Raising the age helps those at the top. It only helps the rest if they work longer than they are required and probably want now. And it definitely stagnates progression for the junior people now. I think most of the top people will take the extra time, and/or the extra years on disability, paid for by the rest. Although I would be okay with 67, I understand that there is probably a sizable majority overall, and definitely in the more junior group that are against it. I was not against 65, I knew it would hold me back, but at the same time I felt there was no way I could be ready to retire at 60 after starting later. And I am absolutely sure that the whole LEPF is a big fat lie, anybody in favor of 67 is looking at their bank account or does not like their significant other. In the same vein, those who oppose do it for themselves more than for safety because the geezers are too old (not against a more strict medical, and huge LTD premium increases/eligibility changes for the older peeps if 67 happens). And I am personally not swayed by the whole keeping the status quo is in and of itself more morally just than asking for change, but that is me...

 

And how's their retirement benefits?

There's not a chance we keep our current retirement contributions if we can fly indefinitely. Next concessionary round of contracts when we show management our retirement opener they'll just counter with "cool, don't retire then".

 

401(k) contributions, or LTD protections? I can see how the latter is (maybe) at risk, but not the former. At least, not what we have currently negotiated, anyway.

 

That actually is not an unreasonable regulatory approach, as a temporary measure until they have some data. Some 60+ simply downgraded to FE back when that was an option.

But I suspect the airlines would lobby against that, they still wouldn't want the training churn.

Especially the US airlines, since the 65+ could simply go out on LTD and make about the same as being an FO but without any work.

 

True, but this would have a negative impact on contract negotiations.
Everything in a contract is accounted for and this wouldn’t count as a freebie. No company would just say “Well, it’s a regulatory change, so we just have to absorb the additional cost and negotiate like it didn’t happen.”
The company would run the new numbers and if they didn’t attempt to reduce 401k contributions or LTD, it would be accounted for elsewhere. Less gains or some concessions somewhere else.

 

That’s almost an impossible question to answer given the differences between the U.S. vs. Oz/EnZed. An example of the differences would be free, comprehensive, high-quality healthcare there, and our system in the U.S. Obviously, healthcare is a significant cost in retirement here. Airlines in all three countries have a form of retirement contribution. For us, it’s a 401K, A Fund, B Fund, or a hybrid. Australia and New Zealand have a superannuation system (pension) which uses money the employee and employer put in. The amount varies depending on your contract; however, there is a legal minimum. As an example - an educator or researcher at the University level receives a 17% employer contribution. In addition, there are the standard investment schemes common to all Western countries.

The short answer to your question is that in both OZ and NZ, the company must pay into your retirement until you retire. An important note that’s germane to the retirement age debate - the medical issuance process is far more thorough and far more intrusive. Your AME has access to a broad amount of your health data. If you want your medical, you give permission.

 

If you want to increase the retirement age, as a matter of public safety you have to demonstrate that it is systemically as safe or safer. If you have data which supports this, post it here. Waiting.

Funny how you are clamoring for an extra 2 years at the top and at the same time trying to act like everyone else is looking for career enhancements. Gaslighting and projecting all in one.

 

Trouble is, for every “sharp as a tack at 80” story there are dozens in the same age range with dementia, Alzheimer’s, cognitive degradation. These numbers begin ramping up in our early 60’s, sometimes beginning even earlier, and increase exponentially as we age. It’s no one’s fault, just what happens.

 

One of the reasons we are able to justify the level of retirement benefit we have is because we have a mandatory retirement age. I don’t think it would be crazy to think changing the mandatory retirement age would have a negative effect on our DC %


IMO LTD wouldn’t change much with 67. It’s my understanding we have actually improved LTD since 65 went into effect. If 70+ happens tho I’d say all bets are off. But while I see 67 as a possibility, it’s hard to believe the law would change to allow 70+. Recently net jets was able to implement a mandatory age 70 retirement after years of no age.

 

So if it's starts before 60, and is a threat, shouldn't ALPA be pushing for tougher medical tests and tougher check rides in the pursuit of increased safety?