UNBELIEVABLE! - CAL ALPA supports change to Age 60 Rule

[Vastly Underemp]

Flop

Dude, I don't even know where to start......

"The age 60 rule also came to be because mgts felt they couldn't transition older pilots to new equipment."

Like from DC-3 to DC-4? From B-17 to DC-4? From radial engines to...radial engines? I've never heard of this particular arguement, but considering the day (1949) I find it unlikely. And it was this exact group that made the transition from props to jets. It was also this group and those they trained that wrote the book governing everything you do in an airplane today.

"Todays old guys may handle the aircraft OK, but they are no longer equal to the task of collective bargaining in this new environment."

I thought we were talking about the relative merits of the age 60 rule change. I have no intention of ever seeking elected union office, so my actions beyond age 60 should have no effect on you, particularly since we don't fly for the same airline (I hope). If you (and a majority of your union's members) feel unrepresented by your elected representatives, vote. Either with your ballot or your feet, but vote.

"Additionally, add this to your greed paradym:"

Did you mean paradigm?

"With seniority, you get part of a holiday or weekend off before you get all of it off. I want to spend quality time with my family on weekends and holidays, AND I want to see them when I retire at 60. What these age change proponents are insisting on taking from me is much more precious than money...they want my life.

A bit theatrical, wouldn't you say? Let's return to airline 101. Within any system seniority list are the base/equipment/seat seniority lists. It seems to me that the 2 1/2 to 3 years additional spent as a senior WIDE F/O would allow you greater bidding freedom within your bidding status to get weekends/holidays/birthdays/little league game days off than a junior SN Capt. sitting in a crash pad in EWR or Guam. It also allows greater flexibility for trip trading, layovers, and bring-the-wife-along trips. So it would seem to me that you'd have more time to spend with your family, not less.

"There is no more abundant proof of this than that these guys are almost ALL senior!

I am a first year F/O with a major. I have been furloughed 4 times in my career. There are many like me, junior at our respective companies but have been around this business for a long time. We tend to do things and support issues that have long term goals for the profession. If this measure passes then I will have my upgrade delayed. I support this anyway, even if the benefits to me personally are also delayed.

"How can you see equal greed in a junior pilot wanting the same progression a senior pilot enjoyed"

Dude, have you ever talked to anyone that's retired? Some of those guys spent 20 years on the engineer panel! Some never made Captain because of it. Should we go back to Boeing and force them to reinstall the Engineer's panel on the 737 so you can fly that too? Career progression is a myth. You are at the mercy of economic forces that are out of your, or anyone else's, control. There are a thousand things that will determine your career path, and NONE of them have anything to do with what age you retire at.

"but taking hundreds and hundreds of days with their families away?

I believe I addressed this in the relative seniority discussion above, but please also read my previous post. You would work less than 4 1/2 months, assuming you had no sick bank left at age 60, to make up the difference. That equates to approximately 60 days, not hundreds and hundreds. Additionally, you would enjoy more time off while waiting for upgrade, so it's pretty much a wash.

"How can you see equal greed in a junior pilot...."

Because time and again, with the possible exception of your post, the ONLY arguement I've heard is that this will delay their upgrade. As if someone were simply keeping the seat warm for them until they were ready for it. Advancement comes only from vacancies, be it attrition or growth. It ain't yours until you're awarded it.

I know there were several other points your made in another thread.....

"age 60 works" ......so did piston engines, lets go back to those...

being one of them, and I can't recall the rest, but I'm going to go outside, away from the keyboard, and enjoy some life away from aviation.

Cheers!

Vastly

 

[FoxHunter]

The age 60 came in 1959 not 1949.

 

[Jonny Sacko]

Flop

Dude, I don't even know where to start......

"The age 60 rule also came to be because mgts felt they couldn't transition older pilots to new equipment."

Like from DC-3 to DC-4? From B-17 to DC-4? From radial engines to...radial engines? I've never heard of this particular arguement, but considering the day (1949) I find it unlikely. And it was this exact group that made the transition from props to jets. It was also this group and those they trained that wrote the book governing everything you do in an airplane today.

"Todays old guys may handle the aircraft OK, but they are no longer equal to the task of collective bargaining in this new environment."

