Age 65 rule came at worst possible time?
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: CFI
Posts: 416
Age 65 rule came at worst possible time?
Over the past few weeks, I have begun to wonder if the new age 65 limit may have contributed to the current employment crisis in the airlines. Certainly, it hasn't had an impact on the economy, but is it possible the rule has played a bigger role in staffing levels than we might have thought?
Had the rule not been instituted in late 2007, we would be in the midst of many reitrements. As such and even as capacity has been reduced, major carriers would still have had to fill spots left open by retirements. In turn, this would have created openings at regional carriers as more experienced captains moved on to more lucrative pay. If nothing else, the onslaught of retirements probably would have mitigated furloughs.
Instead, most pilots reaching the age of 60 have chosen to continuing flying. Because pilots of 60 years of age have many years of seniority, they cost airlines more in pay. Certainly, they're more expensive than the first and second year hires who would have replaced them. Regardless and through no fault of their own, the works have been gummed up and we see the furloughs which continue to be announced.
I don't know if what I have written has any validity, but I thought I would throw it out there.
Had the rule not been instituted in late 2007, we would be in the midst of many reitrements. As such and even as capacity has been reduced, major carriers would still have had to fill spots left open by retirements. In turn, this would have created openings at regional carriers as more experienced captains moved on to more lucrative pay. If nothing else, the onslaught of retirements probably would have mitigated furloughs.
Instead, most pilots reaching the age of 60 have chosen to continuing flying. Because pilots of 60 years of age have many years of seniority, they cost airlines more in pay. Certainly, they're more expensive than the first and second year hires who would have replaced them. Regardless and through no fault of their own, the works have been gummed up and we see the furloughs which continue to be announced.
I don't know if what I have written has any validity, but I thought I would throw it out there.
#2
AGE 65 has everything to do with the current layoffs and hiring (lack thereof) currently. had the rule not changed we would likely not have as much if any furloughs and could potentially be looking at hiring even in this economy.
It couldnt have come at a worse time
It couldnt have come at a worse time
#4
Over the past few weeks, I have begun to wonder if the new age 65 limit may have contributed to the current employment crisis in the airlines. Certainly, it hasn't had an impact on the economy, but is it possible the rule has played a bigger role in staffing levels than we might have thought?
Had the rule not been instituted in late 2007, we would be in the midst of many reitrements. As such and even as capacity has been reduced, major carriers would still have had to fill spots left open by retirements. In turn, this would have created openings at regional carriers as more experienced captains moved on to more lucrative pay. If nothing else, the onslaught of retirements probably would have mitigated furloughs.
Instead, most pilots reaching the age of 60 have chosen to continuing flying. Because pilots of 60 years of age have many years of seniority, they cost airlines more in pay. Certainly, they're more expensive than the first and second year hires who would have replaced them. Regardless and through no fault of their own, the works have been gummed up and we see the furloughs which continue to be announced.
I don't know if what I have written has any validity, but I thought I would throw it out there.
Had the rule not been instituted in late 2007, we would be in the midst of many reitrements. As such and even as capacity has been reduced, major carriers would still have had to fill spots left open by retirements. In turn, this would have created openings at regional carriers as more experienced captains moved on to more lucrative pay. If nothing else, the onslaught of retirements probably would have mitigated furloughs.
Instead, most pilots reaching the age of 60 have chosen to continuing flying. Because pilots of 60 years of age have many years of seniority, they cost airlines more in pay. Certainly, they're more expensive than the first and second year hires who would have replaced them. Regardless and through no fault of their own, the works have been gummed up and we see the furloughs which continue to be announced.
I don't know if what I have written has any validity, but I thought I would throw it out there.
Also think of the training cost associate with the retirement wind fall. Senior 777 CA retires and is backfilled by a 757 CA who then backfilled by a 737 CA who is backfilled by a 757 FO backfilled by a 737 FO…………………………………..then comes the new hire.
Overall it’s cost effective to have these old guys stick around which creates stagnation and prolongs the inevitable. That is unless you’re airlines overstaffed and needs relief. Then they want the old guys to retire so the airline can benefit from stagnant cheaper labor.
What a cluster this industry has become.
#5
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: CRJ FO
Posts: 39
Age 65 is a move in the right direction. Even better would be no age restrictions. Some are on the short end of this change currently but will benefit long-term. Sure those who fall into the 60-65 age range are a big expense to the airlines but in most all cases they have also earned it.
I am actually surprised when I hear pilots who are not in support of this change. We see so many comments on professional pay, treatment and solidarity. The age 65 change, unless I am missing something was not a win for the airlines; it was a win for the pilots. Just because we not in a position to immediately reap the rewards does not mean we are not going to get our turn.
I am actually surprised when I hear pilots who are not in support of this change. We see so many comments on professional pay, treatment and solidarity. The age 65 change, unless I am missing something was not a win for the airlines; it was a win for the pilots. Just because we not in a position to immediately reap the rewards does not mean we are not going to get our turn.
#6
I would like to think that at the age of 60 I would want to be free to pursue my own interests. I understand that life circumstances have made this very difficult for some pilots to do, especially since they cannot draw other benefits for 2 to 5 years after "retirement." I feel fairly sure that if finances weren't a factor, most of us would leave at 60 to be free to do whatever we want. Unfortunately, that isn't the way things have worked out.
#7
When the age 65 rule was passed, all you could read about was the huge shortage of pilots. Obviously, that changed quickly; however, I believe that in the long run, there is still projected to be a huge shortage of pilots.
Also, look at how many pilots have lost their pensions. Many pilots were counting on that to support them in retirement. Since they no longer have that, some of them NEED to work beyond age 60 because they didn't have enough saved up otherwise. Also, 60 is relatively young considering that people are living longer and longer (or so that's what I hear).
Also, look at how many pilots have lost their pensions. Many pilots were counting on that to support them in retirement. Since they no longer have that, some of them NEED to work beyond age 60 because they didn't have enough saved up otherwise. Also, 60 is relatively young considering that people are living longer and longer (or so that's what I hear).
#8
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,480
Age 65 causing the employment problems? Give me a break. For a YEAR after Age 65 was enacted, the Regionals were hiring guys with 500/100, some as low as 500/50.
What changed? As the Clinton campaign team used to say:
"Its the economy, Stupid." That, and the oil speculation price spike last summer. Period. Age 65 is a pimple on the butt of the airline tailspin.
What changed? As the Clinton campaign team used to say:
"Its the economy, Stupid." That, and the oil speculation price spike last summer. Period. Age 65 is a pimple on the butt of the airline tailspin.
#9
Age 65 causing the employment problems? Give me a break. For a YEAR after Age 65 was enacted, the Regionals were hiring guys with 500/100, some as low as 500/50.
What changed? As the Clinton campaign team used to say:
"Its the economy, Stupid." That, and the oil speculation price spike last summer. Period. Age 65 is a pimple on the butt of the airline tailspin.
What changed? As the Clinton campaign team used to say:
"Its the economy, Stupid." That, and the oil speculation price spike last summer. Period. Age 65 is a pimple on the butt of the airline tailspin.
#10
Understandably, this would tick off some US pilots
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post