The Skinny on the Age 60 Rule

[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...

 

[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.