Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Major (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/)
-   -   Age 67 bill (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/141033-age-67-bill.html)

1Bob 01-02-2023 05:00 PM


Originally Posted by DeltaboundRedux (Post 3563799)
Wait, you can start a thread here with your first post?

Also, hard "NO". 2 more years of savings on the back end isn't going to catch anyone up on their 40+ years of savings for retirement.

IDK, $500K - $1+M depending on what/how much you fly seems like a decent "catch up".

DeltaboundRedux 01-02-2023 05:05 PM


Originally Posted by 1Bob (Post 3564043)
IDK, $500K - $1+M depending on what/how much you fly seems like a decent "catch up".

If your expenses are "zero", and you don't pay taxes, sure. Although a million ain't what is used to be. Flying premium time at that age seems depressing beyond belief.

But if you were in that situation already (Zero debt, tax write offs due to numerous rentals, small business ownerships, etc), you wouldn't be in this scenario at age 65 anyway.

You can't stop smoking with a Stage IV lung cancer diagnosis and hope to survive.

Retirement is the same way. It takes decades of living below your means.

"The "D**do" of consequences for your actions rarely arrives lubed."

m3113n1a1 01-02-2023 05:06 PM


Originally Posted by 1Bob (Post 3564043)
IDK, $500K - $1+M depending on what/how much you fly seems like a decent "catch up".

If you didn't save enough by now, you're not magically going to become financially responsible in the next two years.

Whoopsmybad 01-02-2023 05:43 PM


Originally Posted by m3113n1a1 (Post 3564042)
Boohoo funding your own retirement? Much rather have our DC than ANY kind of pension. Everyone is all about personal responsibility here until it comes to funding your own retirement.

Um, pretty sure you read WAY too much into what I posted. The argument being floated is we don’t get SS until 67 and we are forced to retire. I merely pointed out that the other 2 jobs used as an example of others being forced to retire had pensions.

I’m here because I like my money in my own name. And I don’t plan on being here at 65, much less 67. And neither do I support it.

Take your condescending boohoo and shove it.

Round Luggage 01-02-2023 06:04 PM


Originally Posted by lake (Post 3563995)
Think about it. It's the only industry where the US government makes you retire at 65 but won't let you collect full SS until 67 ish. So i would support this bill based on that alone. When you personally choose to retire is your business.

SS is not a retirement plan. The old age insurance afforded through SS was originally set for an age beyond life expectancy.

m3113n1a1 01-02-2023 08:00 PM


Originally Posted by Whoopsmybad (Post 3564059)
Um, pretty sure you read WAY too much into what I posted. The argument being floated is we don’t get SS until 67 and we are forced to retire. I merely pointed out that the other 2 jobs used as an example of others being forced to retire had pensions.

I’m here because I like my money in my own name. And I don’t plan on being here at 65, much less 67. And neither do I support it.

Take your condescending boohoo and shove it.

Sorry, didn't mean to be condescending or direct it towards you. I'm just sick off this min balance discussion. My bad though.

gzsg 01-02-2023 08:05 PM

Like most of you I’m opposed.

The facts are that the pilot pool is not adequate.

By summer Delta and United will be hiring 1500 hour pilots.

Tier 2 carriers will be unable to grow and some will have to shrink.

Delta is printing money and will grow as fast as possible. United is growing twice as fast.

The regionals are in a free fall and service to small towns will suffer in a big way. Guess who they complain to?

Cities like Toledo, Ohio have completely lost commercial air service.

Congress has no choice but to raise the age.

FXLAX 01-02-2023 08:26 PM


Originally Posted by interceptorpilo (Post 3564007)
This is simply not true. Federal Law Enforcement Officers must retire by 57. I am sure there are other examples.


Originally Posted by Planetrain (Post 3564009)
Forgot Air Traffic Controllers, 56.


Originally Posted by crewdawg (Post 3564014)
I'm not for raising the retirement age, but he does bring up a good point. If we're forced by the government to retire at 65, we should be able draw full social security at 65.


Originally Posted by DeltaboundRedux (Post 3564025)
Negotiated by the ATC controller union. Everyone hired pre-age 56 contract was grandfathered in and could work until they stroked out at their screens or died of asbestos poisoning . And those those guys had a defined benefit pension with a COLA, which made sticking around extra-stupid.

(I think age 65 is stupid for pilots, btw. Age 67 is ridiculous.)


Originally Posted by Whoopsmybad (Post 3564034)
They have a pension, at least federal law enforcement. Not 100% about ATC.

Edit: someone above said it, they have pensions too. Not saying this is a reason to go to 67, but that’s a big difference when you are funding your own retirement.

Air traffic controllers are required to retire by federal law by the age of 56. There are exceptions for those hired before a certain years depending on whether they were dot, dod, or fss. There is also an exemption they can apply for to work until 61 but I’ve never heard of that happening from the few friends I have that are ATC. They can retire with their pension at the age of 50 if and 20 years of service or 25 years of service at any age.

Their pension is 1.7% for the first 20 years plus 1% for thereafter of their high 3. They are required to partially fund that pension at 1.3% but they do get a retirement supplement that approximates their social security until they reach 62. They do get a year COLA.

They also get a 5% match into their TSP.

Iceberg 01-02-2023 08:32 PM


Originally Posted by gzsg (Post 3564112)
Like most of you I’m opposed.

The facts are that the pilot pool is not adequate.

By summer Delta and United will be hiring 1500 hour pilots.

Tier 2 carriers will be unable to grow and some will have to shrink.

Delta is printing money and will grow as fast as possible. United is growing twice as fast.

The regionals are in a free fall and service to small towns will suffer in a big way. Guess who they complain to?

Cities like Toledo, Ohio have completely lose commercial air service.

Congress has no choice but to raise the age.

And then what? They raise it, and in 2 years… do it again?

1Bob 01-02-2023 10:30 PM


Originally Posted by DeltaboundRedux (Post 3564046)
If your expenses are "zero", and you don't pay taxes, sure. Although a million ain't what is used to be. Flying premium time at that age seems depressing beyond belief.

But if you were in that situation already (Zero debt, tax write offs due to numerous rentals, small business ownerships, etc), you wouldn't be in this scenario at age 65 anyway.

You can't stop smoking with a Stage IV lung cancer diagnosis and hope to survive.

Retirement is the same way. It takes decades of living below your means.

"The "D**do" of consequences for your actions rarely arrives lubed."

You have expenses whether you're retired or not. In one instance you have no income, in the other you have an extra $500K - $1+M.

Taxes sure, you're also collecting DC and getting medical insurance.

There are all kinds of reasons to not fly to 67, the money is not one of them.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:13 PM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands