|
Originally Posted by Andy
(Post 3424514)
I'd like to see that at United, but since we have a lot of pilots who retire with 500+ hours in their sick banks, why would the company allow pilots to cash that out?
|
Originally Posted by Hedley
(Post 3424564)
Those are the guys who would fail a cognitive test. You’d have to be brain dead to retire with any time in your sick bank. We had one that retired in IAH with something like 1,100 hrs in his bank….AND HE WAS PROUD OF IT. Red Foreman from That 70’s show had a word for people like that.
Ironically, at 90 hrs/mo, he could have been on SL for his last 14 months before retirement. Or just call in sick for one trip a month and pick up one extra trip per month for the last couple of years. |
This will cause more problems than it solves. Bureaucracy will show its ugly head as a result of placing a band-aid on a bullet wound. Which, if it is coming down the pipe, I'll agree to end of calender year at age 65, domestic only. C'mon what's the appreciable difference between up to 365 days vs 2 years anyway.
|
Originally Posted by Andy
(Post 3424512)
I saw that on CNBC this AM. I think he knows exactly where pilots stand on an age change and just said that to please the bulk of United pilots.
How much would he reap in training savings if he squeezed another two years out of each pilot?
Originally Posted by Andy
(Post 3424512)
No, there are a lot of retirements happening at the big 3. Plus they're trying to grow. I don't have the number of retirements for 2022 at United, but it's likely in excess of 400.
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3424351)
We'll see. In 2007 they adapted to to the prevailing winds...
"As the wheels of FAA rulemaking grind inexorably forward, the nation’s largest union of airline pilots executed a 180-degree turn on mandatory retirement for airline pilots at age 60. In late May, the executive board of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) voted by an 80-percent margin to end its four-decade opposition to any efforts to raise the limit. The union said that in the face of concerted efforts to change the rule by Congress and the FAA, the executive board directed that union resources be committed to protecting pilot interests by exerting ALPA’s influence in any rule change." Will ALPA prefer to be party to the process once again? Or risk being relegated to outsider obstructionist status? The older guys who tend to make up top union leadership have a vested interest in avoiding additional medical screening for older pilots... especially if it were to get applied under age 65 :eek: Also the politics are more complicated that just "Dems Love Labor", there's also the age-ism aspect (consider the top Dem leadership for a moment :rolleyes: ). Also the risk of a summer-long travel meltdown right before mid-terms. Would age 67 prevent that? Probably not. Would it appear that politicians are doing some thing, anything? Yes. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3424351)
We'll see. In 2007 they adapted to to the prevailing winds...
"As the wheels of FAA rulemaking grind inexorably forward, the nation’s largest union of airline pilots executed a 180-degree turn on mandatory retirement for airline pilots at age 60. In late May, the executive board of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) voted by an 80-percent margin to end its four-decade opposition to any efforts to raise the limit. The union said that in the face of concerted efforts to change the rule by Congress and the FAA, the executive board directed that union resources be committed to protecting pilot interests by exerting ALPA’s influence in any rule change." Will ALPA prefer to be party to the process once again? Or risk being relegated to outsider obstructionist status? The older guys who tend to make up top union leadership have a vested interest in avoiding additional medical screening for older pilots... especially if it were to get applied under age 65 :eek: Also the politics are more complicated that just "Dems Love Labor", there's also the age-ism aspect (consider the top Dem leadership for a moment :rolleyes: ). Also the risk of a summer-long travel meltdown right before mid-terms. Would age 67 prevent that? Probably not. Would it appear that politicians are doing some thing, anything? Yes. |
Originally Posted by nene
(Post 3424728)
A bit of irony that your qualified to be US president (or 2/3 of our federal govt for that matter) at age 79 but not fly a multi piloted aircraft....
