United Pilot Dies After Inflight Heart Attack

[The Prussian]

This kind of data, more than anything else, could stop the age 67 consideration.

Fear not....I don't think age 67 has anywhere near the support that raising age 60 did. JMHO.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Your previous words:

I have thrown you multiple olive branches over the years.

This is totally untrue.

 

[waveflyer]

This pretty is pretty typical of the argument the anti 65 crowd makes. Thousands of pilots had their pensions stolen with little warning and at an age were it's impossible to save enough in DC plan to make it up. The retirement plans for most we're changed to DC plans that favor younger pilots. Younger pilots now have the option of working to age 65 if they want and every year later in their career means huge gains to their DC plan.
Yet you are incensed that you didn't upgrade after 7 years with your company and had to spend an extra few years in the right seat. That sounds pretty "selfish and elitist " to me. Let a guy at 59 be kicked to the street (and denied Social Security till he is 62) just after his pension has been stolen rather than wait a couple years to upgrade. Amazing.

Dan, do you really believe this??^^^

Let me ask you? Has this group of boomers been good stewards of the career? Or has it grown weaker and weaker?

And don't get me started on how the republicans voted in influenced how those pensions were stolen-
How many then 59 year old captains weren't republicans who voted in the same people who didn't protect their earned pensions?

 

[Quimby]

Dan, any airline pilot in the last 50 years that was or is counting on a defined benefit plan is dumber than a box of rocks. Pull up a list of defunct airlines. Do a google search of that airline adding 'PBGC'. Note that all of those defined benefit plans got taken over by the PBGC.

A pilot losing his defined benefit plan to the PBGC is NOT something new that happened after 9/11; it's happened for a very long time.

Any airline pilot who wasn't/isn't maxing out his IRA and setting aside a minimum of an additional 10% of their salary is not very bright and is one of the poorest excuses for raising the retirement age that I've ever heard.

Every pilot out there should know that (s)he needs to live well below their current income level because no one is immune to having something bad happen to them. I don't excuse any pilot for not saving a large percentage of their income until they have a net worth in excess of $1 million. And in today's low interest environment, that number needs to be closer to $2 million net worth. Until then, they shouldn't be buying planes, boats, motorcycles, second houses, second wives, or any other toys. It's that simple.
In this business, one bad CEO and senior management can wreck an airline. If a second bad management team follows, the company will usually find itself in chapter 11. A third bad management team in a row and it's chapter 7. All of that can happen to ANY airline in less than a decade.

Well said.

 

[Dan Roman]

Dan, do you really believe this??^^^

Let me ask you? Has this group of boomers been good stewards of the career? Or has it grown weaker and weaker?

And don't get me started on how the republicans voted in influenced how those pensions were stolen-
How many then 59 year old captains weren't republicans who voted in the same people who didn't protect their earned pensions?

Almost didn't see this Wave since this thread got moved.
Believe what? Clearly DC plans favor the young. The longer you are in them the more you have the compound interest in your favor. That's a no brainer and now having the option to work till 65 means that much more time if someone wants to put more in their plan. The other point I made is the example of the many AQ pilots here at HAL, through no fault of their own, had to start over, many in their 40's or 50's. Our 15% DC and a separate 401K account means they can recover nicely by flying to 65. I know their story and to say they are selfish or greedy is ridiculous. A SWA pilot complaining that he didn't upgrade after 7 years and would rather have seen those guys forced out at 60 is pathologically narcissistic.

 

[Flopgut]

Almost didn't see this Wave since this thread got moved.
Believe what? Clearly DC plans favor the young. The longer you are in them the more you have the compound interest in your favor. That's a no brainer and now having the option to work till 65 means that much more time if someone wants to put more in their plan. The other point I made is the example of the many AQ pilots here at HAL, through no fault of their own, had to start over, many in their 40's or 50's. Our 15% DC and a separate 401K account means they can recover nicely by flying to 65. I know their story and to say they are selfish or greedy is ridiculous. A SWA pilot complaining that he didn't upgrade after 7 years and would rather have seen those guys forced out at 60 is pathologically narcissistic.

So DC plans favor young "clearly", but the AQ pilots recovered "nicely" with them!? Interesting...

DC are a level playing field. If you happen to be younger then you'll get more, but they're good for old guys as your own example shows. What you reveal in this post is the contempt you have for a fair deal and the bias you have against younger pilots. With you, it's as though any young guy ought to be happy to take any hit that helps an old pilot. Never goes the other way... Hmmmm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Flopgut]

A SWA pilot complaining that he didn't upgrade after 7 years and would rather have seen those guys forced out at 60 is pathologically narcissistic.

I'd say timing is more important than (possible) extra years at the end of career. Having had his timing stolen by age 65, and having a merger hit at almost the same time, the last five years are probably a wash for this SWA guy. I mean, he'll work those last 5 for free just to get the earnings he would have. Time value of money trumps compound interest in this case Dan. Not only that, he (and all of us) will be 5 years older. Can't get those years back. We're all being force fed this sacrifice so a bunch of old guys, who squandered the timing and time value of dollars they had, can have a mulligan!? And we're narcissistic!? GMAFB




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[WYOMINGPILOT]

And yet, as Asiana proved, these highly fit, medically superior pilots managed to ramp strike at SFO!!!

As if US pilots have a better safety record. Don't be so hypocritical as to stereotype all Asian pilots as what happened in SFO. Take a good hard look at:
1. UPS A-300 recently in BHM.
2. Southwest at LaGuardia recently
3.American Airlines 737NG in Jamaica.

Accidents happen for a myriad of reasons. Asia has one of the best flying safety records in the world. The bigger point of this thread is the failure of FAA medicals to adequately assess the pilots via a thorough screening. Asia has much stricter standards with flight physicals and a much lower pass rate with extensive testing which will not weed out all problems but greatly eliminate pilots from dying at the controls.