Search
Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Age 60-- going away?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-06-2006, 08:47 PM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Sir James's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: 737 CFI
Posts: 390
Default Age 60-- going away?

I was told today that the rule should be toast by this fall, following ICAO in their new age of 65. Is it true that there are house and senate bills ready to be voted on? If any of you are following this, what's the real story here? Is Age 60, in fact, soon to be dead?
Sir James is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 10:55 AM
  #2  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: May 2005
Posts: 88
Default

HR 65 has 39 supporters in the House to raise the age to 65. SB 65 has left the committee and is on the Senate floor for voting to raise the age to 65, it so far has 30 supporters. You can go the US Senate web site to read the actual bill.
SEGATAKI is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 11:37 AM
  #3  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,261
Default

Maybe not this year, but in the next few years most likely.

Immediately prior to 9/11, age 65 proponents had enough votes to pass an age 63 compromise, but they held out for 65 and it didn't quite make it.

Realistically, improvements in lifestyle and preventive medicine over the past 45 years have made age 65 feasible for many of us. The only downside I see is that a certain percentage of pilots will not be able to cerify past age 60, but they will still have to suffer the seniority affects of those who do.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 12:00 PM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 222
Default

The immediate effect of increasing the retirement age will be a slowdown in airline hiring. Currently about a fifth of all legacy pilots will retire in the next 5 years due to age. Increase the retirement age to 65 and you'll see stagnation in new hires for the next five years. Good in the long run for everyone, bad in the short term for those at the bottom of the barrel.
sgrd0q is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 12:24 PM
  #5  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: Jet Cpt.
Posts: 65
Default Age 60

Who is bringing this legislation to the table? The same guys who brought us the "B" scale.

I'm all for an increase in the age if we can implement it fairly. Increase the retirement age one month a year. This method allows the new guy getting into the profession the opportunity to realize the rules of the game when getting into this career.

What if the age does increase to some larger number and you go out early? I guarantee you will be penalized severely.

What are the odds you won't make it to the higher retirement age? I guarantee you the odds are against you every year past 60.
8out is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 12:26 PM
  #6  
New boss = Old boss
 
mike734's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: Ca B737
Posts: 2,762
Default

I used to be against raising the age but now I favor 65 primarily because I will need to be working over 60 to pay for my dismal retirement savings program and because I will have kids in collage at that time. I don't know where I heard the statistic but a great percentage of pilots don't make it to 60 let alone 65. I don't think upgrade will be delayed 5 years. Something like 2 or 3 is more likely. Bad, yes, but the difference will be made up in the pilot's last years assuming he can make it there. I do think there should be some sort of "grandfather" clause to let some guys retire at 60 w/o penalty.
mike734 is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 12:40 PM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 222
Default

I think the increase has to be timed well to coincide with an upward cycle. Currently, if you increase the age the upgrade times and new hiring across the board will slow down to a point where the desperate will become even more desperate and this will result in further erosion of the working conditions for all.

Last edited by sgrd0q; 03-08-2006 at 12:43 PM.
sgrd0q is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 02:08 PM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Daytripper's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Capt. B737
Posts: 329
Default

Wasn't there some sort of integration period for the commuter guys when they lowered the seat cert. on FAR Part 135? When it went to what ever it is now? Used to be 30 seats and below. We had a few guys well over sixty flying PIC. When the rule was passed, seemed if you were 58 or less, you were done at sixty. If you were 59 or older, you got 2 years. I just can't remember exactly, but one would think it would be some sort of integration.
Daytripper is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 02:41 PM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 973
Default

What retirement?????Ain't gonna be any!
reddog25 is offline  
Old 03-08-2006, 08:00 PM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
tomgoodman's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
Default Late Retirement Penalty

Boeing is supposed to have done a study which showed a significant "penalty" in life expectancy for each year worked beyond age 55. It dropped from the mid 80s (retiring at 55) to the late 60s (retiring at 65). One study doesn't prove anything; the early retirees may have been the type who live a long time anyway; pilots are medically screened; etc. etc. Nevertheless, there may be something to it.

The study was posted on our DALPA forum which, as a retiree, I can't access. Perhaps someone on this forum has a copy.
tomgoodman is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
skiutah
Major
66
08-13-2006 04:38 PM
wrox
Part 135
5
08-11-2006 01:19 PM
MikeB525
Regional
17
08-04-2006 02:46 PM
navyman_tx
Hangar Talk
20
07-30-2006 09:15 AM
CL65driver
Regional
53
07-28-2006 09:06 AM

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



Your Privacy Choices