Retirements?
04-17-2007 | 03:17 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,304
Likes: 0
From: MD-11 Captain
THE core issues are that: a) You, Mr. Johnie-come-lately, don't make the rules; If the new rule says 65, then those who fall within that age limit should make up their own mind to either stay or go, based on their situation and feelings, and not be swayed by jerks like you; b) I just so happens to be none of your god-damned business why someone would stay or go. You don't have the need to know, and you haven't earned that, even if you feel that you do need to know; c) When you've put in 15 or 20 years of hub turns, wx diverts, operational emergencies, 4 leg nights, multiple CAT III approaches in the same pairing, etc, etc, then maybe you'll have the right to tell someone something about their private life, but not now.
Oh ... and you think your years of experience give you any more rights than any of the rest of us? YGTBSM
The aging process affects one's mental capabilities ... maybe you're not as "sharp" (a term my grandad used to use) as you used to be.
Regards,
Mark
04-17-2007 | 03:27 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,304
Likes: 0
From: MD-11 Captain
Since we have one(at least) of these guys, whom I honestly feel bad for, I thought I do some math.
Been here 25 years, should have maxed his high 5 out-$260000. That's a pension of $130000/year. A WB SO only makes $136/hour. All that vacation, sick, dsa, etc, 1000ch/year isn't unthinkable. That's $136000/year. That dude is working for $6000 a year, half of which his ex is taking. One year's work for $3000 bucks.
If he didn't max out his high 5, perhaps only 215000, then he's only grossing $28500 over his retirement(136000-107500), half of which his ex is taking. One year's work for $14250.
Is this a smart plan?
Fairness statement-It's his life, he can stay and work if he wants...but the numbers are astonishing. There isn't a job that he can do part time where he makes 28.5?
Been here 25 years, should have maxed his high 5 out-$260000. That's a pension of $130000/year. A WB SO only makes $136/hour. All that vacation, sick, dsa, etc, 1000ch/year isn't unthinkable. That's $136000/year. That dude is working for $6000 a year, half of which his ex is taking. One year's work for $3000 bucks.
If he didn't max out his high 5, perhaps only 215000, then he's only grossing $28500 over his retirement(136000-107500), half of which his ex is taking. One year's work for $14250.
Is this a smart plan?
Fairness statement-It's his life, he can stay and work if he wants...but the numbers are astonishing. There isn't a job that he can do part time where he makes 28.5?
Wait .. after taxes and insurance, he's working for NOTHING.
Please go volunteer somewhere and contribute to society instead.
I've intentionally not posted numbers on the forum because I don't think our salaries and retirement figures are anybody elses business (lots of FedEx employees already think we're a bunch of overpaid spoiled brats).
Regards,
Mark
Mark
04-17-2007 | 04:49 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,253
Likes: 0
Now I think what we need to try and do is come up with a plan to mitigate the damage to all groups involved.
Why, you ask?
- We find out who truly "loves to fly" and/or truly needs the money. Jetjok would get some landings again.
- It wouldn't slow down anybody's upgrade (except F/E's and guys not hired yet - but this is a compromise, after all.)
- It would ensure compliance with the idiotic "One pilot must be under 60" ICAO rule.
Robert Frost once said, "Home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in." If a pilot needs to earn at a lower (but still six-figure) level, he can do it. If a guy has no life and is addicted to the lifestyle he can do it. And the rest of us don't have to lose so much money (I don't have my Porche, yet, JJ.....)
04-17-2007 | 05:00 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
Over 65 = Right Seat Only.
Why, you ask?
- We find out who truly "loves to fly" and/or truly needs the money. Jetjok would get some landings again.
- It wouldn't slow down anybody's upgrade (except F/E's and guys not hired yet - but this is a compromise, after all.)
- It would ensure compliance with the idiotic "One pilot must be under 60" ICAO rule.
Robert Frost once said, "Home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in." If a pilot needs to earn at a lower (but still six-figure) level, he can do it. If a guy has no life and is addicted to the lifestyle he can do it. And the rest of us don't have to lose so much money (I don't have my Porche, yet, JJ.....)
Why, you ask?
- We find out who truly "loves to fly" and/or truly needs the money. Jetjok would get some landings again.
- It wouldn't slow down anybody's upgrade (except F/E's and guys not hired yet - but this is a compromise, after all.)
- It would ensure compliance with the idiotic "One pilot must be under 60" ICAO rule.
Robert Frost once said, "Home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in." If a pilot needs to earn at a lower (but still six-figure) level, he can do it. If a guy has no life and is addicted to the lifestyle he can do it. And the rest of us don't have to lose so much money (I don't have my Porche, yet, JJ.....)
04-17-2007 | 05:04 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
From: Bent Over
Does anyone here not believe this change is going to happen, it's just a matter of how it's implemented? I believe the major impetus for the FAA issuing the NPRM is to keep congress from legislating the issue. I think the the idea of limiting over 60 pilots to the right seat has some merit. Huck makes some good points - guys would still make a decent salary, if they really just love flying and traveling they can still do that, it minimizes impact on those waiting to upgrade, and makes the scheduling issue of having at least one guy under 60 easier to manage.
04-17-2007 | 06:24 AM
#56
...Whatever It Is!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
Likes: 0
If he didn't max out his high 5, perhaps only 215000, then he's only grossing $28500 over his retirement(136000-107500), half of which his ex is taking. One year's work for $14250.
Is this a smart plan?
Fairness statement-It's his life, he can stay and work if he wants...but the numbers are astonishing. There isn't a job that he can do part time where he makes 28.5?
REI, Bass Pro Shops or Cabelas too, if they had one near me! Or maybe move back to NW CO and be a ski instructor of ski patroller!
Last edited by MD11Fr8Dog; 04-17-2007 at 06:31 AM.
04-17-2007 | 06:32 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,652
Likes: 0
From: Spartan
Over 65 = Right Seat Only.
Why, you ask?
- We find out who truly "loves to fly" and/or truly needs the money. Jetjok would get some landings again.
- It wouldn't slow down anybody's upgrade (except F/E's and guys not hired yet - but this is a compromise, after all.)
- It would ensure compliance with the idiotic "One pilot must be under 60" ICAO rule.
Robert Frost once said, "Home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in." If a pilot needs to earn at a lower (but still six-figure) level, he can do it. If a guy has no life and is addicted to the lifestyle he can do it. And the rest of us don't have to lose so much money (I don't have my Porche, yet, JJ.....)
Why, you ask?
- We find out who truly "loves to fly" and/or truly needs the money. Jetjok would get some landings again.
- It wouldn't slow down anybody's upgrade (except F/E's and guys not hired yet - but this is a compromise, after all.)
- It would ensure compliance with the idiotic "One pilot must be under 60" ICAO rule.
Robert Frost once said, "Home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in." If a pilot needs to earn at a lower (but still six-figure) level, he can do it. If a guy has no life and is addicted to the lifestyle he can do it. And the rest of us don't have to lose so much money (I don't have my Porche, yet, JJ.....)
Great idea Huck! I could live with that. A second but less popular one would be for all pilots currently at a carrier are out at age 60. Those hired after the rule change can stay until 65. This way everyone on that seniority list from that point on are all affected equally.
04-17-2007 | 09:41 AM
#58
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,371
Likes: 11
Redo
Sounds like for those who took the poll might want to redo. Haven't taken it yet....but will. If there is a way to include this as my concern/suggestion, I'm putting in Huck's idea, provided of course the rule change won't prohibit me from going at 60, and does not negatively affect my B-Fund.
04-17-2007 | 10:21 AM
#60
...Whatever It Is!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
Likes: 0
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
