Old Coastie

[QUOTE=Falconjet;169733]Well the thing that's different now is that when I turned 60 I was "officially" old, something no one has wanted to hear since they legally got served their first beer. Now before I get flamed about it's what I deserve, like JetJok, we're just trying to give you our side of the story. Not all of us are on our third wives and fourth corvette. Like JJ I too am a bystander in all of this. I didn't lobby for or against the 60 change. Personally I don't think I'll ever see a front seat (left or right) again. FWIW, when I got to the DC-10 in 1989 there were over 60 guys in the back seat (Chuck Yates et al) lobbying very hard for Congress and the FAA to raise the age to 65.

Jetjok

OK Falconjet, you've suckered me in for this last time. Here goes. When I said I needed some time off after coming from the left seat, it was so that I could approach this "new" job with the same amount of vigor that I've tried to bring to each job I've had here at FedEx. It was not because I felt that sitting sideways sucked, or "having to watch two "numbnuts" struggling with their jobs", sucked, but it was to overcome the feeling of being in charge and at the same time, getting into the flight engineer mode. Nothing more or nothing less.

As for every new hire having to make that adjustment, that's just the way this business is. When you sign on, you start at the bottom. Believe me, it's not at all the same thing. Ask any new hire, regardless of their past experiences, if they are happy to be here. The overwhelming answer will (I hope) be "YES." It's quite different coming from a captains or first officers seat. The fact that you don't see this tells me that you've probably not been a captain before.

As for treating the back seat guys with dignity and respect, well, that too is a difference between a new guy whose first assignment is a back seat and a guy who has been at the company for some time, going to the back seat. New guys in the back have always been treated poorly, but over time, that has gotten much better because guys who are now captains remember what it was like for them, when they first started out here. When I flew the left seat, I treated everyone with D & R. Now that I'm in the back, I still do, and expect them to treat me the same way. No, actually, truth be told, I demand it. I do agree with you about having a back seat to go to after turning "retirement age" is a nice option. It will be even nicer to be able to return to a window seat.

Jetjok

This thing is not about fairness at all, it's about timing. Pure and simple. To come up with an arbitrary requirement as you have (no one who holds an ATP) seems sort of wishful, at best. The rule is going to change. Accept that as a fact of life. Whereas it will negatively effect a portion of our population, it will do the inverse for another portion. I can't remember when a law was passed that didn't have exactly the same end result: one group benefiting at another's expense. Just a fact of life. Not fair? Sure, it's not fair, but neither is life. Windfalls are just that, windfalls. It's too bad that we can't see that for what it is, but I certainly do see the other side. To those on that side, I say: you will have your chance too. It's only a matter of timing.

JollyF15

The rich get richer and poor get poorer. Or in our case, the senior dudes get richer, and the junior guys get screwed. How can even think about looking at it any other way? Why don't you just enjoy the great retirement that our contract provides and play a lot of golf, and in the process pass the torch to the rest of us. I just don't get it.

Jetjok

Jolly, you really do need to read entire posts before commenting. It's only "fair." There are a number of guys who are both older and junior, both at the same time, but I guess that if they're senior to you, than that's all that counts. As well, I don't play golf. It's too exacting (and slow) for me. I'm into racquet sports, in a very big way.

I'm sorry that you just don't get it, but I'd be willing to bet that when you're approaching retirement, you will. And if, by chance, the rule does change, and guys who are approaching age 60 decide to stay on, what then? Will you still feel the way you do now? ... that they should just go away and play golf, or will it be different for them, because after all the rule has changed. If you feel that they should still just go away, I'd suggest that it's going to be a really loooooong, unhappy career for you. Maybe you should thing about changing your screen name to Eternally-Sad-F15. By the way, I think we've flown together over in Asia, when you were in the jet only a few months. But then again, I've been wrong before.

Busboy

Thank you. You just made my point. The age 60, or near it group, is going to benefit at the expense of the rest of us.

And, I am being called greedy? Go figure.

FreightDawgyDog

"This thing is not about fairness at all, it's about timing. Pure and simple. To come up with an arbitrary requirement as you have (no one who holds an ATP) seems sort of wishful, at best. The rule is going to change. Accept that as a fact of life. Whereas it will negatively effect a portion of our population, it will do the inverse for another portion. I can't remember when a law was passed that didn't have exactly the same end result: one group benefiting at another's expense. Just a fact of life. Not fair? Sure, it's not fair, but neither is life. Windfalls are just that, windfalls. It's too bad that we can't see that for what it is, but I certainly do see the other side. To those on that side, I say: you will have your chance too. It's only a matter of timing."

Yep. I agree. That's why retroactivity should not be an issue. Thanks for making my point. When the law changes, it changes then. Not retroactively. Somebody is going to be left behind wherever the date falls. Just like the poor guy who won't get hired because of it, the guy who has already turned 60 should be out of luck too. At least you have the best retirement in the industry to fall back on JJ and will still live on over at least 100k a year. I'm really finding it hard to feel sorry for your group. Just be glad you won't be the one frozen out on far less wages and benefits for 5 more years. I know, some of you will have to sell your planes and vacation homes, and poor Capt Collins can't even afford a tie to wear in his USA Today picture. How will he get by on his almost 175K in military and FedEx retirement pay? Yep, timing is everything JJ. I just wish our MEC understood that as well as you..

KnightFlyer

You're assuming that we (the vast majority of folks) will be able to stick to "the plan" and retire at 60 w/o losing the current pension formula. Will we have a 15% ding on the A plan since now we are "retiring 5 years early?" Will it be grandfathered? Will retiring at 60 provide the same benefit as it does now?

I'm not happy about career progression slowing, but changing my ability to get a full retirement at 60 is what really has me concerned. You can go to 65, but I want out at 60 with the current A plan formula.

CaptainMark

............................

CaptainMark

well..that is why i think ALPA is trying to get involved now( about a year too late) and put some protections in....when i hit 60 that will be 35 years with FDX. If i was to get an early retirement penalty that would be outrageous!!!!! I hope they also protect the B-fund...