Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Fractional > NetJets
NetJets: Potential Age 65 and Company LOM Pla >

NetJets: Potential Age 65 and Company LOM Pla

Notices
NetJets Fractional Operator

NetJets: Potential Age 65 and Company LOM Pla

Old 03-19-2018, 03:41 PM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Dec 2017
Position: Retired NJA & AA
Posts: 1,907
Default

Originally Posted by 727C47 View Post
I put forth 70 earlier based on the fact that eventually some number will be necessary and to lessen the pain on our post 65er’s , it seemed to be a good compromise.
We need to sync Part 91K and 135 with the 121 world, the whole "one level of safety" thing. That includes the Part 117 duty rules. We can wish for whatever we want, it's what Congress and the FAA will sign off on that's controlling. That's why I doubt we'll see more than age 67, and only that age because some overseas airlines like in Japan already have this. As the pilot shortage continues I suspect ICAO will move to age 67 and eventually the FAA will follow. Congress could intervene and make it sooner it too many small cities lose airline service because of the pilot shortage. Same thing could happen to the 1500 hours and have an ATP rule, although that threat was defeated for this year.
AirBear is offline  
Old 03-19-2018, 03:48 PM
  #22  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,919
Default

[QUOTE=727C47;2554317][QUOTE=Jetlife;2554304]
Originally Posted by 727C47 View Post

Missed the mark again.

Angry? My comment literally had NOTHING to do with NJA. Your comment is incorrect, 70 is not a compromise when you look at 121 industry averages.[/QUOTE

Dude, this is an open forum, anyone ,and everyone can give an opinion, I just find it comical to see you on any and all NJA threads more than NJA pilots, usually negative, comically so. Netjets has a lot of issues right now, it’s not competitive compensation wise with the 121 world, same ,same QOL , it’s a shame, and guys, and girls are bailing ,even senior captains are voting with their feet, I’m not here to defend it, I do want to see the elder statesmen get a fair shake, and from what I’ve been reading and hearing it is trending that way . Good. I could care less about 121 industry averages, if I ever return to 121 I will care, but even then I want these guys to get an equitable ending to their careers.

Cool story. Literally nothing you said applies to my comment. NJA wants to apply the 121 retirement age. You want 70, and I am telling you that 70 is above the average medical retirement age. Guess what, so is 65. If NJA wants to mimmick 121 you’ll never see 70. My comment isn’t negative nor is it negative towards NJA so pick another comment to jump on the soapbox.
Jetlife is offline  
Old 03-19-2018, 03:50 PM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: C47 PIC/747-400 SIC
Posts: 2,100
Default

You make some very good points but I don’t see pt117 ever being the law of the land in the 91K/135 world, 67 that’s a possibility, maybe 70 is a bit of a stretch, I don’t know, we shall see brother.
727C47 is offline  
Old 03-19-2018, 03:51 PM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,063
Default

Nothing will lessen the pain for those who either literally plan on flying until they die, or lived their lives a little too fully and have nothing saved for retirement.
Flyfalcons is offline  
Old 03-19-2018, 03:52 PM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: C47 PIC/747-400 SIC
Posts: 2,100
Default

[QUOTE=Jetlife;2554320][QUOTE=727C47;2554317]
Originally Posted by Jetlife View Post


Cool story. Literally nothing you said applies to my comment. NJA wants to apply the 121 retirement age. You want 70, and I am telling you that 70 is above the average medical retirement age. Guess what, so is 65. If NJA wants to mimmick 121 you’ll never see 70. My comment isn’t negative nor is it negative towards NJA so pick another comment to jump on the soapbox.
Not jumping on the soapbox, and you know what you are right about your numbers .
727C47 is offline  
Old 03-19-2018, 04:04 PM
  #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: C47 PIC/747-400 SIC
Posts: 2,100
Default

Originally Posted by Flyfalcons View Post
Nothing will lessen the pain for those who either literally plan on flying until they die, or lived their lives a little too fully and have nothing saved for retirement.
Truth........
727C47 is offline  
Old 03-19-2018, 04:15 PM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Position: 6th place
Posts: 1,826
Default

Originally Posted by GeeWizDriver View Post
Interesting concept. Hadn’t crossed my mind. Nor anybody else’s, apparently.

Given the current political situation as described by the head of the Industry Affairs committee today, I don’t think it’s going to happen. At least not this year.

In my view, Netjets money would be better spent approaching major airlines to combine their lobbying efforts to force an INDUSTRY-WIDE mandatory retirement age of 67. If you hold out to the public under Part 121, Part 135, or Part 91K, the mandatory retirement age would be increased ONE more time, to 67 ACROSS THE BOARD.

The 121 airlines can’t find enough pilots and would like to keep theirs a little longer and Netjets wants to cut loose the public relations and benefit cost liabilities of 70+ year old pilots. There is some common ground there.


I’m guessing you’re 64. Lol retire already.
mainlineAF is offline  
Old 03-19-2018, 08:12 PM
  #28  
Speed, Power, Accuracy
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: PIC
Posts: 1,693
Default

Originally Posted by mainlineAF View Post
I’m guessing you’re 64. Lol retire already.
Clearly, you have reading comprehension issues.

I’m actually 54. And I WANT there to be a mandatory retirement age. And not because someone is “in my seat” and I want to move up.

My belief is that ANY operator that holds out to the public (which for the simpletons means that the people in back have no say on who is in the cockpit) should be required to have a mandatory retirement age. That means Part 135 and 91K. The easiest thing to do would be to tie the age to the Part 121 limit. The obvious compromise is for the Fed to increase the age one more time to 67 and APPLY IT TO ALL COMMERCIAL OPERATORS flying under 121, 135, or 91K.

And my wife (a medically retired 121 pilot) has standing orders to shoot me if I’m still flying at 65.
GeeWizDriver is offline  
Old 03-28-2018, 07:18 AM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
tm602's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Position: Just a pilot
Posts: 743
Default

Originally Posted by AirBear View Post
We need to sync Part 91K and 135 with the 121 world, the whole "one level of safety" thing. That includes the Part 117 duty rules.
There's a problem with 117, and that is our schedulers. You know that the people on 6 days and shorter tours will still be getting the same unsafe and reckless scheduling. The only benefit of 117 is if you are working 7 and 8 day tours. Any improvements in safety need to come uniquely ruled to our type of operation.
tm602 is offline  
Old 03-28-2018, 07:56 AM
  #30  
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 4
Default

65 is very young. Still, have 30 years or so to live.
gunfyter is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices