FDX: How many pilots are going past 60
08-20-2008, 01:19 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
Underdog,
To answer your questions...
I am a raging, M-F'ing capitalist. I believe you ought to be able to make as much as you can if you are willing to work. I don't want anyone telling me that 50k, 100k, 150k, 250k, or 1.0M is "too much" for me. I'll let my own back, family, and individual wants and needs decide what is enough.
I enjoy running a couple side businesses. The satisfaction I get and the ability to have a few things I wouldn't just get on my salary alone are the reasons I work so hard. If folks don't want to work as hard, that's fine. It's their call.
My thoughts on age 60 changes have been discussed. I didn't want it, and don't like it. My job now as a union rep is simple--enforce the contract. We are doing that. Nothing in the contract that 94% of us signed said union reps (or anyone else for that matter) should decide what an individual can or cannot make. If I say to someone else they should leave just so I can make more money, who is really being greedy? I do think it is true a bunch of guys just got a five year windfall, but there is nothing in our contract that says if your income (or income from other sources) is greater than X you are greedy if you stay and contractually required to leave. The biggest drive to leave will come from internal desires of the pilot anyway--and I think money is only a portion of that matrix. We've got guys who would leave early if they could with no penalty, and guys who stay to 65 regardless of buyouts. So even if I DID have a "magic number" (which I don't) the point would be moot anyway.
The contract DID specify what we would do to keep everyone a job. In that case, we WILL share the pain for the collective good. However, as long as everyone is employed, we do not have a limit on how much anyone can make--either at FDX or in their total income.
As for resenting pilots who have a full military retirement...I certainly don't. They earned every bloody cent of it. The moving, stress, combat rotations, and risk of even the peacetime part of the job involve their own tradeoffs, those guys made the choice to stay until 20 years. This summer I know of three new fatherless families from AF crashes...including Tom Bouley who was my # 2 man on my Alaska fini flight in 1996. He stayed for over 20 years, but now won't get a dime of his retirement. So--in short--no 20 year vet is "greedy" in my eyes, no matter how much he or she earns.
To answer your questions...
I am a raging, M-F'ing capitalist. I believe you ought to be able to make as much as you can if you are willing to work. I don't want anyone telling me that 50k, 100k, 150k, 250k, or 1.0M is "too much" for me. I'll let my own back, family, and individual wants and needs decide what is enough.
I enjoy running a couple side businesses. The satisfaction I get and the ability to have a few things I wouldn't just get on my salary alone are the reasons I work so hard. If folks don't want to work as hard, that's fine. It's their call.
My thoughts on age 60 changes have been discussed. I didn't want it, and don't like it. My job now as a union rep is simple--enforce the contract. We are doing that. Nothing in the contract that 94% of us signed said union reps (or anyone else for that matter) should decide what an individual can or cannot make. If I say to someone else they should leave just so I can make more money, who is really being greedy? I do think it is true a bunch of guys just got a five year windfall, but there is nothing in our contract that says if your income (or income from other sources) is greater than X you are greedy if you stay and contractually required to leave. The biggest drive to leave will come from internal desires of the pilot anyway--and I think money is only a portion of that matrix. We've got guys who would leave early if they could with no penalty, and guys who stay to 65 regardless of buyouts. So even if I DID have a "magic number" (which I don't) the point would be moot anyway.
The contract DID specify what we would do to keep everyone a job. In that case, we WILL share the pain for the collective good. However, as long as everyone is employed, we do not have a limit on how much anyone can make--either at FDX or in their total income.
As for resenting pilots who have a full military retirement...I certainly don't. They earned every bloody cent of it. The moving, stress, combat rotations, and risk of even the peacetime part of the job involve their own tradeoffs, those guys made the choice to stay until 20 years. This summer I know of three new fatherless families from AF crashes...including Tom Bouley who was my # 2 man on my Alaska fini flight in 1996. He stayed for over 20 years, but now won't get a dime of his retirement. So--in short--no 20 year vet is "greedy" in my eyes, no matter how much he or she earns.
08-20-2008, 01:32 PM
#42
With The Resistance
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
Originally Posted by Albief15
Underdog,
To answer your questions...
I am a raging, M-F'ing capitalist. I believe you ought to be able to make as much as you can if you are willing to work. I don't want anyone telling me that 50k, 100k, 150k, 250k, or 1.0M is "too much" for me. I'll let my own back, family, and individual wants and needs decide what is enough.
I enjoy running a couple side businesses. The satisfaction I get and the ability to have a few things I wouldn't just get on my salary alone are the reasons I work so hard. If folks don't want to work as hard, that's fine. It's their call.
