Who cares about 900s - Age 60 is toast
05-24-2007, 12:31 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: DFW A320 FO
Posts: 586
ALPA goes against the majority vote of its membership and votes to support Age 65. What a friggin slap in the face from "our" union. ALPA is really in trouble IMO. About to lose USAirways and now will be very unpopular with its younger members (the older guys should be ticked on principle alone even if they're happy about the support for removing the age 60 limit).
Last edited by swaayze; 05-24-2007 at 12:47 PM.
05-24-2007, 12:37 PM
#12
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,554
Originally Posted by ToiletDuck
Yes this doesn't help me much in the short run. Yes it does help me in the long run. When we're all 60 we'll be glad we get to keep going.
05-24-2007, 12:56 PM
#13
Indian Takeout Driver
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: FAR part 347 (91+121+135)
Posts: 1,566
Someone explain to me why we need to amend this law when there is CLEARLY an over supply of pilots! We've got 3000+ furloughed guys looking for stable jobs still! This plays right into the hands of the managements who will now have more supply of labor to drive down the cost of labor.
Another reason to start thinking about another career!
Another reason to start thinking about another career!
05-24-2007, 01:06 PM
#14
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 57
Does it occur to anyone that the rule was going to change anyway, REGARDLESS OF WHAT ALPA WANTS OR SAYS? I mean, think about it, when has this FAA or administration ever listened to ANY union or labor input? At least now ALPA might have some influence on how it is implemented.
And no, I am personally against the rule change, for exactly the reasons BoilerUP says.
I.DEENA
And no, I am personally against the rule change, for exactly the reasons BoilerUP says.
I.DEENA
05-24-2007, 02:16 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: Part 121, 135 & Military background
Posts: 379
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
No, it doesn't.
If your career progression to a high-paying job (like major airline captain) is delayed 5 years, time/value of money dictates that you'll NEVER make up the wealth you lost during that delay, even with 5 more years at your top earning potential.After this finally becomes law, your upgrade at RAH (and all of ours at our respective companies) is likely to stagnate as attrition at the legacies (the primary reason for recalls and hiring) and growth at the regionals all but stops. Current regional CAs will have much fewer options for progression and the competition for those few available jobs will be fierce. Sure along the way folks will retire early, quit aviation, medical out, pass away, etc...but attrition at the bottom will crawl following the attrition at the top. In the meantime, folks will be flying 50/70/90 seat RJs from the right seat for 1,2,3,4, maybe 5 additional years at (self-induced) slave wages gaining a whole lot of no PIC time. Hope folks are happy where they are now and that this is considered during the current round of negotiations...the idea of "get my 1000 TPIC and get the hell out" is gonna go *poof*.
This will cause me (and you) to lose career earnings, just so older pilots can increase theirs. Is that "fair"?
If your career progression to a high-paying job (like major airline captain) is delayed 5 years, time/value of money dictates that you'll NEVER make up the wealth you lost during that delay, even with 5 more years at your top earning potential.After this finally becomes law, your upgrade at RAH (and all of ours at our respective companies) is likely to stagnate as attrition at the legacies (the primary reason for recalls and hiring) and growth at the regionals all but stops. Current regional CAs will have much fewer options for progression and the competition for those few available jobs will be fierce. Sure along the way folks will retire early, quit aviation, medical out, pass away, etc...but attrition at the bottom will crawl following the attrition at the top. In the meantime, folks will be flying 50/70/90 seat RJs from the right seat for 1,2,3,4, maybe 5 additional years at (self-induced) slave wages gaining a whole lot of no PIC time. Hope folks are happy where they are now and that this is considered during the current round of negotiations...the idea of "get my 1000 TPIC and get the hell out" is gonna go *poof*.
This will cause me (and you) to lose career earnings, just so older pilots can increase theirs. Is that "fair"?
This is not an original thought, but as someone else posted on here, everyone calm down. There are some 60 guys who wish to retire, there are some who will lose medical ability, there are some that will only go for an extra year or two to get a kid out of college, or that last boat payment. Not every swingin richard is going to stay.
Let's not forget "fair" is always a 2 way street. Is it fair that the goverement forces you to retire at 60 but you can't get your retirement payment until 65? Yes, it will slow things down a bit, but not a huge amount.
Boiler, I could be wrong, you might be a former C-5 Air Mission Commander with 20,000 hours and a PHD in astrophysics, but my guess it your are 20 something, got hired at an airline when you still didn't even have a comma in your logbook. The sense of entitlement that a lot of younger pilots have doesn't set well with the crowd that has been doing this a long, long time.
Food for thought.
Stick
05-24-2007, 02:19 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: DFW A320 FO
Posts: 586
Originally Posted by Inside DEENA
Does it occur to anyone that the rule was going to change anyway, REGARDLESS OF WHAT ALPA WANTS OR SAYS? I mean, think about it, when has this FAA or administration ever listened to ANY union or labor input? At least now ALPA might have some influence on how it is implemented.
And no, I am personally against the rule change, for exactly the reasons BoilerUP says.
I.DEENA
And no, I am personally against the rule change, for exactly the reasons BoilerUP says.
I.DEENA
05-24-2007, 02:22 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: DFW A320 FO
Posts: 586
Originally Posted by stickwiggler
your math is fuzzy... how does five years at "middle of the pack" pay get to be worth than 5 years of the highest payrate you'll ever see?
You miss the point. You would get to the highest payrate 5 years sooner under age 60. Throw in the ability to save and/or pay off debt sooner and the miracle of compounding interest on your savings and I submit that most of us (not close to 60 now) would be much better off under age 60.
05-24-2007, 02:28 PM
#19
On Reserve
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: I like 12C
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by stickwiggler
Not every swingin richard is going to stay.
Sure it will slow things down some, but it's not going to kill everything.
I know several guys who are going to stay past 60, but not much past 60.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
