The Skinny on the Age 60 Rule

[Flopgut]

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.

If we just bump up the age, it is a windfall. If we make age 60+ pilots fly only FO for instance, then it becomes a "choice".

There is nothing more contemptable than trying to advantage oneself in a seniority based, union environment outside the collective bargaining agreement. And that is what the age change folks want to do; they want more for themselves than anyone in front of them, or to come after them, will get. This does not benefit everyone. It doesn't matter if the law was ill-concieved or not, it is the law. Especially since all you want to do is make it another number. If you get five more years you'll be right back at it trying to make it 66, 67, or 70. There is no doubt in my mind.

The point I find more troublesome is that the age change group can actually see no other way to make a living. The other thread with the poll doesn't even have it right, no one is saying you can't fly past 60. All the rule says is that you can't fly 121 past 60. You can have a flying job. You just have to give up the top 1-5% flying position that puts you in the 1-5% of wage earners in the country. Can you actually say with straight face conviction that you see no other way to get by than to hoard for yourself the most esteemed/higest paid job in aviation? It really makes me sick because I have seen a job change happen in the late stages of a career and I have seen people persevere (I was one of them).

 

[Clyde]

Let's just lower it to 55. Then, we can have a debate about raising the retirement age to 57.

 

[Phaedrus]

Flop: Again, well said. I'd like to see just one person in favor of changing this rule come out and say, "Yep, it's about the money, no doubt." The funny thing is that everyone knows this, yet they still hang on to the charade of a.d. It's like the guy in the cubicle with Snickers bars all over his head thinking he's fooling everyone into believing he's not bald.

 

[71KILO]

.

The point I find more troublesome is that the age change group can actually see no other way to make a living. The other thread with the poll doesn't even have it right, no one is saying you can't fly past 60. All the rule says is that you can't fly 121 past 60. You can have a flying job. You just have to give up the top 1-5% flying position that puts you in the 1-5% of wage earners in the country. Can you actually say with straight face conviction that you see no other way to get by than to hoard for yourself the most esteemed/higest paid job in aviation? It really makes me sick because I have seen a job change happen in the late stages of a career and I have seen people persevere (I was one of them).

Good luck getting a 135 job at 60.

IT'S AGE DISCRIMINATION!!! All because government felt 60+ old pilots would drop dead at FL330 and kill passengers. WHAT!? Are you kidding me? It's 2006 for Pete sake. Wake up the GPWS is screaming: terrain, terrain.

 

[71KILO]

Flop: Again, well said. I'd like to see just one person in favor of changing this rule come out and say, "Yep, it's about the money, no doubt." The funny thing is that everyone knows this, yet they still hang on to the charade of a.d. It's like the guy in the cubicle with Snickers bars all over his head thinking he's fooling everyone into believing he's not bald.

I'll say it: It's about the money.

Now you prove it isn't age discrimination...

 

[Phaedrus]

DISCRIMINATE: to choose by a standard.
To oppose discrimination is to oppose choice, or standards, or both. You who say that the folks who oppose the age-60 rule are establishment chattel are wrong. In fact, the liberal establishment is assailing the very right to discriminate at any level.



71K: I don't have to prove it isn't age discrimination because I never said it wasn't age discrimination. I simply ask that those in favor of wearing Snickers on their heads simply fess up and admit they're bald.

 

[Flopgut]

Flop: Again, well said. I'd like to see just one person in favor of changing this rule come out and say, "Yep, it's about the money, no doubt." The funny thing is that everyone knows this, yet they still hang on to the charade of a.d. It's like the guy in the cubicle with Snickers bars all over his head thinking he's fooling everyone into believing he's not bald.

Thanks. I love that comercial. I would like to see them acknowledge the selfishness and the state it leaves the business in after they get what they want and are gone. I'll overdo the sports analolgy but instead of treating our craft like a league, we descend into fuedalistic bands of tribes. The age change crowd is just another tribe asserting itself in opposition to the whole. Managements love it.

Good to call them out on the dough.

