UNBELIEVABLE! - CAL ALPA supports change to Age 60 Rule

[luckytohaveajob]

There is no more abundant proof of this than that these guys are almost ALL senior! They have weekends and holidays off and they are only willing to discuss this age change as long as they KEEP their schedules and their seniority. This IS plain and simple seniority aggression! They are acting just like replecement workers!

Age 65 pilots are the just like SCABS. They are stealing pilots work with their greed and dishonesty.

 

[Vastly Underemp]

Sacko,

Had you been capable of read AND understand, you'd have noticed that I was quoting someone else's post in the spot where you chose to insert your own comments, making them appear to be the thoughts of the postee. This is perilously close to slander and defamation. Check with your lawyer. You may want to grow up a bit or you will be financing my kid's college education.

 

[Vastly Underemp]

To The Pain,

First, let me apologize for a piece of mis-information. The date of proposal for the age 60 rule was 1959, not 1949. It was implemented in either March or June of 1960, depending on what source you use.

I applaud your math and dedication! And while the truely dedicated may be able to put every dime of that $23/hour difference into the bank, many cannot. There are braces and college educations and the Captain house and family vacations and the occasional self-reward for having finally made the big time. We're human! That's why I tried to remove as many variables (quality of life issues, interruptions to career progressions, economic concerns) as possible from the calculations. I was simply trying to demonstrate that the gap wasn't that wide, and would be easily made up.

I think we can agree that this issue is about choice. If you'd like to retire at 60 I think you should be able to. Heck, I may retire at 60. But I really don't want anyone telling me I have to so they can have the seat I'm in.

Cheers

Vastly

 

[ToThePain]

To The Pain,

First, let me apologize for a piece of mis-information. The date of proposal for the age 60 rule was 1959, not 1949. It was implemented in either March or June of 1960, depending on what source you use.

I applaud your math and dedication! And while the truely dedicated may be able to put every dime of that $23/hour difference into the bank, many cannot. There are braces and college educations and the Captain house and family vacations and the occasional self-reward for having finally made the big time. We're human! That's why I tried to remove as many variables (quality of life issues, interruptions to career progressions, economic concerns) as possible from the calculations. I was simply trying to demonstrate that the gap wasn't that wide, and would be easily made up.

I think we can agree that this issue is about choice. If you'd like to retire at 60 I think you should be able to. Heck, I may retire at 60. But I really don't want anyone telling me I have to so they can have the seat I'm in.

Cheers

Vastly

Very true,
The other reason I posted the compounded interest amount was to help others who may not realize what their dollar can do for them long-term. The age 65 is apon us regardless of what I think or feel should happen. My feeling is that once it is changed to 65 it is only a short time to when they change it to 67 (what the new retirement age will be for social security once politicians face reality). Heck they are pushing for age 70 in Europe. My true fear is that airline management will take advantage of this and reduce the amount they are willing to pay in Plan B because we have a "longer time" to save for retirement.

 

[Flopgut]

Age 65 pilots are the just like SCABS. They are stealing pilots work with their greed and dishonesty.

They are seeking seniority, that they have NO previous claim to, outside the collective bargaining process. What else could one possibly term this?

 

[Flopgut]

Vastly, I don't know what to say to you. You were a DECADE off on the age 60 start date...How far are we to suppose you are off on your financial computations? For goodness sake, Foxhunter jumped in to correct you! This is his pet arguement and even he couldn't resist correcting you!

Look bud: If we're going to have a union, and all be under a seniority system, then we need to make sure that as much as we possibly can we improve our profession by getting pay and benefits out of our employers. NOT the other half of our seniority lists! Especially when the profession is on the verge of recovering from the morbidly bad contract situation we were all in. I personally think we're being fed this deal to spoil future contract increases that are almost a certainty. Now the guys/gals on the top half of the list may feel like they are getting screwed by age 60. What they have to understand is that at some point they aren't going to be on our seniority lists no matter what! Maybe it gets changed this time, but it is still going to be an AGE and it is still going to happen! I don't want to suffer this arguement again in 5 years when these bozos still aren't ready to retire.

