The Skinny on the Age 60 Rule

[pilotyip]

I feel it coming, put me back in that DC-9, if the union guys want to retire at 60 they can put it in their contract

 

[Flopgut]

This is an old thread, but I don't want to miss a chance to agree with Ivauir (because we disagree so much).

Its not that we should tolerate this proposed change because it only happens once. We should not tolerate this proposed change because it only works once. And to be completely correct, it only really works for a very small number of senior pilots. It is the "law of the land" so to speak. Changing it now is in very poor taste. We need to stick with what we have and drive pay and benefits up so we can get back to where quitting at 60 is once again a perk. Not long ago, on a similiar thread, I was accused of having a "scab" mentality for my thoughts on age 60. I pointed out that what was actually going on is a minority of pilots are trying to short circuit the fair and established progression of seniority outside the collective bargaining process uniquely to their benefit. Now that's a "scab" mentality. That guy didn't answer me back for some reason. If it has to change then lets make sure there is no age limit. And, lets make sure any pilot who is still alive (and wants to) comes back to the airline. I want 90 year olds flying airplanes ASAP! I want to see an electric cart wheel up to the gate with two geezers in uniform and be delivered to the flight deck on an aisle chair! Wouldn't that be great? Mostly, I would like to see these pilots come back and give the "age change" crowd the same "kick in the seeds" they want to give me. Oh I know it wouldn't be good for me, but I would still like to see the 55 year old 777 CA get tossed out of his seat by a 75 year old.

Age 65 is a cop out. It hurts this profession in the long run.

 

[ESS PWR]

This is an old thread, but I don't want to miss a chance to agree with Ivauir (because we disagree so much).

We need to stick with what we have and drive pay and benefits up so we can get back to where quitting at 60 is once again a perk. .

A while back I mentioned that perhaps this is an issue to be looked at when airlines are once again consistently profitable. If at some point in the near future pilots are once again able to obtain their old retirement plan assets, and even enhance it a bit, few will probably continue to advocate a change in retirement age rules, but it would likely be a quiet issue.

I also mentioned that age 60 or 65 is still inconsistent with our age discrimination laws, therefore any mandatory retirement age would be contitutionally wrong. Unfortunately, very few policies coming out of DC these days are driven by righteousness, but are rather economically driven. If the ATA heavily lobbies against any change in the rule due to economics, then the rule is likely to remain in place for some time to come regardless of morality and justice pertaining the issue.

 

[71KILO]

Old thread but I must say: The age 60 mandatory retirement is against the law! It's called age discrimination. You guys that are looking at this as an attrition or safety thing are hopelessly lost and very selfish. There will still be attrition and safety is improved!!! Do you honestly think that all age 60+ 121 pilots will be able to pass an FAA class 1? Do you think they will all be able to pass a checkride for that matter. This isn't the DMV for God sake. If you you must create a rule then have tighter medical standards for those over 60. Hell, even the DMV makes older folks take vision tests, and some states make them take a driving test. Why not the FAA? Look, pilots will retrire on their own (tired of the B.S.), or they won't be able to pass a physical, or checkride; which ever comes first. These legal mandatory retirments obviously create openings for new captains and FO new hires. I personally want to be an old pilot with a bag full of experience to use in a pinch. I'm still filling up my bag of expereince and anyone who says they have enough is a bold pilot not an old pilot, and we all know where that leads. There is an old saying that can be taken two ways: A pilot will one day walk to an airplane knowing it's his last flight or not knowing it is his last flight. One way supports the age 60 rule but the other way is a pilot makes the personal decision to retire whether due to the B.S., medical, or skills. Those against these bills are selve serving and scare me. Those voting con are the same people that will vote pro when they get to their late 50's with two allimony bills and five child support payments eating PB&Js in the crew lounge trying to impress future flight attendant wife #3. From now on I say anyone over 70 should be youthenized! People over 70 are useless to society and are cloggin up the streets of south Florida. We need attrition when it comes to senior discounts!!! Yikes... Stay healthy!

 

[Bringupthebird]

Mostly, I would like to see these pilots come back and give the "age change" crowd the same "kick in the seeds" they want to give me.

I've been supporting abolishing the Age 60 rule since I was a 22 year old F/O, and I know many F/O's who support it as well. When the two biggest reasons for keeping the rule are 1) It's all about ME and 2) It's always been done that way, then support for your side drops off dramatically. If those two criteria had been the litmus test in 1958, we wouldn't be having this conversation, as no Age 60 rule would exist.

 

[Flopgut]

I've been supporting abolishing the Age 60 rule since I was a 22 year old F/O, and I know many F/O's who support it as well. When the two biggest reasons for keeping the rule are 1) It's all about ME and 2) It's always been done that way, then support for your side drops off dramatically. If those two criteria had been the litmus test in 1958, we wouldn't be having this conversation, as no Age 60 rule would exist.