 

[71KILO]

phaedrus: you typical politician. The second part of that deffinition is: 2. To act on biasis of prejudice <accused of discrimination against the elderly> You picked the part that fit your arguement, but didn't give the whole story. Do you work at CNN? In the words of Neal Boortz: You suffer from wealth envy. I as a true libertarian say: Government stay out! Now if your union signs a contract that has age rules in it then so be it. I hope I don't work there. I don't expect Grandpa Moses and Father Time to occupy the left seat of a 777 until they take the 'ol dirt nap. Their time will come based on non-age rules. For those that say they should retire at 60 it is about jealousy and wealth envy not attrition. Discriminate on health, skills, or knowledge not age. So again I say prove to me it isn't gov't mandated age discrimination.

 

[Phaedrus]

71K: It is not a little bit humorous that you think you know my politics based on this thread and my meager and ill-conceived attempts to contribute. That said, and since you know me so well, how wealthy/poor am I? For to be stricken with 'wealth-envy' I must be poor, yes? Tell me, what is my net worth?
Have you read (and understood) anything that Flopgut has posted? I honestly don't care if there are no age limits whatsoever. The reality is that there are.
Very good job pointing out that there are different kinds of discrimination. I purposely left out any mention of "bad" discrimination to prove a point. Most people think of discrimination as bad. It isn't. To see the reflexive use of the word as some sort of ultimate weapon in any argument gets tiresome. Talk about establishment lemmings...
Neil Boortz can be a pompous ass...but he is entertaining.
Let me know my net worth soon...I have to file my taxes.

 

[Flopgut]

Good luck getting a 135 job at 60.

IT'S AGE DISCRIMINATION!!! All because government felt 60+ old pilots would drop dead at FL330 and kill passengers. WHAT!? Are you kidding me? It's 2006 for Pete sake. Wake up the GPWS is screaming: terrain, terrain.

Yeah, well not long ago I did something kinda like you have just done. I was debating age 60 stuff so I went over to the fractional forum and started a thread asking for feedback on age 60. There are a ton of 60+ pilots at these companies. They like to hire them. Matter of fact, you want to do a 50-55 year old who just lost thier airline job a favor? Tell them to go to a fractional. They can work at one of those till they are 70+ with free health care and disability. This concept that there is nothing else you can do in aviation is way off.

Now that assumes your an age 60+ pilot who is energetic, enthusiastic and willing to contribute. And this is part of my thesis on why the rule should not change--we need renewal! We have a plethora of stupid acting, selfish, paranoid, and disgruntled senior pilots who are probably unemployable at these companies. So why should we have to keep them? If the rule changes, we not only have to keep them, they stay as captains, check airman, instructors, chief pilots, VPs or whatever. One of the hardest things to do in business is see something that is missing. Fulfill a need in operation that differentiates it and makes it better. Legacies have a desperate need for this and it is not going to come from our "sages" we are stuck with now. God love them, they have had a rough ride, I wish them well but they have to go. If we have to keep them around, we'll probably all have to be out of work. They are dragging us down.

 

[Flopgut]

phaedrus: you typical politician. The second part of that deffinition is: 2. To act on biasis of prejudice <accused of discrimination against the elderly> You picked the part that fit your arguement, but didn't give the whole story. Do you work at CNN? In the words of Neal Boortz: You suffer from wealth envy. I as a true libertarian say: Government stay out! Now if your union signs a contract that has age rules in it then so be it. I hope I don't work there. I don't expect Grandpa Moses and Father Time to occupy the left seat of a 777 until they take the 'ol dirt nap. Their time will come based on non-age rules. For those that say they should retire at 60 it is about jealousy and wealth envy not attrition. Discriminate on health, skills, or knowledge not age. So again I say prove to me it isn't gov't mandated age discrimination.

OK, take notes, cause this is how you gripe: I'm worried about the species. I'm worried about the craft. I want everyone to have the best chance at a good career as a pilot. I have seen all manner of good and bad in this business and this age change crap ain't good! For better or worse, the generation of pilots who are approaching retirement need to go. They are no longer equal to the task of leading this profession. If they linger around until 65 we are going to have to increase the age again because the business is still going to be screwed up if not gone entirely [the aforementioned is legacy related primarily]

Wealth envy? What are you talking about? You did not do anything demonstratively superior in your career to find yourself senior to another pilot. You just got hired first. Now you want relief from a rule that has benefitted you your entire career so you can deny another pilot what they have earned? I would call that wealth envy.

 

[pilotyip]

A reminder the age 60 thing was never about safety. It was about AAL eliminating the high paid senior pilots on the payroll in 1958. A done deal between two WWII buddies, C R Smith and Queseda (sp.?) ALPA fought for years to have it thrown out

 

[Phaedrus]

Irrelevant. At least in the sense that the reason we have the rule doesn't affect the situation at hand.

 

[Flopgut]

A reminder the age 60 thing was never about safety. It was about AAL eliminating the high paid senior pilots on the payroll in 1958. A done deal between two WWII buddies, C R Smith and Queseda (sp.?) ALPA fought for years to have it thrown out

OK, thanks for the re cap. A reminder to you, and others, if you were around 60 years old in 1958 you were born before the war. The first world war; that is synonomous with a long time ago! What are we talking about here, 50-100 pilots this rule hasn't pertained to? You age change people keep talking about the rule like it just ambushed you out of nowhere! Like you can harken back to the good ole days when the rule was not in effect. It's BS guys!

 

[Flopgut]

phaedrus: you typical politician. The second part of that deffinition is: 2. To act on biasis of prejudice <accused of discrimination against the elderly> You picked the part that fit your arguement, but didn't give the whole story. Do you work at CNN? In the words of Neal Boortz: You suffer from wealth envy. I as a true libertarian say: Government stay out! Now if your union signs a contract that has age rules in it then so be it. I hope I don't work there. I don't expect Grandpa Moses and Father Time to occupy the left seat of a 777 until they take the 'ol dirt nap. Their time will come based on non-age rules. For those that say they should retire at 60 it is about jealousy and wealth envy not attrition. Discriminate on health, skills, or knowledge not age. So again I say prove to me it isn't gov't mandated age discrimination.

This "wealth envy" thing really chaps me. As though you earned your position more uniquely than anyone else, before or after you. As though another less disciplined, less deservant mongrel wants to covet your hard earned gains. You get hired by a company and they place you on a list, thats how it works. That is how we all do it. It is not envy to want to assume the gains seniority progression has rightfully afforded you. If you get this changed it will be a far worse thing than envy.

 

[Phaedrus]

Flop: Chill, my brotha. 71K obviously heard this phrase bandied about by one of his radio heroes and hasn't given real considerable thought on how or even if it should apply in this situation. "Age discrimination!" "Wealth envy!" I'm kind of looking forward to the next catch phrase/stale cliche.

 

[Bringupthebird]

I think it's hilarious that F/O flopgut thinks that eliminating a discriminatory law will keep him out of the left seat, but he doesn't even bid it (assuming no other issues exist...) when he has the opportunity. He wants to reserve the option to upgrade while at the same time he wants to take the option of continuing to work from somebody else.

Oh, yeah, "it's not all about me"! HA! HA! HA! Right.

 

[Phaedrus]

A) 90% of the people who post on this have not read the entire thread.
B) 99% reflexively hear "discrimination" and panic that the p.c. police will raid their homes and confiscate their "It Takes A Village" book.
C) .001% would benefit from this change (of course it's embellishment to prove a point).
D) 100% should find something better to do.

 

[ivauir]

I think it's hilarious that F/O flopgut thinks that eliminating a discriminatory law will keep him out of the left seat, but he doesn't even bid it (assuming no other issues exist...) when he has the opportunity. He wants to reserve the option to upgrade while at the same time he wants to take the option of continuing to work from somebody else.

Oh, yeah, "it's not all about me"! HA! HA! HA! Right.

I think it is hilarious that those who want the rule change refuse to acknoledge the windfall the senior will gain and he stagnation the junior will endure. Then you carp self rigteously about discrimination, but you intend to do nothing for those who have already retired. "All about me" indeed. Get off of your high horse, you want this change for no reason than to make more money. Fine, but don't expect the majoriy to support the change unitll you find a fairer way to institude the change. And you can knock off the "holier than thou" anytime.

 

[Flopgut]

I think it's hilarious that F/O flopgut thinks that eliminating a discriminatory law will keep him out of the left seat, but he doesn't even bid it (assuming no other issues exist...) when he has the opportunity. He wants to reserve the option to upgrade while at the same time he wants to take the option of continuing to work from somebody else.

Oh, yeah, "it's not all about me"! HA! HA! HA! Right.

This will be a hard concept for you to grasp, but I'm concerned about more than my own needs. I want to perserve the profession as it is, as it always has been. I want the rule to stay the same. Please explain to me how that is taking something away? Moreover, the most important thing I'm saying that I wish would penetrate your brain is: no one is saying they can't work! They can work! They can get thier butt in gear and thier nose to the grind and find a job. It is no less than what they are asking many pilots to do who will be negatively affected by the proposed change.

I want a new group to move up to the policy level and help run things at the airline. It is pretty apparent things are not going well for legacy airlines. We need to stop doing things like we are just fullfilling a habit. A wholesale change in the seniority ranks would help a lot and we are close to it at CAL. And to be completely honest, if we could go back and keep the generation of pilots that preceed the current 50-60 year olds I would be more receptive. In the history of commercial aviation there has not been a group of airline pilots less deservant of a terrific windfall than the bunch we are getting ready to send to pasture.

Cute jab at my upgrade decision, you clearly have no idea how bad commuting to in Newark is.

 

[3BCat]

To all opposed

If you can pass the PC, the Oral, the Recurrent, the Line Check, and the Physical requirements, I say you remain competent to work. Many will not meet these requirements regardless of age.

If the age changes +5 years, everyone currently qualified on that date, gets +5 years to make a living wage. The idea that the rules could change is causing irrational fear. The rule, no matter what it is, affects everyone equally.

Do you want to retire on your terms, or on someone else's? I vote that you get to choose. Sadly, you have every right to let others choose for you.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Then you carp self rigteously about discrimination, but you intend to do nothing for those who have already retired

First, those that retired with their A and B plans intact were among the most vocal in preserving the Age 60 rule because it allowed them to continue making high-dollar withdrawls from those A plans. Raising the retirement age would have penalized those pilots who retired at 60. With most of those plans now in the dumpster, that argument is gone as well. Plus, trying to reinstate those pilots would be a massive complication that would unnecessarily complicate the reversal of a bad law.

. "All about me" indeed. Get off of your high horse, you want this change for no reason than to make more money.

As controversial as this is, it would be unrealistic to assume all captains would remain after 60 and it would be just as unrealistic to assume there would not be additional growth, thus there will be opportunities for upgrade and each F/O who does gets 5 more years of captain's pay he would not otherwise get. After the 5th year following the change in the law, the "stagnation" if any begins to disappear. In my person case, it would mean some additional time on reserve, and consequently some loss in money. If an F/O chooses not to upgrade, he has no one to blame but himself.

The flood of RJ's has done far more harm to most pilots progression than repealing this law ever will. And while repealing the Age 60 law will help far more pilots than it hurts, the RJ flood has only enriched the pockets of regional airline owners.

Make good investments now so you can retire early at 60. I understand that the F/O's will carry you out on their shoulders as a hero for doing so.

 

[Flopgut]

First, those that retired with their A and B plans intact were among the most vocal in preserving the Age 60 rule because it allowed them to continue making high-dollar withdrawls from those A plans. Raising the retirement age would have penalized those pilots who retired at 60. With most of those plans now in the dumpster, that argument is gone as well. Plus, trying to reinstate those pilots would be a massive complication that would unnecessarily complicate the reversal of a bad law.

Wow you really glossed over that one! Sure bud, it would just be tacky to try and make it fair for the recently retired! As long as it works for you, right?

As controversial as this is, it would be unrealistic to assume all captains would remain after 60 and it would be just as unrealistic to assume there would not be additional growth, thus there will be opportunities for upgrade and each F/O who does gets 5 more years of captain's pay he would not otherwise get. After the 5th year following the change in the law, the "stagnation" if any begins to disappear.

If there are 100 of these sorts of upgrades industry wide I would be surprised. I might be one of them, but thats not a clean deal. No thanks.quote]

There is a lot more to this than just upgrades. Lineholder, widebody flying, reserve, holidays/weekends off, etc. You know this stuff. There is more to seniority progression than just he left seat.

 

[71KILO]

Right on 3B!

