⌐ AV8OR WANNABE

Klako

OK, would you be opposed to this solution? That is to allow every pilot to work for a company for no more that 20 years regardless of age. E.G. If you are hired at age 25 you must leave at age 45 or if you were hired at age 45 you can continue to age 65. Is that fair?
Enough time for every pilot to grow a respectable 401K. Is that fair?

⌐ AV8OR WANNABE

Skyone

There was already a precedent at Delta to allow retired pilots to come back and work, in order that the airline didn't shut down with the mass of retirements. They DID go to the bottom of the list but kept their pay. Additionally, the CEO when asked at a LCA meeting, "can you think of any reason why a pilot should not retire early?" His answer in front of over 300 pilots "NO". So this could be deemed as being "forced" out. Water under the bridge though.

My point is that the top of the pay scale is at year twelve. There are no longevity raises after that. When executives, managers, etc etc come in and are given twenty year virtual senority for retirement and pay, when the pilots that were eligble to retire are told to leave, when the active pilots cut off all retired pilots both monetarily and representatively.....I would say someone that retired with the requisite years be put on a scale commenserate with their previous longevity. How does a retired pilot if he got 12 yr pay hurt a new hire at year one? Ok, penalize the pilot for leaving and make it year six pay. Don't tell me what's right and wrong in this non-fight.

And also, my friend, no one left with a "multimillion" dollar retirement at Delta. A very few ended up with just over a million, but most-less. Not including the illegal termination of unqualified pensions (with ALPA's non-objection). How that company has and does treat its retirees is incredibely low class.

My point is that some airlines have welcomed the retirees back, valuing their experience and knowledge.

__________________
S1

MoosePileit

KLM limits service years, then they are free to go fly elsewhere- if needed. it's an idea, but not a great one- does it fit a business model- sure- cuts the top paid folks off at a predetermined point- it just assumes it's not at a mandated age.

Now- just throw out your 401k idea and put in place a PENSION- run the numbers again, see if it makes sense for the company still.

No Years of Service retirements w/o a PENSION- KIND OF LIKE THE MILITARY, so I know you can understand.

20 years is 3 or 4 cycles in the airlines- is that enough to actually advance?

Could you convert to this plan fairly at all? I think it'd be even less-so than the age 65 jump- but we're still in the middle of that, well, not all of us here are...