Keep Age 60
10-30-2013, 09:06 PM
#32
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,868
Originally Posted by syd111
Everytime I read this stuff I have to laugh. Am I going to 60? no, part of that is just luck. What people like foreverfo don't understand is not all that are going to age 60 are captains. Many fo I fly with are over 60 and not because they are bad at investing, or bought a car wash franchise but because the airline they started with is no longer with us, yes they struck at eal, cal and so on yes for you forevefo and they ended up starting over at ual or wherever at the bottom. Great guys but yes maybe a little unlucky or maybe with a backbone you nevere had.
You do realize the 78-79 guys at ual had their a plan taken or given away, yes I realize that most are not as smart and as great at investing like yourself foreverfo, but some of this came down to luck and timing and yes standing up for our profession along the way.
You do realize the 78-79 guys at ual had their a plan taken or given away, yes I realize that most are not as smart and as great at investing like yourself foreverfo, but some of this came down to luck and timing and yes standing up for our profession along the way.
Syd,
All of what you say is true but you know what - that stuff has been happening in aviation for 60 years and no previous generation of Pilots had the benefit of 5 additional years. What about the 78-79 UAL guys that turned 60 before the rule change - Oh well too bad for them.
I don't blame anyone for flying until 65 - I just might be one of them, but the way this rule was changed was pretty bad. What about the guys just about to upgrade - no worries it would still be there 5 years down the road and if times are tough in the future Im sure we can just raise the age again to 70.
ALPA said they were against the change but decided it would be better to get on board with the change in order to have some input into the rule change. So what was their input? As far as I can tell - lets pick a random date and give some gives a 5 year windfall while others just miss it by months, weeks or even days?
Scoop
10-31-2013, 06:03 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Originally Posted by Scoop
Syd,
All of what you say is true but you know what - that stuff has been happening in aviation for 60 years and no previous generation of Pilots had the benefit of 5 additional years. What about the 78-79 UAL guys that turned 60 before the rule change - Oh well too bad for them.
I don't blame anyone for flying until 65 - I just might be one of them, but the way this rule was changed was pretty bad. What about the guys just about to upgrade - no worries it would still be there 5 years down the road and if times are tough in the future Im sure we can just raise the age again to 70.
Well, wouldn't the guys just about to upgrade be waiting even longer if guys were allowed to come back after implementation?
ALPA said they were against the change but decided it would be better to get on board with the change in order to have some input into the rule change. So what was their input? As far as I can tell - lets pick a random date and give some gives a 5 year windfall while others just miss it by months, weeks or even days?
I don't think it was a random date. I think it was the date the law became effective. I could be wrong.
Scoop
All of what you say is true but you know what - that stuff has been happening in aviation for 60 years and no previous generation of Pilots had the benefit of 5 additional years. What about the 78-79 UAL guys that turned 60 before the rule change - Oh well too bad for them.
I don't blame anyone for flying until 65 - I just might be one of them, but the way this rule was changed was pretty bad. What about the guys just about to upgrade - no worries it would still be there 5 years down the road and if times are tough in the future Im sure we can just raise the age again to 70.
Well, wouldn't the guys just about to upgrade be waiting even longer if guys were allowed to come back after implementation?
ALPA said they were against the change but decided it would be better to get on board with the change in order to have some input into the rule change. So what was their input? As far as I can tell - lets pick a random date and give some gives a 5 year windfall while others just miss it by months, weeks or even days?
I don't think it was a random date. I think it was the date the law became effective. I could be wrong.
Scoop
I don't disagree with what you say but what was the alternative (as far as what day to pick for implementation)? No matter what day was chosen, the same thing would have happened... Any way you slice it some were going to get that windfall.
Denny
10-31-2013, 06:46 AM
#35
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,868
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
Scoop,
I don't disagree with what you say but what was the alternative (as far as what day to pick for implementation)? No matter what day was chosen, the same thing would have happened... Any way you slice it some were going to get that windfall.
Denny
I don't disagree with what you say but what was the alternative (as far as what day to pick for implementation)? No matter what day was chosen, the same thing would have happened... Any way you slice it some were going to get that windfall.
Denny
Denny,
I would have preferred a sliding implementation schedule. Every 2 years the retirement age gets raised 1 year. In 10 years the age would have been raised 5 years but no one gets more than a one year windfall over the guy born two weeks earlier. No one loses more than 1 year over the guy a few days younger.
Like someone said - not really very relevant now but that is how I would have done it.
Scoop
10-31-2013, 07:10 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Originally Posted by Scoop
Denny,
I would have preferred a sliding implementation schedule. Every 2 years the retirement age gets raised 1 year. In 10 years the age would have been raised 5 years but no one gets more than a one year windfall over the guy born two weeks earlier. No one loses more than 1 year over the guy a few days younger.