My thoughts on age 60 changes have been discussed. I didn't want it, and don't like it. My job now as a union rep is simple--enforce the contract. We are doing that. Nothing in the contract that 94% of us signed said union reps (or anyone else for that matter) should decide what an individual can or cannot make. If I say to someone else they should leave just so I can make more money, who is really being greedy? I do think it is true a bunch of guys just got a five year windfall, but there is nothing in our contract that says if your income (or income from other sources) is greater than X you are greedy if you stay and contractually required to leave. The biggest drive to leave will come from internal desires of the pilot anyway--and I think money is only a portion of that matrix. We've got guys who would leave early if they could with no penalty, and guys who stay to 65 regardless of buyouts. So even if I DID have a "magic number" (which I don't) the point would be moot anyway.
The contract DID specify what we would do to keep everyone a job. In that case, we WILL share the pain for the collective good. However, as long as everyone is employed, we do not have a limit on how much anyone can make--either at FDX or in their total income.
As for resenting pilots who have a full military retirement...I certainly don't. They earned every bloody cent of it. The moving, stress, combat rotations, and risk of even the peacetime part of the job involve their own tradeoffs, those guys made the choice to stay until 20 years. This summer I know of three new fatherless families from AF crashes...including Tom Bouley who was my # 2 man on my Alaska fini flight in 1996. He stayed for over 20 years, but now won't get a dime of his retirement. So--in short--no 20 year vet is "greedy" in my eyes, no matter how much he or she earns.
To answer your questions...
I am a raging, M-F'ing capitalist. I believe you ought to be able to make as much as you can if you are willing to work. I don't want anyone telling me that 50k, 100k, 150k, 250k, or 1.0M is "too much" for me. I'll let my own back, family, and individual wants and needs decide what is enough.
I enjoy running a couple side businesses. The satisfaction I get and the ability to have a few things I wouldn't just get on my salary alone are the reasons I work so hard. If folks don't want to work as hard, that's fine. It's their call.
My thoughts on age 60 changes have been discussed. I didn't want it, and don't like it. My job now as a union rep is simple--enforce the contract. We are doing that. Nothing in the contract that 94% of us signed said union reps (or anyone else for that matter) should decide what an individual can or cannot make. If I say to someone else they should leave just so I can make more money, who is really being greedy? I do think it is true a bunch of guys just got a five year windfall, but there is nothing in our contract that says if your income (or income from other sources) is greater than X you are greedy if you stay and contractually required to leave. The biggest drive to leave will come from internal desires of the pilot anyway--and I think money is only a portion of that matrix. We've got guys who would leave early if they could with no penalty, and guys who stay to 65 regardless of buyouts. So even if I DID have a "magic number" (which I don't) the point would be moot anyway.
The contract DID specify what we would do to keep everyone a job. In that case, we WILL share the pain for the collective good. However, as long as everyone is employed, we do not have a limit on how much anyone can make--either at FDX or in their total income.
As for resenting pilots who have a full military retirement...I certainly don't. They earned every bloody cent of it. The moving, stress, combat rotations, and risk of even the peacetime part of the job involve their own tradeoffs, those guys made the choice to stay until 20 years. This summer I know of three new fatherless families from AF crashes...including Tom Bouley who was my # 2 man on my Alaska fini flight in 1996. He stayed for over 20 years, but now won't get a dime of his retirement. So--in short--no 20 year vet is "greedy" in my eyes, no matter how much he or she earns.
08-20-2008, 06:28 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Discombobulated
Posts: 155
I also find it to be a personal choice. I just don't quite follow the logic of calling someone "greedy" if they choose to go beyond age 60, whilst claiming it's okay to do so if they don't have their second retirement yet! Personally, I don't care. I do find it interesting that 10-20 years ago I flew with some junior Captains and F/O's who were quite adamant about not changing the retirement age, yet a few of them were very vocal about changing it recently...hmmm. Greed? Perhaps.
You can rationalize things to death. I don't know how many non-members I've heard rationalize why they aren't a part of ALPA. From, "it's just a bunch of the no guys running the show," to "my wife thinks union's are bad." Yes, that was actually said by someone. Okay, I'm getting off on a tangent.
I certainly wish more folks would excercise their rights to not work extra, or sell vacation, etc., when we are two years beyond the expiration of our previous contract. Especially when it appears the company is not bargaining in good faith. Are those individuals who excercise their rights to keep flying extra, sell vacation, trip trade up their hours, etc., during those times, greedy? I'll just keep my opinion to myself.
You can rationalize things to death. I don't know how many non-members I've heard rationalize why they aren't a part of ALPA. From, "it's just a bunch of the no guys running the show," to "my wife thinks union's are bad." Yes, that was actually said by someone. Okay, I'm getting off on a tangent.
