Who cares about 900s - Age 60 is toast
 

Folks, your career is about to take a detour so folks that benefited their whole careers from seniority advancement because of Age 60 can make up for their financial mismanagement.

They get another 5 years - at our expense.

This ain't good.

Was the law passed or what?

ALPA changed its view today and is pushing to raise the age to 65 now.

ALPA Sets New Course on Age 60

The ALPA Executive Board today voted by an overwhelming 80 percent margin to end the union’s longstanding support for the FAA Age 60 mandatory retirement age for airline pilots. In the face of concerted efforts to change the rule in Congress and the FAA, the ALPA Executive Board directed that union resources be committed to protecting pilot interests by exerting ALPA's influence in any rule change.
“The Executive Board spoke clearly this afternoon,” said ALPA's president, Capt. John Prater. “ALPA pilots will be fully engaged in shaping any rule change. Any legislative or regulatory change needs to address ALPA’s priorities in the areas of safety, medical standards, benefit issues, no retroactive application of change, liability protection, and appropriate rule implementation.”
ALPA will now turn its attention to working to advocate the following priorities contained in the resolution:

• Appropriate legislative language to prevent retroactive application of a change to the Age 60 Rule, to the effect that: “No person over 60, except active flight deck crewmembers, on the effective date may serve as a pilot (captain or first officer) for a Part 121 airline unless such person is newly hired as a pilot on or after such effective date without credit for prior seniority or prior longevity for benefits or other terms related to length of service prior to the date of rehire under any labor agreement or employment policies of the air carrier.”
• Appropriate legislative language to ensure stronger liability protection for airlines and pilot unions in implementing a change to the rule, to the effect that: “Any action in conformance with this Act or with a regulation under this Act may not serve as a basis for liability or relief before any court or agency of the United States, or of any state or locality, nor may any action taken prior to the effective date of enactment on the basis of section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as then in effect.”
• Ensuring that, under a defined benefit retirement plan, a change to the Age 60 Rule will not reduce a participant’s or beneficiary’s accrued benefit nor reduce a benefit to which a participant or beneficiary would have been entitled without enactment of such a change to the Rule.
• Opposing any additional age-related diagnostic medical testing.
• Opposing any attempt by the FAA to obtain greater access to pilot medical records.
• Supporting FAA Air Surgeon Tilton’s recommendation to require a 1st Class Medical certification every six months for pilots over age 60.
• Opposing for domestic operation the implementation of the ICAO standard that at least one pilot in the cockpit be under age 60. Once sufficient data on pilots over age 60 becomes available, unless the necessity for this mitigation for the long term is clearly shown, advocate for removal of the ICAO over/under mitigation for all operations.
• Support the ability of a pilot to retire prior to the mandatory age without penalty.

The Board charged that ALPA continue to aggressively lobby for the adoption of the Akaka bill (which would provide full PBGC benefits to pilots who retire at age 60).
The Road to Action
The ground began shifting on the Age 60 rule when FAA Administrator Marion Blakey announced in January 2007 that “the FAA will propose a new rule to allow pilots to fly until they are 65”, and that “(t)he rule we intend to propose will parallel the ICAO standard – either pilot or copilot may fly up to age 65 as long as the other crewmember is under 60.”
In response to the FAA Administrator’s announcement, Prater established the ALPA Age 60 Blue Ribbon Panel “to study the long-range effects of potential changes to the FAA Age 60 Rule and to identify issues connected to possible changes to pilot mandatory retirement age.”
The Panel presented its findings in the areas of aviation safety; collective bargaining; the cost and structure of heath care, disability, and retirement benefits; pilot training; medical standards; and scheduling rules to the Executive Council at its April 2007 meeting.
Concurrent to this internal ALPA work, legislative efforts in Congress to change the pilot mandatory retirement age accelerated, including the introduction of S.65 and H.R.1125 – “The Freedom to Fly Act.” The Panel concluded that the provisions in these bills do not sufficiently address ALPA’s issues with respect to a change in the mandatory retirement age.
In response to this conclusion, the Council recommended to the Executive Board that ALPA modify its policy to enable ALPA to influence legislation and regulatory efforts. This became more critical as legislative efforts to change the rule accelerated.
In its deliberations, the Board took into account the high likelihood of rule change through either the legislative or the regulatory process, as well as survey data from ALPA members overwhelmingly affirming that if the rule is going to change, ALPA needs to influence that change. ALPA will now develop a comprehensive legislative plan to do just that.


