The Skinny on the Age 60 Rule

[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!