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?