-From ALPA FastRead Email 5/24

I have to admit I'm glad. Personally I don't think anyone should be limited by age. If you fail a physical then that's it, however, if you pass then you're good to go.

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.

Tough to forecast your views on work and flying 35+ years from now. Your views will change.

How do you know you'll be glad to keep going when 60 hits. I imagine after doing it for almost 40 years, I'll be glad to sit on my rocking chair on my big ole' yacht...(hmmm...)

Sorry didn't mean to repeat your thought. I was typing the same thing as you were posting your thought.

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"?

So I will be an airline pilot for 44 years........wow

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).

Are you kidding?!?! I'm try to work my retirement so I can retire earlier! Why the heck would you want to work that long? The earlier the better, I don't plan on sitting in my rocker all of my retirement years either.

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!

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

Yeh, it was a done deal from the word go..

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?

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

Irrelevant to the fact that ALPA National has betrayed the membership by disregarding the majority.

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.

Many, arn't.

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.

I'm sure they'll have moved it to 70 or 75 by the time we're ready to retire.

Long as I make Captain on the RJ by the time the law takes effect...just don't want to be stuck in the right-seat at a regional forever!!

it is about the money
 

Look at it this way: All union dues are base off a percentage of the pilots pay, right? Old guys make more so, the union can make more per pilot.

Time/value of money and compounded interest. Swayzee hit the nail on the head.

While being completely irrelevant to the point at hand...I am 23, have a B.S. and was hired into the CRJ with 1,100 hours total time. I had a slot in the ANG but it didn't work out medically.

You speak of a sense of entitlement in younger folks...just what do you think old folks have??? I've heard a bunch of incredulous attitude from pro-change folks that older pilots are seemingly "owed" another 5 years because of their 1. seniority, 2. sacrifices post-9/11, 3. loss of pensions or the most foolish of them all, 4. age. Older pilots have fought their battles and faced their adversity; younger pilots will do the same in their time. Why should I have fo fight for both? Why should my earning potential and career progression fund their loss of pension, ex-wives, toys, and financial mismanagement simply because of my young? If that's not narcissistic, I don't know what is!

The absolute only thing I feel "entitled" to is the same benefit of career progression as a 59 year old had when he was in my shoes. Actually, I also feel entitled to folks telling the truth about this whole deal...its not about "the right thing to do", its not about ICAO, its about money.

Well just think, you still get your extra 5 years at the top of your game.. :)

completely wrong. right now a pilot has those five years to look forward to already. the extra 5 years will be where ever you are at when the rule changes. if you make captain it will be as a captain. it you are an fo it will be as an fo. if your stuck at a regional it might very well be their unless you are one of the lucky few...

I side with those who AREN'T freaking out about the age 60 rule.

1) While there are things about flying that does stress one out, for the most part, someone is paying me to FLY AN AIRPLANE. If I personally ever get sick of it, I know McDonald's is always hiring.

2) Orville and Wilbur should have indicated that operators of their miraculous invention would lose all commercial privileges at age 65...then we would have never had this whole problem to begin with.

3) It's got to go to 65. We should have never forced people to retire to begin with --- I've got to believe that any folks that are complaining currently WOULD/WILL feel differently if they were at 59.5 and didn't want to stop doing what they love.

Mon deux centimes.

1. it's called work and you should get paid for it.

3. those same people will still be complaining at 64.5. I want to know what is it going to do to my body. ie flying back side of the clock. do some studies before just changing the rule.

You say potato, I say skittles...

no I said you were wrong, not potato. sad that you don't see it.

Well, that's neat..

I like to think that I am right.. You like to think you are right..

Potato's and skittles..

Because of my own situation and more or less having to start over and having lost several years of good income, I am not sorry to have the option of working 'til I am over 60.

No, I don't feel sorry for those who mismanaged their finances and now are 59 and panicking. But how about those who work for legacies and in the movement of a pen, lost the pensions to which they were legally entitled? I have a friend at United and he is about 58.5 and fighting hard to keep working. I don't blame him one bit. He would have loved to quit at 60, but the mismanagement and greed at his own company in the upper management has caused the loss of his pension (for the most part) and now he will be forced to keep working at something.

