring free market initiatives to our profession. Thats thinking outside the box!

So what your saying is: You're not able to dress properly so you need someone to tell you how to dress. You don't like the fact that others look better than you so you want everyone to look as bad as you. You're not able to advance on your own merrit so want someone else to decide when everyone will advance. You don't want to be held back in your advancement so you want eveyone to be kicked out at a predetermined time so you can move up. You're not healthy with that flopgut so you definately don't want someone more healthy to make it to 60 able to continue with a class 1. Who's the selfish one?

I'm done talking about it. If you read my previous posts you would know that I do support other metrics to contiued ops after 60. Health, checksrides, no-notice checks, etc. or even the ICAO idea of having a copilot under 60 if the captain is over 60.

I'm, done you have the last word. I'm too busy and don't have the desire to continue with this thread. Unions? All for them to a point and Further, I really don't care to listen to any of your "lessons on unions." Good luck teaching the rest of your followers...

 

[Phaedrus]

Phae, how many people you think know who Adam Smith is? Who have actually read "Weath of Nations". Even with all the college grads out here.

Am I being too optimistic?

 

[pilotyip]

Phed, I remember in Smith's writing "Preachers and Lawyers are parasites upon an economy". That makes it worth reading.

 

[furloughed dude]

pilotyip,
Not sure about "Weath of Nations." Fill me in on that one... Now, "Queef of Nations," that is a different story,

For those fags that are in favor of age 60, tough luck. You should have taken care of your retirement. Don't ask the rest of us to fly five more years due to your fiscal mismanagement...

 

[Phaedrus]

"Capitals are increased by parsimony, and diminished by prodigality and misconduct." --The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith

It would seem that many airline executives didn't read it either. Not that it's the final word, but it's chock-full-o-common sense.