They can keep their (*&*( work rules, but I'll take the nekkid chicks on TV.

Me--I just wanna get my high 5 and quit at 55....

 

Wake up, Huck. They already tell us plenty ad they have every right to if we want to do business in their community. Perhaps you weren't looking, but since they joined up they have had a say in, among other things, mergers of our corporations and anti trust (Microsoft). "Don't like it Mr. Gates? Just dont sell your products here"

It's a global economy now and we are going to have to get used to it.

 

Perhaps they will when people in favor of keeping the rule acknowledge the damage that age 60 does to the careers of the other half. In other words, it is all parochial no matter which side of the coin one finds himself.

To those who say that you can quit at 60 if it changes and you don't like it, I would suggest that the rule change takes away 3-5 extra years (not all will go to 65 for one reason or another) of quality of life from that guy. There needs to be some empathy for that too.

Group hug <G>

 

QOL and that's 'all' huh? That's never been a big deal in this industry anyway. Parochial? Beautiful word triple word score, have you been watching 'Who's Harry Crumb?' lately? Seriously though, would these be the same people that no matter what airline find a way to negotiate/ratify higher pension rates benefits for themselves each contract cycle? I wonder how long that will hold up and who will get to hold the bag 5 years longer in the end? The rule has been the rule as long as everyone around here has been around, why exactly is one sides sob story suddenly more important than the others. Why do I not find it funny that the people pushing this cr@p the hardest are at carriers that are doing the best? No matter how Prater rock tries to spin it, the boys of UA, DAL, and the others who lost their A plans aren't the primary impetus on this deal from the pilot side.

 

Interesting point. I guess it has to do with the fact that it is much more desireable tohold on to a job with a decent schedule and pulling in 250k than it is to hold onto one that is a lot harder than it used to be and only pays half as much as it used to. You are right though and I don't recall hearing Prater spin it one way or another, it is the "haves" that seem more interested in this than the "have nots"

 

Hey, you're no fun!! Stuff like this is supposed to turn into big nasty arguments!! (j.k). You saw it for what it was, just a talking point I certainly don't have the answers. What I have realized the longer I do this is, that we pilots have a history of making bad financial decisions outside of the cockpit with the best of intentions and remarkably little ability to learn from those mistakes in the same way we learn from others. And dammit if we aren't confident in those errors-a very frustrating thing imo considering that we are in a necessarily unionized industry. Collectively we have power and intelligence but our intrinsic personalities haven't allowed us to effectively leverage it outside of flying the bird. I think I got a few triple word scores of my own in there-who says public college isn't effective?

 

what if one could retire at 60 without taking an early retirement penality, and if one wanted to fly beyond 60, was physically and mentally capabale, then that one could choose to fly to 65? Or retire anywhere in betweern 60-65, once again without penality. just throwin it out there . . .

naive

 

Oh, OK ... now that you said that I've totally changed my mind. You're kidding, aren't you?



Mark

 

ABK man .. that sounds great but it shows a lack of understanding about how our seniority system works. EVERYTHING is seniority based. Monthly schedules, vacations, seat positions (pay!), training dates and more. So for every guy that decides to stick around past 60, my life gets just a little bit worse and I make just a little bit less money. If a bunch of them decide to stay ... well let's just hope that won't happen.

Here's the part I just don't understand. Let's take a guy that has completed his 25 years at the company. He gets 50% of his pay to retire. If he sticks around to be a flight engineer (that's all the FAA permits them to do today, and that isn't expected to change for at least 2 years) then he makes 61% of his MD-11 Capt pay to be a DC-10 flight engineer (but the DC-10's will be gone soon and 727 engineers only get paid 53% of widebody capt pay). So best case, he's working a full time job (with some REALLY TERRIBLE HOURS) for 11% of his pay (remember that he gets 50% to sit at home). I JUST DON'T GET IT.

I'm certain that some on the discussion will point out that some don't have their 25 years here fir various reasons. Still ... if you crunch the numbers, working past age 60 just doesn't make any sense (not even as a widebody capt! if the could even do that). I bet the company LOVES those guys, it saves them a ton of money.

I'll assume that those guys have no hobbies ... I can find 100 things I would rather do than this job full time for 11% of my pay.

Rant over ...



Mark

 

Say that the 65 rule is in full effect, pilots maintaining their seats all the way to 65, not taking a back seat at 60. If one wanted to still retire at 60, would he now take an early retirement hit because he didn't stick out to the new limit?