Today they can wake POTUS up at 0230, tell him the rooskies just launched the big one and he has 90 seconds to decide what to do. Should have an age limit of 75 or so... on the day he/she LEAVES office. Just from a national security perspective. |
I understand the angst against moving up the retirement age. I hope it gets raised for one simple reason. I would like to get on an airliner, after paying a high price to do so, and ACTUALLY BE ON TIME! I am so sick of hearing about No crew! Yes, I know this is the airlines fault. Yes I know they saw this coming. Neither of those things solves my problem as a consumer. Raising the age, even if only temporary, and for domestic only, gives them 2 years to catch up.
The word is out that being a commercial pilot pays well. Flight schools are filling up. The pipelines will be full in a couple of years. An age increase would allow the majors to stop hiring pilots away from the regionals at such a fast clip, allowing the regionals to catch up to the training gap. This would be a great thing for the industry and the consumer. Obviously a bad thing for the current pilots waiting to move forward. |
The lost decade gets hosed yet again. 7-8 total years of stagnant career progression only to be met with single pilot ops towards the end of their careers. This is a giant NO from me. If you’re 64 it’s time for you to retire and enjoy the rest of your life not boning everyone underneath you on the seniority list.
|
Originally Posted by JackStraw
(Post 3425017)
The lost decade gets hosed yet again. 7-8 total years of stagnant career progression only to be met with single pilot ops towards the end of their careers. This is a giant NO from me. If you’re 64 it’s time for you to retire and enjoy the rest of your life not boning everyone underneath you on the seniority list.
|
Originally Posted by JackStraw
(Post 3425017)
The lost decade gets hosed yet again. 7-8 total years of stagnant career progression only to be met with single pilot ops towards the end of their careers. This is a giant NO from me. If you’re 64 it’s time for you to retire and enjoy the rest of your life not boning everyone underneath you on the seniority list.
Who wants to step out of the cockpit and into the casket?! My career has been impacted by: - Pay for training - The introduction of regional jets (fewer mainline jobs) - 9/11 and a half decade furlough - Age 65 extending that furlough - The 2008 recession - The Max grounding - The global pandemic - and now age 68?! Gimme a break. I know they say that timing is everything, but I was 25 when I was hired by my first major. How much better could my timing have been?! I would like to upgrade at my last major sometime before retirement… |
Originally Posted by maxjet
(Post 3424971)
An age increase would allow the majors to stop hiring pilots away from the regionals at such a fast clip, allowing the regionals to catch up to the training gap. This would be a great thing for the industry and the consumer. Obviously a bad thing for the current pilots waiting to move forward. The best thing for the industry would be for the regionals to be eliminated. Your points are management speaking points intended to keep wages down for doing the same job as mainline pilots. |
Originally Posted by ZapBrannigan
(Post 3425045)
Absolutely. I’m already hearing, “but you’ll have an extra two years at the top of the pay scale” from the Captains. Sure… IF I don’t medical out by then. IF I don’t mind losing out on the time value of money between now and then. But heck… I’d like to be gone by 65, if not before, to enjoy my retirement before I’m too old to get around and do things!
Who wants to step out of the cockpit and into the casket?! My career has been impacted by: - Pay for training - The introduction of regional jets (fewer mainline jobs) - 9/11 and a half decade furlough - Age 65 extending that furlough - The 2008 recession - The Max grounding - The global pandemic - and now age 68?! Gimme a break. I know they say that timing is everything, but I was 25 when I was hired by my first major. How much better could my timing have been?! I would like to upgrade at my last major sometime before retirement… This way when you finally fly your last leg at 68 you can be squashed by some 18 year old TikToking while they are driving a semi as you drive home to your retirement party. A fitting end to a illustrious flying career! |
Originally Posted by maxjet;[url=tel:3424971
3424971]I understand the angst against moving up the retirement age. I hope it gets raised for one simple reason. I would like to get on an airliner, after paying a high price to do so, and ACTUALLY BE ON TIME! I am so sick of hearing about No crew! Yes, I know this is the airlines fault. Yes I know they saw this coming. Neither of those things solves my problem as a consumer. Raising the age, even if only temporary, and for domestic only, gives them 2 years to catch up.