I thought we were talking about the relative merits of the age 60 rule change. I have no intention of ever seeking elected union office, so my actions beyond age 60 should have no effect on you, particularly since we don't fly for the same airline (I hope). If you (and a majority of your union's members) feel unrepresented by your elected representatives, vote. Either with your ballot or your feet, but vote.

"Additionally, add this to your greed paradym:"

Did you mean paradigm?

"With seniority, you get part of a holiday or weekend off before you get all of it off. I want to spend quality time with my family on weekends and holidays, AND I want to see them when I retire at 60. What these age change proponents are insisting on taking from me is much more precious than money...they want my life.

A bit theatrical, wouldn't you say? Let's return to airline 101. Within any system seniority list are the base/equipment/seat seniority lists. It seems to me that the 2 1/2 to 3 years additional spent as a senior WIDE F/O would allow you greater bidding freedom within your bidding status to get weekends/holidays/birthdays/little league game days off than a junior SN Capt. sitting in a crash pad in EWR or Guam. It also allows greater flexibility for trip trading, layovers, and bring-the-wife-along trips. So it would seem to me that you'd have more time to spend with your family, not less.

"There is no more abundant proof of this than that these guys are almost ALL senior!

I am a first year F/O with a major. I have been furloughed 4 times in my career. There are many like me, junior at our respective companies but have been around this business for a long time. We tend to do things and support issues that have long term goals for the profession. If this measure passes then I will have my upgrade delayed. I support this anyway, even if the benefits to me personally are also delayed.

"How can you see equal greed in a junior pilot wanting the same progression a senior pilot enjoyed"

Dude, have you ever talked to anyone that's retired? Some of those guys spent 20 years on the engineer panel! Some never made Captain because of it. Should we go back to Boeing and force them to reinstall the Engineer's panel on the 737 so you can fly that too? Career progression is a myth. You are at the mercy of economic forces that are out of your, or anyone else's, control. There are a thousand things that will determine your career path, and NONE of them have anything to do with what age you retire at.

"but taking hundreds and hundreds of days with their families away?

I believe I addressed this in the relative seniority discussion above, but please also read my previous post. You would work less than 4 1/2 months, assuming you had no sick bank left at age 60, to make up the difference. That equates to approximately 60 days, not hundreds and hundreds. Additionally, you would enjoy more time off while waiting for upgrade, so it's pretty much a wash.

"How can you see equal greed in a junior pilot...."

Because time and again, with the possible exception of your post, the ONLY arguement I've heard is that this will delay their upgrade. As if someone were simply keeping the seat warm for them until they were ready for it. Advancement comes only from vacancies, be it attrition or growth. It ain't yours until you're awarded it.

I know there were several other points your made in another thread.....

I'm self centered really, and desire to be in charge as many years as possible. I have a little weenie. No one in my family listens to me, they mock me. Damnit, they mock me. Not those glorified hookers, or those smart mouthed pud knockers, they keep giving to me. I show them! I'm in charge. I'm in charge. Mommy.

"age 60 works" ......so did piston engines, lets go back to those...

being one of them, and I can't recall the rest, but I'm going to go outside, away from the keyboard, and enjoy some life away from aviation.......

Cheers!

Vastly

Atleast you finally came out of the closet.

 

[ToThePain]

To The Pain,

I will try to address your calculations. I am, however at a disadvantage in that I do not have access to all the data you've used to complete your analysis. I think I can introduce a reasonable estimate with just what's available on airlinepilotcentral as far as your contract goes. Having said that, we must also agree that all the variables that may effect your pay/upgrade/transitions have to be eliminated from the discussion as they are unforcastable and would effect everyone.

