68 Is The New 60
04-24-2015, 11:46 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: It's hot out here.
Posts: 615
Originally Posted by Andy
There was a decent amount of airline support for age 65. A few reasons:
1) Less training costs. One retirement can trigger a half a dozen training events.
2) Airline salaries max (for almost all airlines) at the 12 year mark. The cost of having pilots fly for another 3 years isn't as much as one would think.
3) By extending pilot careers, the supply of pilots remains higher. This allows the airlines to pay pilots less money.
I'm sure that there are plenty of other pros and cons for the airlines, but I would guess that the economics of an age change are a big reason for the airlines to push for it.
On the Congressional side, lawmakers
1) Do not want to be labeled as someone who practices age discrimination.
2) Having pilots work longer means more money coming into and less money going out of Social Security.
1) Less training costs. One retirement can trigger a half a dozen training events.
2) Airline salaries max (for almost all airlines) at the 12 year mark. The cost of having pilots fly for another 3 years isn't as much as one would think.
3) By extending pilot careers, the supply of pilots remains higher. This allows the airlines to pay pilots less money.
I'm sure that there are plenty of other pros and cons for the airlines, but I would guess that the economics of an age change are a big reason for the airlines to push for it.
On the Congressional side, lawmakers
1) Do not want to be labeled as someone who practices age discrimination.
2) Having pilots work longer means more money coming into and less money going out of Social Security.
12 Yr CA: $270 x 65hours= $210,600
1 Yr FO: $70 x 75hours (avg guarantee on reserve)= $63,000
(2) 1st year FOs: $126,000
That's a difference of $84,600. Not sure what the sim cost to run, but the CA would have to go to recurrent so you'd have to deduct his cost.
Additionally, I'm sure the CA is vested in the company and his 401K contribution percentage is probably a little more than the 2 new FOs.
Let's say these 2 FOs were lucky and got put on the 737-9. Their making some dough in the second year:
$108 x 65= $84,240 x 2= $168,480.
$210,600 (CA) - $168,480 (FO) = $42,120
I know this is pretty rudimentary and I'm missing something but I grew up in the south
.
04-24-2015, 12:05 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Originally Posted by AllenAllert
Is Delta the only airline that has a Medical Department and requires annual company physicals for their pilots?
I know United closed their medical Department and stopped requiring annual company physicals a few years back during Tilton's reign.
I know United closed their medical Department and stopped requiring annual company physicals a few years back during Tilton's reign.
04-24-2015, 12:09 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Originally Posted by Andy
Pandora's Box has been opened with the change to age 65. Unless airlines adamantly oppose and lobby against another change, the age limit will change again. And since Pandora's Box has been opened, the new change will be much faster than the change from 60 to 65. My best guess is that the age limit will increase within the next 4 years.
04-24-2015, 12:13 PM
#26
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Originally Posted by iceman49
Delta does not have a Medical Department and does not require an annual company physical, they do have an individual (MD) that reviews the document when the pilot comes back to work after an extended medical leave.
04-24-2015, 12:27 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,159
Originally Posted by skypilot35
Valid points. I know you should never do math in public but some random numbers. Age 65 777 Captain retires. You have to hire two to replace him. Based on hourly rate:
12 Yr CA: $270 x 65hours= $210,600
1 Yr FO: $70 x 75hours (avg guarantee on reserve)= $63,000
(2) 1st year FOs: $126,000
That's a difference of $84,600. Not sure what the sim cost to run, but the CA would have to go to recurrent so you'd have to deduct his cost.
Additionally, I'm sure the CA is vested in the company and his 401K contribution percentage is probably a little more than the 2 new FOs.
Let's say these 2 FOs were lucky and got put on the 737-9. Their making some dough in the second year:
$108 x 65= $84,240 x 2= $168,480.
$210,600 (CA) - $168,480 (FO) = $42,120
I know this is pretty rudimentary and I'm missing something but I grew up in the south.
12 Yr CA: $270 x 65hours= $210,600
1 Yr FO: $70 x 75hours (avg guarantee on reserve)= $63,000
(2) 1st year FOs: $126,000
That's a difference of $84,600. Not sure what the sim cost to run, but the CA would have to go to recurrent so you'd have to deduct his cost.
Additionally, I'm sure the CA is vested in the company and his 401K contribution percentage is probably a little more than the 2 new FOs.
Let's say these 2 FOs were lucky and got put on the 737-9. Their making some dough in the second year:
$108 x 65= $84,240 x 2= $168,480.
$210,600 (CA) - $168,480 (FO) = $42,120
I know this is pretty rudimentary and I'm missing something but I grew up in the south
.Retiring 777 CA. New 777 CA (formerly 767 CA) replaces him. $0 salary savings.
Former 767 CA creates 767 CA vacancy. 737 CA replaces him. $0 salary savings.
... etc ... until
Year 3 737 FO going to 767 FO creates 737 FO vacancy. New hire replaces him.
... so the savings only really applies to the pilot the newhire replaces. Yet there were several very expensive training events generated by the retirement.
We can get extremely complex with all of the math, but look what's currently happening at the Regionals. If the music stopped, how much money in pilot bonuses (that eventually get passed on to the major airline) would be saved if the movement stopped for a few years? There's a whole lot of cost savings by extending retirement age.