The word is out that being a commercial pilot pays well. Flight schools are filling up. The pipelines will be full in a couple of years. An age increase would allow the majors to stop hiring pilots away from the regionals at such a fast clip, allowing the regionals to catch up to the training gap. This would be a great thing for the industry and the consumer. Obviously a bad thing for the current pilots waiting to move forward. Airlines publish a schedule a few months out and that schedule requires X number of pilots to fly. If an airline publishes a schedule but has less than X pilots. Is the problem a lack of pilots or is it a problem with scheduling too much with too little resources to deliver on the schedule? |
Originally Posted by usernamehere
(Post 3425093)
when they say “no crew” it doesn’t mean crew wasnt assigned to a flight and they just discovered it then. Its a blanket statement for why they’re late. It just means at least one person out of the whole crew is not there at that moment. Maybe scheduling robbed them for another flight. Maybe they were caught up in a thunderstorm on the other side of the country. Maybe they got in late the night before and needed extra rest. Maybe it’s just the flight attendants or one flight attendant. Maybe just the pilots or pilot. When they say “no crew” over the PA they rarely say why there is no crew. 67 or 68 wouldn’t help with the “no crew” situation.
Airlines publish a schedule a few months out and that schedule requires X number of pilots to fly. If an airline publishes a schedule but has less than X pilots. Is the problem a lack of pilots or is it a problem with scheduling too much with too little resources to deliver on the schedule? This is not a place for facts, evidence or cogent thoughts. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3425028)
Lost gen will not experience single pilot ops in the US. Unless maybe they fly a caravan.
there’s a concept called metastability in physics and math (among others) that might be used as a metaphor here. Imagine a graph with risk on the y-axis and number of pilots (decreasing left to right) on the x-axis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta...-stability.svg There’s no condition in which two pilots plus AI will be less safe than one pilot plus AI. So the get from two pilots plus AI to the “promised land” of removing humans from the loop, you have to go directly to zero pilots. Otherwise you end up on the hill. |
Originally Posted by nene
(Post 3424728)
A bit of irony that your qualified to be US president (or 2/3 of our federal govt for that matter) at age 79 but not fly a multi piloted aircraft....
|
Originally Posted by OOfff
(Post 3425197)
nobody will. If a system is equally safe with a single pilot as with two, there’s no reason to keep a single pilot because the safety is provided by autonomy, not by the pilot.
there’s a concept called metastability in physics and math (among others) that might be used as a metaphor here. Imagine a graph with risk on the y-axis and number of pilots (decreasing left to right) on the x-axis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta...-stability.svg There’s no condition in which two pilots plus AI will be less safe than one pilot plus AI. So the get from two pilots plus AI to the “promised land” of removing humans from the loop, you have to go directly to zero pilots. Otherwise you end up on the hill. Only thing you might see near/mid term is single-pilot cruise on some long-haul ops. IMO they'd need an FA up front just to call for help and open the door in case the on-duty pilot is incap. Doubt the FAA will go for it but other countries might. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3425207)
I've said as much before. Hypothetical autonomous-capable airplanes will initially be manned by two pilots and that will have to persist for years while enough operational data is gathered (total SWAG, ten years per type). At that point you could go to zero, but politics and public opininion will almost certainly mandate single pilot for a good while after that. Just in case.
Only thing you might see near/mid term is single-pilot cruise on some long-haul ops. IMO they'd need an FA up front just to call for help and open the door in case the on-duty pilot is incap. Doubt the FAA will go for it but other countries might. |
Originally Posted by JohnnyBekkestad
(Post 3425343)
I honestly don't think we will ever see single pilot. Perhaps, NO pilot at all. But never a single pilot. Specially as things are developing with the latest Air China crash. Or how many crashes that have been blamed on a single pilot locking out the other pilot.