 

[munson]

now my two cents for the idiot who is angry about the change in the age 60 rule. lets see, most of us do not have defined pensions, some of us do not even have much of a 401K (since anyone like me has been stuck as an Fo getting crappy pay and before that I was busy getting crappy pay while serving my country for years, oh yes and going to college). Oh yes and some of us think we will NEED to work past 60 in order to survive.

I know the reasons why a lot of pilots do not want the rule changed, its typical pilot greed and idiotic reasoning. You want the speedy seniority when all these guys retire, you want movement, you want to relax and live in your retirement home at 60, all these things. And in wanting this, you are forcing guys to look for jobs at 60 when they are forced out, even though they are medically able to fly . ALPA has done many things, and by not supporting the change to the rule is about as low as they can be. For those of you who want to retire at 60, there is nothing stopping you, just do not make up reasons why I should have to.

Oh cudos to CAL MEC, I wish XJ's had that kind of leadership in our MEC

your an idiot... have a nice day

 

[Flopgut]

Now the guys/gals on the top half of the list may feel like they are getting screwed by age 60. What they have to understand is that at some point they aren't going to be on our seniority lists no matter what! Maybe it gets changed this time, but it is still going to be an AGE and it is still going to happen! I don't want to suffer this arguement again in 5 years when these bozos still aren't ready to retire.

Vastly, I want to follow this post up a bit, so I'm quoting myself.

It sounds like you've been through the furlough ringer. I'm sure that sucked and I won't pretend I know what that was like. I can tell you I know what it's like to lose a pension and face forced retirement because that happened in my family. Obviously we both know how to deal with adversity and we can both deal with age 65 if it happens. But we have to keep constant pressure against it because we don't know what they are going to want next! Prater's frozen A plan will pay him a 100% lump sum in the neighborhood of 800K. A CAL pilot 20 years junior to him has NO chance of having that sort of benefit with the current combination of pay and saving vehicles. If he gets this switched to 65 the gap goes ballistic. Not ONE pilot gets any benefit from this age change until the day they work past 60. Prater wants a windfall for his contemporaries and he could care less about any member 10-20 years younger than him. APA isn't wasting any time with this, they're pushing hard for a 30% raise. Prater/ALPA's plan is to get out there with some non-message about "taking it back" with no specific plan except to answer age 65 ?s from old farts during the breaks. If the change is truly imminent then he should be telling us all to be against it! His demographic will still take the benefit and the rest of us can pick up a still-strong argument for age 60 normal retirement and a more healthy cause for payraises. He's NOT doing that, he's got NO longterm plan, he's NOT interested in seeing this scaled to help everyone and we're going to be left with what can no longer be termed a "union"!

You'll deal with age 65 if it changes and so will I and so will every other marginalized pilot. But, it's not entirely inappropriate to point out that if it doesn't change, these old a-holes should be able deal with that too.

 

[COpilot]

......................

I see Pocono does not have the guts to be big enough to put the actual results of the vote on the board. Of course he/she just comes in here and blows B.S. on CO; thats fine, what a low-life...

"do you favor changing age 60?" yes, 43.6% no 52.2%

 

[Pocono Pilot]

This thread is older than the poll results.

Don't be mad at me. You're the one who works for a bottom feeding airline that is lowering the bar for all legacy airlines!

Ya' know, WalMart pays insurance to their new employees, but Continental doesn't pay it to new hire B-777 pilots. What an embarrassment.

Then there is this:

* AA must have a CAL like pilot agreement from APA or the company will not survive as we know it today
* Not only must the APA give AA a CAL like contractthere will be no growth associated with the concessionary contract

Face it, you are the benchmark on low pay now.

Peace. Oh, and don't hate. I was having a nice picnic today with my husband and his family, whose father is a vet. It puts things into perspective. Family, friends, sacrifice are very important.

Happy Memorial Day.