The balancing act is when does increasing the retirement age become unsafe? There have been a number of inflight incidents involving over 60 pilots, so the safety margin is now less than when the mandatory retirement age was 60. What is an acceptable number of incidents? I don't know, and unless the FAA gets uncomfortable (unlikely; they'll probably rubber stamp what Congress wants - they know who signs their paychecks), there are very few organizations (zero is the number that I'd put it at) that will oppose another age increase. Sadly.
04-24-2015, 12:31 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Originally Posted by Andy
The savings aren't that much.
Retiring 777 CA. New 777 CA (formerly 767 CA) replaces him. $0 salary savings.
Former 767 CA creates 767 CA vacancy. 737 CA replaces him. $0 salary savings.
... etc ... until
Year 3 737 FO going to 767 FO creates 737 FO vacancy. New hire replaces him.
... so the savings only really applies to the pilot the newhire replaces. Yet there were several very expensive training events generated by the retirement.
We can get extremely complex with all of the math, but look what's currently happening at the Regionals. If the music stopped, how much money in pilot bonuses (that eventually get passed on to the major airline) would be saved if the movement stopped for a few years? There's a whole lot of cost savings by extending retirement age.
The balancing act is when does increasing the retirement age become unsafe? There have been a number of inflight incidents involving over 60 pilots, so the safety margin is now less than when the mandatory retirement age was 60. What is an acceptable number of incidents? I don't know, and unless the FAA gets uncomfortable (unlikely; they'll probably rubber stamp what Congress wants - they know who signs their paychecks), there are very few organizations (zero is the number that I'd put it at) that will oppose another age increase. Sadly.
Retiring 777 CA. New 777 CA (formerly 767 CA) replaces him. $0 salary savings.
Former 767 CA creates 767 CA vacancy. 737 CA replaces him. $0 salary savings.
... etc ... until
Year 3 737 FO going to 767 FO creates 737 FO vacancy. New hire replaces him.
... so the savings only really applies to the pilot the newhire replaces. Yet there were several very expensive training events generated by the retirement.
We can get extremely complex with all of the math, but look what's currently happening at the Regionals. If the music stopped, how much money in pilot bonuses (that eventually get passed on to the major airline) would be saved if the movement stopped for a few years? There's a whole lot of cost savings by extending retirement age.
The balancing act is when does increasing the retirement age become unsafe? There have been a number of inflight incidents involving over 60 pilots, so the safety margin is now less than when the mandatory retirement age was 60. What is an acceptable number of incidents? I don't know, and unless the FAA gets uncomfortable (unlikely; they'll probably rubber stamp what Congress wants - they know who signs their paychecks), there are very few organizations (zero is the number that I'd put it at) that will oppose another age increase. Sadly.
04-24-2015, 12:35 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: It's hot out here.
Posts: 615
Originally Posted by Andy
The savings aren't that much.
Retiring 777 CA. New 777 CA (formerly 767 CA) replaces him. $0 salary savings.
Former 767 CA creates 767 CA vacancy. 737 CA replaces him. $0 salary savings.
... etc ... until
Year 3 737 FO going to 767 FO creates 737 FO vacancy. New hire replaces him.
... so the savings only really applies to the pilot the newhire replaces. Yet there were several very expensive training events generated by the retirement.
We can get extremely complex with all of the math, but look what's currently happening at the Regionals. If the music stopped, how much money in pilot bonuses (that eventually get passed on to the major airline) would be saved if the movement stopped for a few years? There's a whole lot of cost savings by extending retirement age.
The balancing act is when does increasing the retirement age become unsafe? There have been a number of inflight incidents involving over 60 pilots, so the safety margin is now less than when the mandatory retirement age was 60. What is an acceptable number of incidents? I don't know, and unless the FAA gets uncomfortable (unlikely; they'll probably rubber stamp what Congress wants - they know who signs their paychecks), there are very few organizations (zero is the number that I'd put it at) that will oppose another age increase. Sadly.
Retiring 777 CA. New 777 CA (formerly 767 CA) replaces him. $0 salary savings.
Former 767 CA creates 767 CA vacancy. 737 CA replaces him. $0 salary savings.
... etc ... until
Year 3 737 FO going to 767 FO creates 737 FO vacancy. New hire replaces him.
... so the savings only really applies to the pilot the newhire replaces. Yet there were several very expensive training events generated by the retirement.
We can get extremely complex with all of the math, but look what's currently happening at the Regionals. If the music stopped, how much money in pilot bonuses (that eventually get passed on to the major airline) would be saved if the movement stopped for a few years? There's a whole lot of cost savings by extending retirement age.
The balancing act is when does increasing the retirement age become unsafe? There have been a number of inflight incidents involving over 60 pilots, so the safety margin is now less than when the mandatory retirement age was 60. What is an acceptable number of incidents? I don't know, and unless the FAA gets uncomfortable (unlikely; they'll probably rubber stamp what Congress wants - they know who signs their paychecks), there are very few organizations (zero is the number that I'd put it at) that will oppose another age increase. Sadly.