Maybe they come up with some scheme where the pilot cannot over-ride the automation unless an independent monitor system detects that the automation has allowed the aircraft to depart desired operating parameters (ex too low on GS). Or just keep two pilots until they've worked out all the bugs and have years of experience with full autonomy. |
Originally Posted by ZapBrannigan
(Post 3425045)
Absolutely. I’m already hearing, “but you’ll have an extra two years at the top of the pay scale” from the Captains. Sure… IF I don’t medical out by then. IF I don’t mind losing out on the time value of money between now and then. But heck… I’d like to be gone by 65, if not before, to enjoy my retirement before I’m too old to get around and do things!
Who wants to step out of the cockpit and into the casket?! My career has been impacted by: - Pay for training - The introduction of regional jets (fewer mainline jobs) - 9/11 and a half decade furlough - Age 65 extending that furlough - The 2008 recession - The Max grounding - The global pandemic - and now age 68?! Gimme a break. I know they say that timing is everything, but I was 25 when I was hired by my first major. How much better could my timing have been?! I would like to upgrade at my last major sometime before retirement… You got at a major at 25? Well some of us did not get there until 9 years later. So I would vote to extend the age limit to 68 in heart beat. That way you too have too have the option to work longer if you like. |
Originally Posted by usernamehere
(Post 3425093)
when they say “no crew” it doesn’t mean crew wasnt assigned to a flight and they just discovered it then. Its a blanket statement for why they’re late. It just means at least one person out of the whole crew is not there at that moment. Maybe scheduling robbed them for another flight. Maybe they were caught up in a thunderstorm on the other side of the country. Maybe they got in late the night before and needed extra rest. Maybe it’s just the flight attendants or one flight attendant. Maybe just the pilots or pilot. When they say “no crew” over the PA they rarely say why there is no crew. 67 or 68 wouldn’t help with the “no crew” situation.
Airlines publish a schedule a few months out and that schedule requires X number of pilots to fly. If an airline publishes a schedule but has less than X pilots. Is the problem a lack of pilots or is it a problem with scheduling too much with too little resources to deliver on the schedule? |
Retirement age 67
Originally Posted by JohnnyBekkestad
(Post 3425343)
I honestly don't think we will ever see single pilot. Perhaps, NO pilot at all. But never a single pilot. Specially as things are developing with the latest Air China crash. Or how many crashes that have been blamed on a single pilot locking out the other pilot.
I agree that will (for those reasons) will never have a single pilot. But I also don’t think we will ever have no pilot (ground based) aka UAS either. With no pilot, you need a ground based link, any link can be hacked and plane flown into building. Flying boxes or pax. It’s not a safety of normal flight issue, it’s a potential to do great damage if hacked into issue. The only time you are going to see a no pilot is when it is programmed at the gate, verified, closed out (i.e. impossible to change) and is then released to next gate with probably 3-5 alternates since no outside influences could affect its algorithm for last min changes. And that’s pretty far away technology. Or maybe a ground based link that gets terminated below 10k’. So it has to revert to on board programming or climb to 10k to ‘ask’ for advice or which preprogrammed alt you think it should go to. But below 10k it can’t be hacked or commanded to fly into a building. |
Originally Posted by Flyinguy
(Post 3425803)
I agree that will (for those reasons) will never have a single pilot.
But I also don’t think we will ever have no pilot (ground based) aka UAS either. With no pilot, you need a ground based link, any link can be hacked and plane flown into building. Flying boxes or pax. It’s not a safety of normal flight issue, it’s a potential to do great damage if hacked into issue. The only time you are going to see a no pilot is when it is programmed at the gate, verified, closed out (i.e. impossible to change) and is then released to next gate with probably 3-5 alternates since no outside influences could affect its algorithm for last min changes. And that’s pretty far away technology. Or maybe a ground based link that gets terminated below 10k’. So it has to revert to on board programming or climb to 10k to ‘ask’ for advice or which preprogrammed alt you think it should go to. But below 10k it can’t be hacked or commanded to fly into a building. Our entire industry is based on a concept that most people never thought could happen |
Originally Posted by CincoDeMayo
(Post 3425831)
I do like the irony; discussing how technology will never develop to allow safe air travel without pilots in the flight deck. The same conversation could have been had 150 years ago and the idea of flying planes in general.
Our entire industry is based on a concept that most people never thought could happen Also it's going to take a lot of government involvement, including expensive re-engineering of the NAS. All for what? To eliminate 100,000 good-paying union jobs and make half of the population even more nervous about flying? Yeah the fed will get right on that... My swag: if you're old enough to read this, you'll be able to retire out of a two-person cockpit. If you fly pax. They might let cargo go single pilot at some point (might be where they accumulate the years of operational data). |
Programming a computer to fly a plane isn't that hard in the grand scheme of things. I mean GA aircraft already have an auto-land feature.
But we don't get paid to fly as much as we get paid to make decisions. And the AI that can replace a human on that level of decision making is decades off, if not a century. But yeah, it will happen eventually. |
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 3425881)
Programming a computer to fly a plane isn't that hard in the grand scheme of things. I mean GA aircraft already have an auto-land feature.
But about every 2-3 years the AP disconnects randomly for no apparent reason. If the company pays me and the other guy say $1.8M over three years to turn the AP back on once, it's money well spent. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3425885)
So does my airliner. I can turn the AP on at 100' out of BOS and leave it on until 80 kts on LAX 24R.
But about every 2-3 years the AP disconnects randomly for no apparent reason. If the company pays me and the other guy say $1.8M over three years to turn the AP back on once, it's money well spent. You're making a case for no maximum age for pilots. I don't like that. |
Originally Posted by ZapBrannigan
(Post 3424469)
Thats an anomaly. It isn’t the case at every airline.
(this whole thread is verbal masturbation, anyways. All these guys saying “it’s a NO from me”…..pffft….you don’t get a vote. None of us do.) |
Alpa members had a vote last time. The first vote was a no and nothing happened with legislators. Roughly a year later and several pensions disappearing it was voted again and passed. Shortly after passed in Congress. That’s how I remember it anyhow. However, I agree this time will most likely be different due the shorter timeline.
|
Originally Posted by nene
(Post 3425792)
Everyone needs to just sit back and take a chill pill. The Fed govt has been and is working feverishly on destroying US demand/economy as fast and they can. High oil prices, high inflation has happened before and it's called stagflation. Unfortunately I predict in a year we will all be sitting around reminiscing "remember how there was a pilot shortage????"
There's going to be furloughs. The pilot "shortage goes away for a few years. Be ready. Now... All of the snowflakes will go from ranting against age 60-something to screaming gimme-handouts because, I deserve it. Then those that have to take concessions and/or pay a 'free-stuff" assessment out of their paychecks will NEED age 60-something to get said assessment money back. Then after getting their "free-stuff" from the senior guys, the snowflakes will complain how the greedy senior guys want retirement raised to make up for lost wages, as the recent riddle kids get their student loans forgiven. I should have listened to my Grandma and been a fireman. |
Originally Posted by fcoolaiddrinker
(Post 3426348)
Alpa members had a vote last time. The first vote was a no and nothing happened with legislators. Roughly a year later and several pensions disappearing it was voted again and passed. Shortly after passed in Congress. That’s how I remember it anyhow. However, I agree this time will most likely be different due the shorter timeline.