Like someone said - not really very relevant now but that is how I would have done it.
Scoop
I would have preferred a sliding implementation schedule. Every 2 years the retirement age gets raised 1 year. In 10 years the age would have been raised 5 years but no one gets more than a one year windfall over the guy born two weeks earlier. No one loses more than 1 year over the guy a few days younger.
Like someone said - not really very relevant now but that is how I would have done it.
Scoop
Anyway, it's all a moot point now so I'll shut up!
Denny
10-31-2013, 07:16 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 220
It has been mentioned here before, by myself, and more recently by others, but I think it merits repeating; not everybody got the windfall of five more years as a senior wide-body captain.
Indeed, many older pilots were rewarded with five more years in the right seat (along with their younger colleagues), from which many over-60er's will retire.
And many over-60 international F/O's have been relegated almost exclusively to the IRO seat, because so many international captains are over 60. This situation has actually created a minor windfall, of sorts, to the more junior -- but under-60 -- international F/O's, who now enjoy the "super seniority" to bid international F/O trips over their more senior over-60 international F/O colleagues. (And many junior under-60 F/O's use this opportunity to defecate upon the more senior over-60 IRO's because a] they think they are superior to them because they're occupying a window seat; and b] they hate the fact that the IRO is over 60, and still on the seniority list ahead of them -- as if any of them are going to retire the day they turn 60.)
But another important fact that seems to be overlooked is that all pilots, from the top of the seniority list to the bottom, actually enabled the age change by voting "Yes" for concession after concession after concession in the last decade.
Remember, the original Age 60 rule was adopted by the CAA, in cahoots with airline management, as a cost-saving measure to run the senior pilots out the door, and avoid having to train them on the new jet aircraft that were coming on line.
Think about it... If the senior pilots at all the major airlines were still making the TOS wages, still enjoying the benefits, and still accruing the pensions that they were prior to 9/11, do you really think airline managements would want them to still be hanging around until they were 65?
Indeed, many older pilots were rewarded with five more years in the right seat (along with their younger colleagues), from which many over-60er's will retire.
And many over-60 international F/O's have been relegated almost exclusively to the IRO seat, because so many international captains are over 60. This situation has actually created a minor windfall, of sorts, to the more junior -- but under-60 -- international F/O's, who now enjoy the "super seniority" to bid international F/O trips over their more senior over-60 international F/O colleagues. (And many junior under-60 F/O's use this opportunity to defecate upon the more senior over-60 IRO's because a] they think they are superior to them because they're occupying a window seat; and b] they hate the fact that the IRO is over 60, and still on the seniority list ahead of them -- as if any of them are going to retire the day they turn 60.)
But another important fact that seems to be overlooked is that all pilots, from the top of the seniority list to the bottom, actually enabled the age change by voting "Yes" for concession after concession after concession in the last decade.
Remember, the original Age 60 rule was adopted by the CAA, in cahoots with airline management, as a cost-saving measure to run the senior pilots out the door, and avoid having to train them on the new jet aircraft that were coming on line.
Think about it... If the senior pilots at all the major airlines were still making the TOS wages, still enjoying the benefits, and still accruing the pensions that they were prior to 9/11, do you really think airline managements would want them to still be hanging around until they were 65?
10-31-2013, 10:13 AM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2012
Posts: 737
My idea, when the whole thing was still in play, was simple, but would have angered a lot of people.
Allow anyone without an ATP on the date the law is written to go to 65. If you have an ATP, you're done at 60.
It would have delayed the implementation for a long time, and it would also have trickled pilots in, because there used to be plenty of 40 to 50 year old FO's without ATP's.
Whatever - doesn't matter any more, but there are still some hard feelings.
Allow anyone without an ATP on the date the law is written to go to 65. If you have an ATP, you're done at 60.
It would have delayed the implementation for a long time, and it would also have trickled pilots in, because there used to be plenty of 40 to 50 year old FO's without ATP's.
Whatever - doesn't matter any more, but there are still some hard feelings.
10-31-2013, 01:57 PM
#40
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 75
Some of us, after our quite turbulent 35 years on the job, were terrified they would raise the age before we were able to retire. (Here is where some idiot suggests you "don't have to stay..").
In the real world, nobody who isn't independently wealthy walks away from an airline job with the majors. I retired at 60 10 years ago and am sooooo glad to be finished with the bankruptcies and mergers. Three airlines, two bankruptcies, NUMEROUS defaults on pensions, etc.
In the real world, nobody who isn't independently wealthy walks away from an airline job with the majors. I retired at 60 10 years ago and am sooooo glad to be finished with the bankruptcies and mergers. Three airlines, two bankruptcies, NUMEROUS defaults on pensions, etc.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
