Airline Pilot Central Forums - Let Experienced Pilots Fly Act (Age 67)

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Major (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/)

- - Let Experienced Pilots Fly Act (Age 67) (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/138687-let-experienced-pilots-fly-act-age-67-a.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi8orco (Post 3800626)

Judging by the hiring demographics lately that might be on the agenda in McLean one of these days before we see retirement.

How so?
filler

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieTaylor (Post 3800672)

Yea, the speaker can just sit on it, and force the senate to pass the extension, or their version before conference committee. One chamber can always give the other one the middle finger.

The “urgent” deadline really only affects FAA/airport tax revenue.

The Senate abstaining from pork amendments kinda sets tempo for house to abstain. Once one side gets a turn the other side wants a turn.

part of the deal he made with Dems to save his job may have included passing this without delay.

“keep the faith” lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieTaylor (Post 3800665)

Looks like the ATP-CTP may end up being part of expanded 121 air carrier training.

sorry haven't been following closely enough to know, what exactly does this entail?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clearedtocross (Post 3799944)

The stagnation of waiting to move to a bigger airplane or make Captain will cost the majority of pilots more than they can make up by working an extra 2 years.

please show me the math...

Quote:

Originally Posted by FriendlyPilot (Post 3799966)

Exactly. Waiting 2 years for that upgrade, etc means you lose the time value of that money in your 401k, investment account etc. So you want 10 more years to get that last "2 more years" and it doesn't make up for losing out on income from 10 years ago.

IF everyone works till 67, you will have exactly the same amount of years time value of that money at the higher pay grade. And you will have an additional 2 years at the lower rate you got stuck at a decade ago, with a decade of interest. Always more money. That is just basic math.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FangsF15 (Post 3800001)

APC does need a functional autocorrect on the desktop version (in addition to getting rid of the darn green banner which pops up every 16.9 seconds)!

While I appreciate being honest about your motivation, I respectfully disagree with your logic as expressed. Changing the rules mid game to effectively benefit one group is inherently unfair and selfish, at least in this situation. It’s like changing the number of baseball innings to 11 just because you aren’t winning in the bottom of the 9th. “Us” wanting to keep the innings at 9 is not selfish. It’s the rules we all signed up for.

And while I get that an additional 2 years now would help you make up for the 5 spent ‘stuck’, I would argue that for the vast majority, it would make it worse, like a second kick in the junk. For others, it would. be a ‘new’ injury

In reality, this is a pretty minor issue, but I’m not so sure about your statement about career earnings. On a spreadsheet, the total column might be larger for some, but giving me 500k in 10 or 30 years isn’t the same as 500k tomorrow. it’s “this year dollars” versus “then year dollars“. Granted, we can’t know what those future earnings would total, so it’s really tough to qualify. But regardless of who’s right on that small point, it only matters if I also go to 67….

At the end of the day, every single person who does not go to 67 will be irreparably harmed, IMO.

But again, if you’re 63 or 64, I can’t really blame you for wanting to continue flying, and making money. I might feel the same way if I were in those shoes. Just trying to explain why I think so many are opposed to 67 (as if we haven’t all heard all of these arguments 100 times before already, L O L)

Hate the green banner!! And your baseball example does make me think... I guess because for me the rules were changed at the bottom of the 7th to extend to 9, I now feel it is okay to go to 11.
And I am fairly sure my numbers are correct, but only for status quo for the finacial sector, and absolutely, only if you do go to 67. And I understand that is a hard no for a lot, if not most. Not expecting to change the opinion of anyone, but I do take offence to the "get out of my seat, geezer" crowd. Thank you for your measured reply, always happy to disagree with someone who brings good arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by runinonfumes (Post 3800849)

sorry haven't been following closely enough to know, what exactly does this entail?

It’s Enhanced Qualification R-ATP, the way they write the language you really can’t tell what the predetermined goal was.

Could be to get rid of ATP-CTP burden as a stand alone program.

Could be written to give the FAA more authority to weed out R-ATP candidates and is a reaction to the ATLAS crash.

Could be something different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by symbian simian (Post 3800896)

please show me the math...

IF everyone works till 67, you will have exactly the same amount of years time value of that money at the higher pay grade. And you will have an additional 2 years at the lower rate you got stuck at a decade ago, with a decade of interest. Always more money. That is just basic math.

Do you really need to be shown the math on this? You seem to understand what will happen based on your experience when the age went from 60 to 65. You state below that Age 67 would give you half the time to make up for what you lost when the age changed from 60 to 65. If your very incorrect assumption that everybody benefits under an age increase were true, then you wouldn't be "making up for what you lost" under age 65 if 67 went through.

The absolute basic math is that anyone not in the final seat of their career has to either work for free to make up for lost earnings, or will possibly never be able to make up the loss.

Quote:

Originally Posted by symbian simian (Post 3799915)

Can't qoute Fangs directly for some reason, probably my age....

FWIW, I see the selfishness in my position.
I disagree that wanting to change something vs wanting to keep the status quo is by definition more selfish.
I got stuck for those 5 years, age 67 would give me less than half that time to make up for that.
Career earnings for those staying till 67, and ugrading 2 years later would higher, not lower. They will only make less if they retire at 65. Not saying it's fair, but your math is wrong, provided everything else remains the same (I know...)
I would vote in favor. If it gets voted down, I would accept that without *****ing, just like age 65 when that happened. Thing is, none of us will get a vote, so none of this matters.
(APC really needs autocorrect)

Quote:

Originally Posted by symbian simian (Post 3800896)

Not expecting to change the opinion of anyone, but I do take offence to the "get out of my seat, geezer" crowd. Thank you for your measured reply, always happy to disagree with someone who brings good arguments.

I think that crowd is also wrong also.

Unfortunately for age 67 Boeing has rubber stamped too many changes and the FAA has lost credibility. The Atlas FO also likely had a rubber stamped ATP.

Rubber stamping age 67 was a bad idea and piled onto a trend of members of the industry getting to rubber stamp whatever they want.

Age 67 will come back around with proper studies and risk assessment and likely pass.

Age 67 needs a 117 review it could be that table B needs shortening for older pilots or pilots flying though a WOCL. Yes, age 65 was rubber stamped, but that was before the Colgan crash and rest changes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by symbian simian (Post 3800896)

.
Not expecting to change the opinion of anyone, but I do take offence to the "get out of my seat, geezer" crowd.

You do know you took that seat from an old geezer yourself after he retired....who took it from another old geezer...and so on.

That's called seniority. Now that you've benefited from this system and I s your time to punch out you instead have decided that the natural progression of seniority is a personal attack on you and those of you at the top. Its like you've all conveniently forgotten how you got up there to begin with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClownDown (Post 3800612)

No way. Then it’s shipped back to the senate.

Let’s talk about potentially expelling pro 67ers from ALPA.

Are you serious? Silence the speech of those on the other side of a political/philosophical issue? Persecute them and deny rights and freedoms? Why not just jail or even execute them? The mindset you are espousing is truly terrifying!

Before you start in on my about being one way or the other on the issue, you can search every nook and cranny on this forum or all of the Interwebs to discover that I have been rather neutral on the 67 issue - the most "controversial" thing said; (paraphrasing) "I'll wait and see to decide what's right for me, if the age does change." I still stand by that, and remain absent of emotion regarding this week’s happenings.

You are truly out of your mind if you believe it's appropriate to target pro-67 folks for an ouster from ALPA.