Age 67 Thread Drift

Reply Subscribe

Page 3 of 6

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

09-03-2025 | 05:07 AM

#21

StoneQOLdCrazy

Bent over by buybacks

Joined: Feb 2017

Posts: 1,612

Likes: 639

If you think our health insurance premiums are high now, wait to see what they are if we have to assume two more years of pool risk so entitled geezers can stick around for two or more years (they’re not going to be satisfied with 67).

09-03-2025 | 05:11 AM

#22

Boatbuilder

Line Holder

Joined: May 2015

Posts: 868

Likes: 84

From: 717a

I’ve got over 34 years here. I fly NB by choice. The option of another 2 years won’t affect my aircraft choice. Y’all can have the glory and prestige, I’ve got my coffee shops and restaurants in the burgs and villes picked out. Heck they know me by name at Keefers Downtown in JAN.

09-03-2025 | 06:52 AM

#23

overqualified52

Line Holder

Joined: Jan 2019

Posts: 1,205

Likes: 31

Quote:

Originally Posted by StoneQOLdCrazy

69 it will be 😂

09-03-2025 | 10:07 AM

#24

Gone Flying

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Sep 2015

Posts: 5,556

Likes: 219

From: UNA

Quote:

Originally Posted by FangsF15

Those making that argument believe the company will be less willing/able to put money in other parts of the contract, because they know those costs to the penny. So it will be an indirect impact.

In effect, it will rob other parts of future contract gains to 'fund' the increase in LTD payments.

while I can see this argument, it’s already an item in the contract. We have it. The idea we would have to give something up to keep it seems overly defeatist.

costs on items change. It is delta’s responsibility to pay for LTD until mandatory retirement age. If that age goes up by 2 years, they still have to pay that LTD cost.

09-03-2025 | 10:13 AM

#25

Gone Flying

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Sep 2015

Posts: 5,556

Likes: 219

From: UNA

Quote:

Originally Posted by SideStickMonkey

Because the actuaries know what the cost increase will be.

Maybe if we had better healthcare, food, etc in this country. This isn’t Japan or Europe. We excel in many things here, health care cost and morbidity we excel at in the wrong way.

So again, what are we willing to give up for that?

cool. It’s still in our contract to FAA mandatory retirement age. The only way we would have to give something up is if we voted to.

09-03-2025 | 10:16 AM

#26

Gone Flying

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Sep 2015

Posts: 5,556

Likes: 219

From: UNA

Quote:

Originally Posted by StoneQOLdCrazy

Wouldn’t most still switch to Medicare at 65? If you don’t sign up at 65 +/- 3 months, you will have to pay late enrollment penalties.

if you delay Medicare enrollment by 2 years, you will have to pay 10% more for part A for 4 years and 20% for part B for the rest of your life.

seems better to still enroll at 65

09-03-2025 | 10:59 AM

#27

zippinbye

Line Holder

Joined: Jun 2015

Posts: 1,002

Likes: 21

From: WB Cpt

Quote:

Originally Posted by StoneQOLdCrazy

Maybe if our membership had placed some priority on retiree medical benefits, more pilots would have been willing to bail at 65 and sooner. Healthcare is the boogieman at all phases of life. Delta relies on Tricare to lessen the urgency for acceptable benefits. FYI, other airlines have pooled retirees with active employees in the same risk pool, and it worked. Sure the retiree pays the full premium, but it's the same amount as the active employee + employer pay for the same coverage. Is there a problem with that?

09-03-2025 | 11:08 AM

#28

StoneQOLdCrazy

Bent over by buybacks

Joined: Feb 2017

Posts: 1,612

Likes: 639

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gone Flying

cool. It’s still in our contract to FAA mandatory retirement age. The only way we would have to give something up is if we voted to.

Or if we capped it at 65, and negotiated similar-value improvements for the entire pilot group, instead of wasting it on the olds

09-03-2025 | 11:14 AM

#29

rickair7777

Prime Minister/Moderator

Joined: Jan 2006

Posts: 45,112

Likes: 794

From: Engines Turn or People Swim

Quote:

Originally Posted by StoneQOLdCrazy

Or if we capped it at 65, and negotiated similar-value improvements for the entire pilot group, instead of wasting it on the olds

That would not be remotely legal actually.

While at least one major does cap LTD at 65, the only reason it hasn't been litigated and over-turned is because the retirement age is still 65.

09-03-2025 | 11:18 AM

#30

StoneQOLdCrazy

Bent over by buybacks

Joined: Feb 2017

Posts: 1,612

Likes: 639

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickair7777

That would not be remotely legal actually.

While at least one major does cap LTD at 65, the only reason it hasn't been litigated and over-turned is because the retirement age is still 65.

If you say so, boss.

Can you show me where in the book that's written?