Originally Posted by
MEMFO4Ever
Cogent argument. However, I got into this biz because I could get out with a retirement a full 7 years before my Social Security compatriots. I figured that my ability to go at 60 was a kind of payback for basically giving up any semblance of an actual, normal life. Now this thing rears its ugly head. I am confident that my company, one of the few with a defined benefit, will negotiate fiercely during our next go-around to reduce the multiplier. So my "choice" will turn into no choice at all. Stay until 65 (or 70, or whatever these guys come up with) or you won't collect a full retirement. Also the defined contribution can be reduced (maybe eliminated) since I will have to work 5 of the previously uncovered years toward a full Social Security benefit.
Safety aside, how am I better working for more years for the same (or possibly less) retirement money? I'm not naive enough to believe that FedEx will avoid the obvious financial windfall available to them during negotiations. Plus I can't, for the life of me, figure out why anyone wants to do this a minute longer than is currently regulated, but that's a personal thing.
First of all, you'd be the first person on the face of the earth who got into their job, with the expressed intention of " I could get out with a retirement a full 7 years before my Social Security compatriots.." I've got to congratulate you on your wisdom and awareness. Most of us got into this business because we loved to fly airplanes.
However, your thinking that "I figured that my to go at 60 was a kind of payback for basically giving up any semblance of an actual, normal life." was not too accurate. Your ability to go to 60 was put in place years ago by people who didn't know the first thing about an age limit, but wanted to punish some senior pilots, whom the airline president didn't want to pay their senior pilot rate. Nothing more and nothing less.
Whereas you might be "confident that my company, one of the few with a defined benefit, will negotiate fiercely during our next go-around to reduce the multiplier.", I might tend to disagree, but since neither of us has a crystal ball, we'll just have to wait and see.
The company could negotiate changes to their current plans, but it's negotiations, get it. As far as eliminating or reducing the defined benefit, they could do that anyway, again, after negotiating it's disappearance.
As far as safety is concerned, there's no evidence that flying past 60 causes any safety concerns at all, other than younger guys hoping that something happens to the older guy. And as for the changing of the age from 60 to something over 60 causing additional health testing that could adversely affect younger pilots. Good. Just as you don't want to fly with an over-60 guy who might keel over at any moment, I don't want to fly with a under-60 guy who might do the same thing. And you can bet there's a bunch of them around.
And as to your comment "I can't, for the life of me, figure out why anyone wants to do this a minute longer than is currently regulated, but that's a personal thing." I'd say: first off, part of the issue is the word regulated. Personally, when I'm in my car on an open road with a "regulated" speed limit of 55, I'm usually going about 70 (except in G'Town or C'Ville). I think most of us do the same thing. Whereas some regulations are ok, some are not. The ones we view as inappropriate, we usually find some logic to disregard; Secondly, if you really can't figure out why anyone wants to fly past 60, I'd suggest that you're in this job for many of the wrong reasons, and that explaining to you my reasons why I do want to continue to fly, would be a waste of my time and yours. But maybe you explained yourself in your second sentence of your post. If that's the case, I'm sorry.