That will not really influence congress too much. Senior union leadership could address this vigorously with congress, or not-so-vigorously. How hard the leadership fights will matter, a little bit. If congress (aka key congressional leaders who have relationships with stakeholders) wants to do it, they'll just be looking for some data which shows that the safety impact is negligible. If they have that data in their hip pocket, then they can proceed with the rationalization of pilot shortage impact on the public and reducing arbitrary age discrimination. If they *want* to do it, they'll go shopping for whatever data they need to defend their position. FAA will probably do as they're told per the regime. It's less likely that congress will approach this with a totally open mind and decide based on data... they're going to have an agenda before they even start discussing it. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3426589)
ALPA members probably should and probably will get a "vote"... which will inform national's position. Same for APA, SWAPA, etc.
Meanwhile, Boeing and Airbus will throw in tens of MILLIONS of dollars. We're all just along for the ride. Just like last time. Want it, or not want it. If you honestly think any of us are going to get a real say in this, I've got some great low price affordable property out in Hawaii for you. |
Lemme say this again for those of you own the back. Last time, ICAO had already raised it to 65.
The FAA had to follow suit or international pilots over 60 wouldn't be able to fly here. It would have been a crap show. This time we would be doing the reverse. Lindsey is just seeking attention as usual. This is a nothing burger and just a big management distraction when every airline is in contract talks. This will go nowhere until ICAO raises it first. |
Originally Posted by Margaritaville
(Post 3426612)
The FAA had to follow suit or international pilots over 60 wouldn't be able to fly here. It would have been a crap show. As a party to ICAO, the US (and any other party nation) allows foriegn aircrew to fly in their airspace as long as they 1) Comply with their own national rules AND; 2) Comply with ICAO rules. ICAO provides a standardized reciprocity so you don't have to comply with 100% of the local rules for every country you fly to. Way too complicated. There were 60+ foriegn pilots flying in US airspace for about a year before we raised the age. Another example, there are very low-time widebody FO's flying into the US under ICAO. They are not bound by our 1500 hour/ATP rule, and can go as low as an MPL.
Originally Posted by Margaritaville
(Post 3426612)
This time we would be doing the reverse. Lindsey is just seeking attention as usual. This is a nothing burger and just a big management distraction when every airline is in contract talks.
This will go nowhere until ICAO raises it first. If we wait until ICAO does it, that does provide a little more ammunition to make the case. If we go first, I bet ICAO follows within a year. We're not the only place with a pilot shortage. |
Originally Posted by Hawaiian 5O
(Post 3426609)
Then the pilots unions will spend a combined few hundred thousands of dollars of PAC money for the cause.
Meanwhile, Boeing and Airbus will throw in tens of MILLIONS of dollars. We're all just along for the ride. Just like last time. Want it, or not want it. If you honestly think any of us are going to get a real say in this, I've got some great low price affordable property out in Hawaii for you. If the big unions make a big enough stink it might possibly tip the balance. Maybe. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3426674)
I honestly think we will not get a say in this. That's why I had quotes around "vote".
If the big unions make a big enough stink it might possibly tip the balance. Maybe. |
Originally Posted by 172skychicken
(Post 3426795)
Perhaps some of you glazed over Kirbys CNBC interview. If the major airlines don't want this AND the unions don't want it, they'll have a lot of trouble getting the votes to pass this. It would be one thing is this was major airlines vs unions, but it sounds like it is closer to major airlines AND unions vs regional airlines. That's a whole different ballgame.
Summer (and Nov/Dec) travel disruptions could drive this forward. Even though it won't solve the problem, it gives the appearance of action. Especially summer, congress can't ignore that with mid-terms looming. I'm not saying it's going to happen, or happen this year, but it certainly *could* happen. We're not privvy to the thinking and motives inside the beltway. |
Originally Posted by ReserveCA
(Post 3421215)
Either raise it or give me full SS benefits at 65…….
filler |
Originally Posted by ReserveCA
(Post 3421215)
Either raise it or give me full SS benefits at 65…….
Managements are scared. They are attempting to divide and conquer. Don’t be a sucker and argue against fellow pilots. The pilot unions should stay agnostic on this subject. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:30 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands