The Skinny on the Age 60 Rule

[Klako]

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.

Yes, Who could possibly not agree with that?

 

[ivauir]

Yes, Who could possibly not agree with that?

Me, and many others. I've laid my stance and reasoning out very plainly and I don't care to repeat myself. Under SR65 there are clear winners and losers. You have a much better chance of changing the law if a clear majority of pilots supported the change. In order to win that support any change would have to be more equitable than the windfall situation created by SR65.

 

[Klako]

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.

 

[3BCat]

Still Opposed? Grasp this!

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? ...... 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?

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.

 

[3BCat]

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.

Money isn't the most important aspect of this debate. Every one of us has to hang it up on our birthday +XX. WHY? If you like letting others control your life, keep on ignoring the facts.

The fact is, a "windfall" for me, is a windfall for you and everyone else. If you choose to retire five years before I do, I'm happy for you. I may choose to retire at 60 too, even with the option to work. Hell, I'd like to retire at 50! For now, I don't have the choice, and neither do you.

 

[CaptainMark]

Money isn't the most important aspect of this debate. Every one of us has to hang it up on our birthday +XX. WHY? If you like letting others control your life, keep on ignoring the facts.

The fact is, a "windfall" for me, is a windfall for you and everyone else. If you choose to retire five years before I do, I'm happy for you. I may choose to retire at 60 too, even with the option to work. Hell, I'd like to retire at 50! For now, I don't have the choice, and neither do you.

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

 

[ivauir]

Money isn't the most important aspect of this debate. Fine, then lets make the law that you can work past 60 as an FO. Every one of us has to hang it up on our birthday +XX. WHY? If you like letting others control your life, keep on ignoring the facts. You are the one ignoring the FACT that SR65 is unfair and rewards those at the top of the senority pile at everone else's expense.

The fact is, a "windfall" for me, is a windfall for you and everyone else. Really? How does it benefit the guy who retired last week? The guy on the street? The brand new FO? If you choose to retire five years before I do, I'm happy for you. No chance of that happening, I'm going to have to stick around to make up for the extra years I was shut out of the left seat. I may choose to retire at 60 too, even with the option to work. Hell, I'd like to retire at 50! For now, I don't have the choice, and neither do you. That is right, if SR65 passes I'll be working untill I a 67 if I live that long)[/quote]


Gimme a break! How can you say that the change will effect everyone else the same (and why does Klako think that only the senior have "earned their senority)? You have not a shred of credebility unless you:
- support right of return for those already retired
- acknoledge that the senior have benefited from the forced retirements of those before them
- acknoledge that the junior will suffer senority stagnation (that the senior did not experience)

So far all I hear is platitudes and whinning about age discrimination, but it helped your career, and now that you are on top (because someone turned 60) I am supposed to "earn" my senority... why should I? You didn't.

 

[CaptainMark]

well said!

 

[3BCat]

Whose whining?

Look at USAirways. No hiring for almost a decade in the 90's. Plenty of guys retired in those years. Why didn't they hire pilots? NO GROWTH.

I'll acknowledge that pilots advance in relative seniority due to retirements, and junior pilots will always languish when the seniority list stops growing. But, if you hang your future on retirements so you can "move up", you will be disappointed to find that you end up closer to where you started than where you wanted to end up.

I won't speak for anyone else. I have worked for seven airlines. I have never been at the top of any pay scale, nor do I expect to be. I have what I have because I worked hard for it. I'm not pointing my finger at anyone else for my position, and I never will.

Lots of airlines are hiring again. They are getting airplanes, expanding route maps, and GROWING. What have you done to get ready to take advantage of this opportunity? I hope you're ready, and I wish you luck.

This growth is not just your opportunity, its mine. Even though I already have the job I've been looking for, growth improves my relative seniority, and therefore, my quality of life. Retirements just don't cut it. Forced retirement cuts it even less.

I say get the job, enjoy the lifestyle, and most importantly, walk away when you want to, not when you are told to take a walk.

 

[DC8 Flyer]

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.

I am for changing the rule to no age limit. That being said, your argument does not hold much water. No one really "earns" seniority. Simply staying at a company, while some may view as loyalty, does not in my book, equate "earning". If seniority was governed by some measurable standard then you may have an argument. But since it is simply a time sink, the old crusty guy witth 25 years at the company is no more important than a new hire under the current system of seniority. We all do the same job and we all do it equally well. Of course egos and such will take over and someone will state that "I am the better pilot" and such but when it comes down to it, we all do the exact same thing. None of us sell tickets, clean the airplane, fuel it, fix it, etc. Of course our actions as pilots have an effect on customer loyality but for the most part a pax will follow the money and convenience.

I understand why some, if not most, do not want the rule to change. It means we stay junior longer and that means less money for us. Those that are at the "affected" age (55 plus or so) get a double benefit, but that is not their fault, maybe a bit low on the morality side if none of them were vocal about changing the age 60 rule when they started out, but morality has a tough time fitting into law making.

The age 60 rule is flat out age discrimination, not one single medical or perfomance study can prove otherwise. The only thing I ask is some understanding and compassion from those that are going to benefit from this change. There are going to be disgruntled FOs and even Capts because of the perceived loss of THEIR "earned" upward movement in seniority. Just keep in mind you guys benefited from age 60 retirements, and if you really want to make it fair, every pilot who has been forced to retire before you, should be allowed, if they want, to come back and hold their old seniority number and equipement.

 

[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?

 

[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.