Captain to FE - Overnight

Reply Subscribe

Page 6 of 6

« First

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

01-17-2007, 08:08 PM

#51

MEMFO4Ever

Bourgeoisie

Joined APC: Aug 2006

Position: 787 SO

Posts: 616

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetjok

First of all, you'd be the first person on the face of the earth who got into their job, with the expressed intention of " I could get out with a retirement a full 7 years before my Social Security compatriots.." I've got to congratulate you on your wisdom and awareness. Most of us got into this business because we loved to fly airplanes.

However, your thinking that "I figured that my to go at 60 was a kind of payback for basically giving up any semblance of an actual, normal life." was not too accurate. Your ability to go to 60 was put in place years ago by people who didn't know the first thing about an age limit, but wanted to punish some senior pilots, whom the airline president didn't want to pay their senior pilot rate. Nothing more and nothing less.

Whereas you might be "confident that my company, one of the few with a defined benefit, will negotiate fiercely during our next go-around to reduce the multiplier.", I might tend to disagree, but since neither of us has a crystal ball, we'll just have to wait and see.

The company could negotiate changes to their current plans, but it's negotiations, get it. As far as eliminating or reducing the defined benefit, they could do that anyway, again, after negotiating it's disappearance.

As far as safety is concerned, there's no evidence that flying past 60 causes any safety concerns at all, other than younger guys hoping that something happens to the older guy. And as for the changing of the age from 60 to something over 60 causing additional health testing that could adversely affect younger pilots. Good. Just as you don't want to fly with an over-60 guy who might keel over at any moment, I don't want to fly with a under-60 guy who might do the same thing. And you can bet there's a bunch of them around.

And as to your comment "I can't, for the life of me, figure out why anyone wants to do this a minute longer than is currently regulated, but that's a personal thing." I'd say: first off, part of the issue is the word regulated. Personally, when I'm in my car on an open road with a "regulated" speed limit of 55, I'm usually going about 70 (except in G'Town or C'Ville). I think most of us do the same thing. Whereas some regulations are ok, some are not. The ones we view as inappropriate, we usually find some logic to disregard; Secondly, if you really can't figure out why anyone wants to fly past 60, I'd suggest that you're in this job for many of the wrong reasons, and that explaining to you my reasons why I do want to continue to fly, would be a waste of my time and yours. But maybe you explained yourself in your second sentence of your post. If that's the case, I'm sorry.

Thanks for the response. I'd say that my reasons for getting into this game had nothing to do with a love of airplanes or flying, but a desire for high pay, time off and early (compared with the rest of the working population) retirement. If those three things were offered to ditch diggers, then I'd be digging ditches.

I fully understand why the rule was put into effect and that it had nothing to do with me. However, it was part of the calculated decision I made a long time ago when I started this. You can't tell me you never thought about the ability to retire at such a young age.

Any change to medical standards will be met with same apathy that current standards are exposed to. Come on, we all know there are professional pilot friendly AME's and unfriendly ones. Which one do you go to? I go to the one that's more interested in making a buck than serving as some FAA narc. Personally I think the medical standards are already too rigid, but I'll never have influence regarding that anyway.

While I appreciate your point of view with regard to the regulations, when you state that "The ones we view as inappropriate, we usually find some logic to disregard" I don't think there is an actual "we" here. From where I'm sitting it sounds like a vocal, well-financed, influential minority pulling for this change. Sure I know that ICAO made the change, but there's lots of things that individual member states have ICAO exceptions to. This could just be another exception, like any of the other thousands of exceptions that are listed in the books we carry.

With all that said, the change is coming and I know that. I don't want it now and I won't want it when I turn 60. I can only hope to save enough money so that maybe I can quit at 60, live off savings and take an unpenalized pension at 65 (assuming we still have one, but that's a discussion for another day).