I certainly wish more folks would excercise their rights to not work extra, or sell vacation, etc., when we are two years beyond the expiration of our previous contract. Especially when it appears the company is not bargaining in good faith. Are those individuals who excercise their rights to keep flying extra, sell vacation, trip trade up their hours, etc., during those times, greedy? I'll just keep my opinion to myself.
Last edited by Underdog; 08-20-2008 at 10:00 PM.
08-21-2008, 02:17 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by Underdog
I certainly wish more folks would excercise their rights to not work extra, or sell vacation, etc., when we are two years beyond the expiration of our previous contract. Especially when it appears the company is not bargaining in good faith. Are those individuals who excercise their rights to keep flying extra, sell vacation, trip trade up their hours, etc., during those times, greedy? I'll just keep my opinion to myself.
don't forget disputed pairings!!!
08-21-2008, 04:05 PM
#46
Living the dream!
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD-11 Capt
Posts: 915
Originally Posted by BOYCAPTAIN
I hit 25 yrs at 50...if i can retire without penalties i will consider it....do i become greedy at 51?
YES! 
08-21-2008, 04:21 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by 42GO
Maybe we should look at it from the point of view of "most people" who would say that "ALL PILOTS" are greedy because of what we and the unions have gotten these companies to pay us because we "don't do anything"....
so for you young "all knowing judges of the world order", who gets to define the term "greedy"?
Maybe it's the 25 year old pilot who is mad at the 40 year old military pilot who is double dipping.
Maybe it's the 40 year old package thrower on the ramp who looks at our life style and says the same about all of us.
Maybe it's the 59 year old that got fired at 50 because he was "too" old.
Maybe it's John McCain because he is running for president "at his age" and taking a job away from the young Barak.
Maybe it's one of our guys who doesn't upgrade when he can because of his desire for "quality of Life".
Maybe you guys should just grow up and try to enjoy your blessed lives "as hard as it is" and let everyone determine their own path to quality of life. Wouldn't that be a novel idea!
so for you young "all knowing judges of the world order", who gets to define the term "greedy"?
Maybe it's the 25 year old pilot who is mad at the 40 year old military pilot who is double dipping.
Maybe it's the 40 year old package thrower on the ramp who looks at our life style and says the same about all of us.
Maybe it's the 59 year old that got fired at 50 because he was "too" old.
Maybe it's John McCain because he is running for president "at his age" and taking a job away from the young Barak.
Maybe it's one of our guys who doesn't upgrade when he can because of his desire for "quality of Life".
Maybe you guys should just grow up and try to enjoy your blessed lives "as hard as it is" and let everyone determine their own path to quality of life. Wouldn't that be a novel idea!
Is it too late to change my vote on this greediness subject? I've decided that I don't really know when someone becomes greedy. But, I think I know when they become stupid.
Of course, I may be wrong.
08-21-2008, 05:16 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: MD-11 Capt
Posts: 330
1. young is younger than me.....
2. stupid is now for you to define since you now know this...so tell us oh wise one, where am I wrong? Hmmmmm?
Or, are you just mouthing off in contempt like most on this forum?
2. stupid is now for you to define since you now know this...so tell us oh wise one, where am I wrong? Hmmmmm?
Or, are you just mouthing off in contempt like most on this forum?
08-21-2008, 06:26 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: Relaxing
Posts: 235
Yea, depending on perspective, the whole greed, 65, whatever the whole thing blows. Back on some topic, how does UPS progression look? Also, FedEx progression, considering retirement of 3 seat airplanes. I was just wondering how fast, or slow the lists are moving, or not.
MBB
MBB
08-21-2008, 11:16 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by 42GO
1. young is younger than me.....
2. stupid is now for you to define since you now know this...so tell us oh wise one, where am I wrong? Hmmmmm?
Or, are you just mouthing off in contempt like most on this forum?
2. stupid is now for you to define since you now know this...so tell us oh wise one, where am I wrong? Hmmmmm?
Or, are you just mouthing off in contempt like most on this forum?
Main Entry: 1 stu·pid
Pronunciation: \ˈstü-pəd, ˈstyü-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French stupide, from Latin stupidus, from stupēre to be numb, be astonished — more at type
Date: 1541
1 a: slow of mind : obtuse b: given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c: lacking intelligence or reason : brutish
2: dulled in feeling or sensation : torpid <still stupid from the sedative>
3: marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : senseless <a stupid decision>
4 a: lacking interest or point <a stupid event> b: vexatious, exasperating <the stupid car won't start>
1b pretty much defines working when you don't have to.
Although, I'm a bit partial to 4a. Good definition of your post.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
