Klako

Figures lie and liars figure!

Justin Case

I agree numbers can always be stretched. But are you saying there is no correlation between working longer and a quicker death.

BTW I am all for age 75/no age limit, but with higher medical standards.

Klako

See my post #6 on this subject.

Justin Case

Thanks I missed it before. I guess we will have to wait and see. Still, there must be some reason the longer I stay at Alaska the less my A plan will be worth when looking at the actuary.

sigtauenus

I agree, especially after seeing the projected retirement numbers for the next few years compared to projected hiring numbers.

Also, I realize that, at 32, I have a life expentency that is likely to be a good 5 or 10 years longer than guys retiring now.

Considering that social security is a goner, and we don't have the will to do anything about it, I need to plan for my own retirement. Right now my savings plan is built around being able to financially retire at 50. Might be a pipe dream, might actually happen.

The amount of required retirement savings for a guy retiring at 60 and will live to 90 is much different than a guy retiring at 65 and will live to 100 or more.

Although it may mean a few months or even a year or two before I get picked up by a major, and down the road a year or two more before I get to jump in the left seat, I welcome the opportunity to work to 65 should I choose or need to do so at that point in my life.

Again, I don't plan on needing to work at that point in my life, but I see the value in at least having the option to.

Rocco

Your post is pretty funny considering many of your remarks here include those same type of figures....

__________________
If your not part of the solution, then..............

Klako

I can back-up everything with reliable sources.

Age at retirement and long term survival of an industrial population: Prospective Cohort Study
Results Subjects who retired early at 55 and who were still alive at 65 had a significantly higher mortality than those who retired at 65 (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.73). Mortality was also significantly higher for subjects in the first 10 years after retirement at 55 compared with those who continued working (1.89, 1.58 to 2.27). After adjustment, mortality was similar between those who retired at 60 and those who retired at 65 (1.06, 0.92 to 1.22). Mortality did not differ for the first five years after retirement at 60 compared with continuing work at 60 (1.04, 0.82 to 1.31).
Conclusions Retiring early at 55 or 60 was not associated with better survival than retiring at 65 in a cohort of past employees of the petrochemical industry. Mortality was higher in employees who retired at 55 than in those who continued working.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7523/995

“Early Retirement May Mean Earlier Death”--- Primary source: British Medical Journal Source reference: http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/PublicHealth/tb/1980"Age at retirement and long-term survival of an industrial population: prospective cohort study," BMJ, published online Oct. 20, 2005. “…Study found that retiring at age 55 was associated with an almost two-fold greater risk of dying compared with employees who postponed retirement until their 60s…investigators found that embarking on the Golden Years at age 55 doubled the risk for death before reaching age 65, compared with those who toiled beyond age 60…”

MoosePileit

I'd say consider the environment- Can you retire at 55 and afford to live until a normal age of death in England anymore?

Go figure...

HercDriver130

Every source is only as reliable as YOU want it to be Klako... we all know you are the only one amongst us who knows anything about anything. Quite frankly if you believe working longer equates to longer BETTER quality of life..........notice I didnt say anything about death.. just quality of life.

On the other hand... your side won their selfish little battle congrats...., but when 65 hits HELL will freeze before this happens again.

Klako

The age 60 rule is now history, the curse that this abdominal rule has cast upon the airline industry has been abated. However, this is just one battle won towards winning the war. I believe that this is just the first step in abolishing any arbitrary age limit for airline pilots. If a pilot can pass the class one medicals and proficiency checks that that pilot should be allowed to continue flying as long as he/she desires.

The immunity and "prospective only," clauses in H.R.4343 clearly violate the United States Constitution. We need to fight the precedent being set to strip airline pilots of their constitutional rights. The courts must now take action to not allow the prospective and immunity language Congressman Oberstar brought to go unchallenged. Protections for the air carriers and unions at the expense of the pilots sets a dangerous precedent that violates several Federal laws if allowed to stand.

Congress cannot pass laws that give immunity to anyone who violates the basic law of the land. The the prospective and immunity clasuses contradict the equal protection clause found in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and violates the Age Discrimination Act of 1967. It is against the law for any employer or labor union to require a person who has worked for 20 to 40 years, that because of their age, they may continue or return to their employment with the company only with the condition that they must work as a “new hire”; relinquish their seniority, longevity, position and current salary with the company and start all over again with the salary of a person just hired by the company.