Phaedrus: I don't care what your AGI or your political affiliations are. I'm suprised you've heard of Boortz and yes he is outrageous sometimes but he is usually right on the money overall. He came to the defense of DAL pilots after their numerous paycuts while managemnt took bonuses. You don't have to be loaded to suffer from wealth envy. It could be envy over someone more healthy than you, or with better skills, or a better schedule, or more money. You have the attitude that you are owed something like an entitlement. Screw that! Having a government mandated retire date is crazy. All you keep it the way it is people are taking care of number one, just like all the repeal it people are thinking of themselves. Step back for a minute and really examine it. Is the only reason to keep it for attrition? There will always be attrition because guys will always retire between 55 and 70. I don't know too many guys over 70 that could pass a class 1. As far as senior captain pay, most airlines cap it between 10 and 20 years anyway. Since when do you care about management? Look, I'm not rich and I'm not a CA. I'm not assuming your politics. But you are just as selfish as the "it's about the money" crowd. As far as the "It Takes a Village" book, screw the Clinton's, how's that for showing my cards. Libertarians are far from liberal. I'm about less government interference and self determination. Let the free market make the adjustment. Time for you all to shift your paradigms...

 

[Flopgut]

If you can pass the PC, the Oral, the Recurrent, the Line Check, and the Physical requirements, I say you remain competent to work. Many will not meet these requirements regardless of age.

If the age changes +5 years, everyone currently qualified on that date, gets +5 years to make a living wage. The idea that the rules could change is causing irrational fear. The rule, no matter what it is, affects everyone equally.

Do you want to retire on your terms, or on someone else's? I vote that you get to choose. Sadly, you have every right to let others choose for you.

Not a bad point. However, this is not the DMV or the Post Office. We are not all just putting in time. This is a going concern that does not operate in a vacuum. I'm concerned for the health of the operation (fltops, trng, safety, etc.) and the union at all levels. An age change stymies changes in the pilot ranks working on these issues. At the end of the day this is a simple flying business. Fresh ideas will come from new people and many of them will be pilots. The companies that are killing the legacies have rediscovered this. Meanwhile, most legacy carriers are wrought with cronyism and a pervasive inflexibility to change and creativity. While you are correct to point out that a number of inabilities can end a career at any age, it is no less factual that simple longevity is what makes a pilot candidate able move up. So how do we solve that? Or do you see no problem? We should freeze our higher ranks with pilots from the same [shallow] pool?

 

[ivauir]

If the age changes +5 years, everyone currently qualified on that date, gets +5 years to make a living wage. The idea that the rules could change is causing irrational fear. The rule, no matter what it is, affects everyone equally.
.

NOT TRUE! Give it up! I know you are smarter than this, and I assume you know that I am smarter too.

Your arguments work much better outside of the PC "descrimination" drivel. We all know this is about money. The senior have more to gain that the junior. Even the playing field and you may get some support.

in the end I will not supprt your windfall! You want a change in the age? Address the effects on junior ppl. Ignore those effects, and lose our support.

 

[pilotyip]

Ivauir, yes it is about money, not necessarily greed. There many pilots whose careers have not provided for a retirement at age 60 they are done, they are not eligible for SS until 62, they need to be able to work their full career until SS retirement age. For union carriers, make 60, or 55 or whatever your contracted retirement age, but let the rest of us work until we can retire.

 

[gutshotdraw]

One thing to keep in mind, it isn't only up to the United States. Other countries are stirring the pot as well. Some European nations have a rule on the books (although not yet enforced to my knowledge) prohibiting pilots over age 60 from operating a commercial aircraft anywhere in or through their AIRSPACE. This includes Part 121, 135 and 91K Fractional ops. We are just waiting for a ramp check of one of our greybeards (and we have many) at Lebourget or Nice for a test on this issue.

 

[pilotyip]

Another good reason to boycott France

 

[Flopgut]

Ivauir, yes it is about money, not necessarily greed. There many pilots whose careers have not provided for a retirement at age 60 they are done, they are not eligible for SS until 62, they need to be able to work their full career until SS retirement age. For union carriers, make 60, or 55 or whatever your contracted retirement age, but let the rest of us work until we can retire.

You, I would think, of all pilots would understand that you CAN continue to work. Whether its a Citation or a C310, there is something they can do. They are not being told they cannot work. If you can't muster the initiative to find yourself something to provide for your upcoming needs then why should the rest of us have to put our careers on hold to help you out? I've pointed out before that this happened in my family (father's airline job nixed @ inopportune time) and we got ourselves together. Why can't these pilots do that? I can remember from those days that not everyone of my Dad's peers did so well, but they did not really have together before and I bet they don't today. If we all pause now to help this generation of airline pilots out are they going to be able to get it together? Should we garnish your last five years of earnings to make sure you save? Maybe those of us with a better grasp on reality should adopt you when you turn 60?

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!