Remember that a majority of pilots have said no to a change.

Regarding your "reasons" 1) Its all about me, AND the pilot behind me, and the pilot behind them, and the pilot in front of you, and the pilot in front of them. Its about parity. I'm in line for a turn at whatever comes to me in this business. I want my fair share, no more, no less.

Whatever sort of motivation produced the retirement age in 1958 is irrelevant, really. It still would be some number. We would still be dealing with all the problems we have today and the age change crowd would still want a change to suit thier own selfish needs. That is why, if we increase the age now by say 5 years, in 5 years this same group will want it changed again. And there will be a precedent for them to use; You changed it once, change it again. We should not feed the greed.

 

[Phaedrus]

Flopgut: well said. This whole pseudo-righteous indignation about discrimination is comical. Fess up boys & girls, it's about the cash. Period.
Oh, as for the "selfish" and "greedy" tags for those who want to keep things the way they are (i.e. the way they were when they got into this gig), at least they aren't hiding behind the p.c. word of the decade.

 

[Purpledog]

As long as an astronaut physical for ALL pilots accompanies the change. Attrition would skyrocket and hopefully cut off the supply from the tap as well.

 

[3BCat]

To all opposed.

Given the choice, would you like to stop flying on your own terms or by government mandate?

The mandatory age for retirement is 60. Its the same for eveyone. You don't have a choice. If it gets raised or eliminated, so be it. It's still the same for everyone. If it is eliminated, the choice becomes yours, and it remains the same for everyone.

Attrition provides relatively few openings for airline pilots. When was the last time you heard an airline announcement for hiring that stated we plan to retire "X" number of pilots this year, and will hire the same? (I'd like to see it, too.)

Look at the airlines that are hiring today. They all have growth projections, and aircraft orders. Growth is the prime driver in pilot hiring and career opportunities for airline pilots.

It's all too convenient to blame the industry regulations for our career failures and shortcomings. If you really want it, go for it. If you don't give it a shot, you're either afraid to try, or you are afraid of change.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Flop-
With 11K hrs you must be a captain at a major, so how does changing the retirement age affect you? Unless the fickle finger of fate happened to point you to the door at some point in your career, either due to your fault or not. Suppose this had happened at age 55 and another 5 years could make a huge difference in your post-airline lifestyle.

 

[Phaedrus]

Given the choice, would you like to stop flying on your own terms or by government mandate?

A more appropriate question would be: Given the choice, would you like to keep the rules as are, or would you rather change them to the detriment of most and the benefit of some?
Look, if we were starting this whole issue from the beginning I'd agree with you. The reality is, we are not.
Your question is relevant only if we were just starting this whole pilot profession business.

 

[Klako]

Age 65 is a cop out. It hurts this profession in the long run.

The age 60 rule has been perpetuated by big union politics for too long but now the reality of the situation now must be considered and attitudes must be changed. Wake up people, the world is changing. If you think that future events will bring back retiring at age 60, then you are in for a rude awakening. The economic reality of the future is that most everyone, not just airline pilots, will have to work past age 67 just to survive. This may be the last chance that an obvious wrong can be corrected. True professional airline pilots are fighting for their careers, their future and their ability to earn a living in a chosen profession. Most pilots, like me, only have a 401K. If I were forced to retire at age 60, on my 401K plus a low paying job, I would be living the rest of my life in poverty with no menical coverage until MEDICARE at age 65. At the very least, most of us wish to work to the limits of the DBGC (age 65) and the Social Security fund distribution age.

The rule is age discrimination, pure and simple. If the record shows that more experienced pilots have a better safety record than do younger less experienced pilots (and it does), why should they be treated differently than other Americans?

It is becoming clear that as a result of recent actions by the ALPA and APA, the so-called legacy carriers like United, American, Northwest and Delta they are condemned to the death throws of extinction. Greed, ineptness and blindness to reality will also destroy the likes of the ALPA and APA. The old guard pioneers of the golden age of aviation should be raging mad in their graves at the miss deeds of today’s big union politics.

 

[Phaedrus]

Here we go again...