Your first assumption concerning your 401K needs to be addressed. The IRS has established limits on how much pre-tax money can be contributed to your retirement fund. If you'd like to contribute after tax money to a separate fund that's entirely up to you, but should be removed from this analysis. The ceiling figure kicks in at approximately $100/hr which is approximately the same as a 5th year WIDE F/O. So any hourly increase beyond 5th year, whether it be due to longevity or upgrade, would have no effect on the amount contributed to your 401K. I think we can agree that upgrades will extend beyond 5 years, so the 401K is even, Captain or F/O.
Quoted from the Charles Schwab website:"
Contribution Limits
Each year, you can contribute a percentage of your annual salary until you reach the I.R.S. dollar maximum. Once you reach the annual limit, 401(k) contributions are no longer taken from your paycheck for the rest of the year. The range of contribution rates you can choose from is determined by your company plan.
The maximum dollar amount you can contribute annually through pre-tax and Roth elective deferrals to your 401k is determined by the I.R.S. and in 2007, the annual pre-tax and Roth elective deferral limit is $15,500 or $20,500 if you are above the age of 50 by the end of this year ($15,000 in 2006)and a maximum conbined contribution limit of $45,000 that applies both across the 401(k) and Plan B. Once you reach the annual limit, pre-tax and Roth elective deferrals should no longer be deducted from your paycheck for the remainder of the year. Please note, the annual pre-tax and Roth elective deferral limit does not apply to any matching or other contributions that your employer may provide.



For calculating career earnings I again did not have access to your total longevity, etc., so I examined things from a differences perspective. It is generally accepted that should the retirement age change to 65 that some will take it, some won't and some will be somewhere in between. The net effect has been calculated to somewhere between 2 1/2 and 3 years delay.
Using the last contract rates and a worst case scenario (6th year WIDE F/O vs. 6th year SN Capt) the hourly pay difference is $23/hr. For this examination we have to discount intangibles like quality of life of a senior F/O with 17days off/month (and 5 more off in Europe) with a commutable line versus a junior Captain sitting reserve in a crashpad in Newark. Based on your assumption of 76 hours that is $1748/month difference, admittedly a sizable sum. If we extrapolate that out to 3 years, that is $62,928.

Now if you choose to make up that pay difference and work beyond age sixty you've come up with a figure of 2 1/2 years. I calculate that at WIDE Capt pay of $186/hour, as that is everyone's "career expectation." $62,928 divided by $186/hour is 338.32 hours, or 4.45 months. Or just cash in your sick bank, your choice. For those in similar shoes that choose to work beyond that and retire on their 61st birthday, they will earn $106,868 more. Continue working to age 65 and you will earn $169,632/year or $785,396 after you've made up the "loss" from your delayed upgrade.
Expand that amount over 17 years (which is what I would have):
Total saved: $131,716
Starting with $62,928 and depositing $0 annually over 17 years (at a rate of return 6%, compounded monthly and taxed at your marginal rate of 28%), you will save $131,716.Initial balance:$62,928Total deposits:$0Total interest earned:$95,538Total taxes paid:$26,751Total Saved: $131,716

Less than 4 1/2 months. To correct an artificially placed restraint on our careers that had and continues to have no foundation whatsoever in medical fact. As stated in another thread, the age restriction was established by airline management to hold down payroll costs from all the WW2 pilots then populating the seniority lists. And the life expectancy of the average American has increased 20 years since then.

This measure is not about the immediate financial impact on you or me or anyone else currently on the payroll. No one will get the check without working for it. This is primarily about giving the option of a "normal" retirement age to every pilot that comes after us. For less than what you will give in union dues over the rest of your career you can positively impact each and every pilot that follows in your footsteps.

This is also about choice. Whatever the reasons behind the decision, I should be able to choose to work beyond an artificially placed limit. You don't have to if you so choose. It will be up to the unions to establish the right to retire at 60 without penalty, but that is a separate arguement. The point is, each of us should have the choice.
I agree this about choice. I was on average 5 years older than the guys in my training class. Most of them went to the regionals first then made it to a major. They have stronger feelings on this issue than I do. I plan on retiring at 60 but I also will have a military retirement.
As far as the other issues raised, PBS is a fact of airline life. It can be great or it can severely hamper "career progression," it all depends on who pulls the strings. That is an excellent opportunity for your union to get involved in a joint-control committee. As previously stated, quality of life issues are intangibles and different for everyone and so a comparison for age 60 purposes is unfair.
I'm not so sure that you can discount quality of life and upgrade time. While it is true that iw will be different at every airline for the most part this law will have a negative effect on the above for junior guys.

 

[ToThePain]

double post.

 

[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.