Maybe he will have to find a corporate job, but I hope he can keep working.

FWIW, I would support a compromise for a few years. 62 now. Then in 5 years make it 64. Then in another 5 make it 65. This way there is still some movement and the guys who need to get to work a bit longer.

Anyway, there is no perfect solution.

While I certainly don't want to get stuck as a new regional FO any longer than I have to, it sounds like we need to find ways to balance the pain this will bring to the junior guys. My first (and probably unpopular) suggestion would be to balance the pay scale. If we are going to work an extra 5 years, bring the junior pay up so that we can take advantage of the wonder of compounding interest in our savings and(the unpopular part) bring the top down some since you will now have 5 extra years to work. Mobility is going to be somewhat slower so we need to spread the total career earnings out more evenly across the career.

cbire,

Excellent idea. Does a 10 year FO really deserve half what a 10 year CA makes? Is she really half as competent? If there is an incident, is the FO really any less screwed than the guy who signs for the plane? Are both thier careers not over? They do the same job, take the same risk, they deserve the same reward.

another reason for management to lower the pay scales once again................"hey you guy can fly longer"...............this industry is a ******* Joke, the SOB's who lived the glory days now get to do it for another 5 years, miserable bastards..............


PS. Well Hopefully I will see Johnny Prater in EWR and we can all thank him for "Taking it back"

Its funny in EUROPE they changed rule because there was a pilot shortage............................ we all know the story here, no shortage now we can spend more time with miserable QOL and ****ty pay, all so the most senior grumpy old men who came into this knowing they had to retire, can stay longer.........................what a disgrace WHERES SKYHIGH IM WITH HIM THIS INDUSTRY IS NEVER GOING TO GET ANY BETTER

I don't agree that the FO and CA should be compensated at the same level just b/c they are both in the jet (so are the FAs and pax for that matter). I do think the large chasm between junior and senior pay has been rationalized over the years by rapid and certain advancement due to things like age 60. If we cannot expect the continual upward mobility due to certain retirements, its entirely possible for a large segment of the population to be stuck in an unpleasant financial spot for a long time. If this is turning into a real job, we need a real job payscale.

Its happening right now in my engineering job. We have a ton of baby boomers who are hanging on b/c they can't afford to retire. The side effect is that there really is no middle to our population. They all got laid off. Only in the last few years have they been hiring new young people. Eventually, there will be a large lurch when the greyhairs retire, but until then, its fairly stagnant. I started out far higher in pay than a regional FO, but a CA catches up pretty quickly. I also work at least 5 days a week, some weekends, and some overtime. A significant portion of my office works every weekend and 60-80 hours a week. A senior regional CA at one of the "better" regionals makes about the same as a senior engineer who didn't play the politics to management.

This should be a warning to every regional pilot whose group is in contract negotiations right now...your future earnings are at stake.

FO wages below 60% of CA wages should be totally and wholly unacceptable, and cap the pay scale to top out at 12 years (not 15, or 18, or 20).

True,
I guess it'll be nice to at least have the option to croak at the yoke 30 years down the road.:rolleyes:

I was just talking to my Dad (age 57, 767 capt. Major airline) about this and he shed some interesting light. Most of the people he works with have done a good job saving for retirement over their careers and don't 'need' the extra few years pay. They would rather retire. Also, over 60 they will be dropping like fly's due to failed medicals. Apparently, this already happens frequently before they reach 60.

His best advice is to 'agree' to work to 65; get 'injured' on the job at 60 and collect workers comp for the next 5 years, which is much higher than what pension, if any, you have left. Buy a boat or a new car and enjoy getting back at the sistem that screwed you over for the last 4o years.

:D

join the club. I am done at 55 however things turn out. I did not bust my tail through HS and college to get here early to stay longer. Still sucks for the young guys, but I guess it helps those who got the shaft by mgmt... Poor planning for the ones that have to stick around though.

Keep in mind that just because they CAN work to age 65, it does not mean many will. Medical limitations will affect many, as well as many who either don't want to work or PLANNED a retirement and enjoy life after age 60.