 

[Klako]

PROs & CONs Summary of 'Age 65' prepared by US Airwayspilot...gc

PROs
1.) 5 YR's additional "earned income, W-2."
2.) 5 YR's additional "company DCP contributions."
3.) 5 YR's additional "personal 401k contributions."
4.) 5 YR's additional "company medical plan."
5.) 5 YR's additional "company dental plan."
6.) 5 YR's additional "active employee pass benefit."
7.) 5 YR's additional "social security contribution-which should yeild a higher benefit."
8.) 5 YR's additional "company life insurance."
9.) 5 YR's additional "company ADD insurance."
10.) 5 YR's additional "personal contribution to IRA."
11.) 5 YR's additional "financially plan for a severely changed retirement picture."
12.) 5 YR's additional "investment management and market conditions."
13.) 5 YR's additional "to match more appropriately with the 100% PBGC benefit level of $43,000." If current legislation is "not" adopted by congress.
14.) The much more seamless way, Age 65, blends into normal American retirement. (Social Security, Medicare.)
15.) In no way does, Age 65, preclude an individual from retiring at an earlier age if still desired- (example- 61, 62, 63, 64.
CONs
1.) Chance of previously retired pilots being recalled.
2.) Chance of slower career progresstion and career expectations.
3.) Possible adverse or increased medical scrutiny.
-------------

Source: http://www.apaad.org/

 

[3BCat]

A more appropriate question would be: Given the choice, would you like to keep the rules as are, or would you rather change them to the detriment of most and the benefit of some?
Look, if we were starting this whole issue from the beginning I'd agree with you. The reality is, we are not.
Your question is relevant only if we were just starting this whole pilot profession business.

You miss the point. The question that you need to consider is one of choice. Do you want to make your choices, or have them made for you? Either way, the rules are the same for everyone.

 

[Phaedrus]

3B: Patently false. The choice has already been made. So the original question itself is a non-sequitir.
Klako: Add to the list of cons the very real "chance" (funny euphemism; also funny how all the "pros" are without doubt) that a whole lot of folks who are out on the street right now won't get called back for a very long time.

 

[Flopgut]

Flop-
With 11K hrs you must be a captain at a major, so how does changing the retirement age affect you? Unless the fickle finger of fate happened to point you to the door at some point in your career, either due to your fault or not. Suppose this had happened at age 55 and another 5 years could make a huge difference in your post-airline lifestyle.

It is almost 12k now, and no, I'm still an FO (CAL). I'm not sure how long you have been following things on this board, but I have explained this before. My family has been through this, my father suddenly lost his airline job (airline tanked) in his early 50s, nearly wrecked our whole family. But we got our butts to work and got through it. I'm not going to say we are better off for it, I don't think we are, but I know what I'm talking about on the subject of how bad this business can get. It was a defining moment; very much a permanent before and after. Frankly, I can't believe I wasn't smarter and went into another line of work.

So, that sort of argument won't float for me. We picked ourselves up and these others can too. No one is saying that you can't fly past 60. You can fly FAR 91, fractional, FAR 135, pipeline, instruct, you name it. Plenty of opportunities. You just can't fly FAR 121. Of course none of that appeals to the "fat, dumb and happy" among us who just want to soak up an extra helping of being an airline captain.

 

[3BCat]

Phaedrus, My point exactly! Not your choice.

 

[Phaedrus]

3b: *sigh*

 

[3BCat]

3b: *sigh*

I wasn't expecting submission.

A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.

 

[ivauir]

You miss the point. The question that you need to consider is one of choice. Do you want to make your choices, or have them made for you? Either way, the rules are the same for everyone.

No the rules are not the same for everyone. The recently retired are SOL, those currently on top of the senioty pile get to stay there for an addtional 5 years and those on the bottom the pile get to stay on the bottom for some period of time that no one knows because no one knows how many will stay (I bet it will be most). So if SR65 passes the rules are not at all the same for everyone.
Suggesting that changing it to 65 is all about fairness and ignoring the effect this WILL have on senority ensures there will be a sharp division in our ranks. It is about money; you want the chance to make more. Just say it, there is nothing to be ashamed of. But don't act like this rule picks on you personally, as it currently stands it effects us all the same. It is the change that will affectus all differently. If you want the support of the younger crowd, I suggest you come up with a more equitable change.

Isn't it interesting that my compromise (let em stay as FOs) gets dismissed so readily. It is all or nothing with this bunch I guess ...

 

[Clyde]

I don't have an issue with guys wanting to fly past 60 as long as it doesen't affect people who want to retire early. Right now, if I retire at 55 I take an 8% hit per year on my retirement. Let them raise the age as long as there is a clause preventing companies from dinging your retirement if 60 is the new early retirement age.

This is all the more incentive to invest on your own and retire when your personal investments dictate so, and not at the mercy of your company's retirement plan. I'm planning to use my pension solely as gravy money and planning to retire very comfortably strictly on what I save up. With that being said, I still do not want any of my pension penalized for retiring early, free money or not. I enjoy flying airplanes, but I don't particularly care to be doing it past 60, let alone past 55.

 

[Flopgut]

The age 60 rule has been perpetuated by big union politics for too long but now the reality of the situation now must be considered and attitudes must be changed. Wake up people, the world is changing. If you think that future events will bring back retiring at age 60, then you are in for a rude awakening. The economic reality of the future is that most everyone, not just airline pilots, will have to work past age 67 just to survive. This may be the last chance that an obvious wrong can be corrected. True professional airline pilots are fighting for their careers, their future and their ability to earn a living in a chosen profession. Most pilots, like me, only have a 401K. If I were forced to retire at age 60, on my 401K plus a low paying job, I would be living the rest of my life in poverty with no menical coverage until MEDICARE at age 65. At the very least, most of us wish to work to the limits of the DBGC (age 65) and the Social Security fund distribution age.

The rule is age discrimination, pure and simple. If the record shows that more experienced pilots have a better safety record than do younger less experienced pilots (and it does), why should they be treated differently than other Americans?

It is becoming clear that as a result of recent actions by the ALPA and APA, the so-called legacy carriers like United, American, Northwest and Delta they are condemned to the death throws of extinction. Greed, ineptness and blindness to reality will also destroy the likes of the ALPA and APA. The old guard pioneers of the golden age of aviation should be raging mad in their graves at the miss deeds of today’s big union politics.

Hey, I feel for you. But you need to overhaul your point of view. There are other things you can do, you don't have to quit flying. Netjets has free health care and would probably welcome your experience. You mention that experience and your abilities as reason enough to consider an age change, but for some reason you are hesitant to take that skill set out into the workforce. You can't envision yourself doing anything other than being allowed to linger at the top of this profession for another 5 years? You insist another 15 to 20% of career longevity is the only way you'll get by? That is ridiculous. You yourself mention that this business is in dire condition, I think you just want to make sure if there is anything good left to be had-you get it! I want to see it rebuilt. I agree ALPA has screwed up. I agree legacy carriers are in trouble. I want to see a new era in this business. Part of that, I strongly believe, is making sure there is continued renewal in the pilot ranks. I have said it before, we need new philosophies and standards among our pilots interacting with airline managements and administrating our unions. This is crucial and I hope the rule does not change. If it does change, our futures are very uncertain. Because where I want to see the business fixed, I fear your generation just wants to skim the last bit of cream off the top and snuff out the rest of us.

 

[Bringupthebird]

This thread proves why the Senate just shakes it's head when holding hearings on changing this rule. Trying to paint greed to look like fairness obscures the truth. Absent any personal benefits one way or the other, the truth is that age 60 is an unreasonably low retirement age and should be adjusted, and Congress should be able to see this and act appropriately.

 

[Bringupthebird]

It is almost 12k now, and no, I'm still an FO (CAL).

"What a maroon!", "Why didn't you get on at Southwest, they wouldn't have you?", "Hey we all make career decisions, you just made lousy ones"

These are all the types of insults that are slung at those who are forced to pick up the pieces of a career or adapt to change in their airline. The point is that this change to the retirement age will do more to allow those who are facing hardship (who may very well be junior F/O's who are starting over in their 50's) a chance.

I still think that the pay rates and benefits that pilots earned in years gone past were justified. Similarly, I don't think pilots need to hide behind a dubious rule to protect their career progression.

 

[Phaedrus]

3b: You misinterpret my 'sigh' as you have misinterpreted my position. Submission? Hardly. One can only bang their head against a wall for so long before they realize the wall is just schtoopid.

 

[Flopgut]

"What a maroon!", "Why didn't you get on at Southwest, they wouldn't have you?", "Hey we all make career decisions, you just made lousy ones"

These are all the types of insults that are slung at those who are forced to pick up the pieces of a career or adapt to change in their airline. The point is that this change to the retirement age will do more to allow those who are facing hardship (who may very well be junior F/O's who are starting over in their 50's) a chance.

I still think that the pay rates and benefits that pilots earned in years gone past were justified. Similarly, I don't think pilots need to hide behind a dubious rule to protect their career progression.

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.

 

[71KILO]

You government mandated control freaks scare the living hell out of me! Get rid of the retirement age entirely. Pass your physicals and checkrides and get your butt in the air. You want a mandatory retirement age then vote it in as a part of your union contract. Quit depending on government to take care of you...

 

[Bringupthebird]

Flop-
My post wasn't directed at your career. It was a reflection of some pilot's view that the setbacks others face are all their own fault.

With 19 (or hopefully 24) years to go, I'm not reaping any imminent windfall. In fact extending the age will keep me on reserve 5 more years. I'm ok with that since it is starting to correct a rule that should have never been imposed to begin with.

I can't figure out why I would want your sympathy nor how I've earned your contempt for enjoying my career. Any number of world events or personal health issues could force me from my seat or even my airline altogether, yet my support for changing an ill-conceived law remains steadfast.

 

[Phaedrus]

71Kilo: You don't get it either. As for me, about the only the I think the government should do is provide us with a capable military. Other than that, butt out.
So anyway, whatever...