Ok, we are all aware that a while back they raised the mandatory retirement age to 65 to stem the lack of pilots in a booming industry. I remember talking to some guys that fell into the category that allowed them to stay onboard till 65, and some of them seemed upset that they had planned to retire at 60 with full benefits ( I have to assume that most of those guys were under older pension type retirment funds??), but now couldnt retire at 60 because it would cause them to only qualify for partial retirment thus forcing them to work five more years to get full benefits. If this is true, shouldnt some companys looking at a severely shrinking market be looking at trying to repeal this, allowing some of these guys to go ahead and retire at full benefits, and in turn saving the money they spend on higher end salaries. Im simply looking to see if any of the tween 60 and 65 guys can confirm or deny any of this, it is just something that has popped into my mind during all the uncertain times in this industry. I am not by any means against staying till 65, as I will be there some day too, Im just wondering if some of these pilots feel they would have been better off if 65 had never happened, and if so would less under 65 guys be on the street. I welcome any rational opinions on this subject.

 

The reason I ask the above question is I hang out with a lot of guys in a local EAA chapter and there are some between 60-65 guys that feel the gov was too reactionary to a booming industry, and then when the tide so sharply turned it seemed all of a sudden, not such a good idea. I'm curious how people feel. Being able to continue on 5 more years seems a good thing, I like the idea for when I reach that age, but did we help or hurt ourselves in the long run, I consider myself too new to the industry to really have a good feel on the long term effects of this ruling, both on forcing guys that want to retire to stay in the planes, and thus inadvertantly keeping furloughed guys out of them. I personally have no doubt I'd still be furloughed even without this so it doesnt directly affect me, but I wonder how the guys somewhere in the middle feel? I would love some honest input from other people here.

 

Back when the retirement age was 60 the old guys had 2 and a half years till social security kicked in at 62.5 years old. So now the can work all the way to 65 or cut out a little early. Course then you have the guys that medical out before 65 and that is a surprisingly high number. So have we really hurt anything.
But yes a lot of them would already have started retiring by now and there would be a pretty constant flow of people off the top end. Just look at the numbers of people that are set to retire from United/Delta/American that were laid out in one of the other threads. So you could argue that pushed back to when the 60 rule would have hit we could have kept that many people on the bottom end of the seniority lists from being furloughed.
Or mainline could have parked more airplanes and farmed it all out to the regionals for crap wages and thus continued to ruin our careers anyway. either way we get screwed right?

 

It sucks, but once ICAO made the move to age 65 it was only a matter of time before the FAA did the same to keep air regulations standardized.

 

Very true. Would this thread be better suited in the majors section? I know we all gripe about lifers at our various regionals but a larger majority of majors pilots are affected by this than regional pilots.

 

Don't fall for the it was inevitable argument. That was the standard byline by those that wanted the change. There are quiet a few things that are ICAO only versus FAA.

Terminology in ATC,- "Line up and wait" "Taxi to the holding point"

Airport markings etc.- Ever land in Canada?

Crew duty and rest times.http://http://www.find-health-articles.com/rec_pub_19198200-civil-aviation-rules-crew-flight-time-flight-duty-rest-comparison-10.htm

Flight Plans: ICAO Flight Plan Forms

Of course they have more differences than just these but you get my point. It was not to bring anyting in line with ICAO.

The FAA change came about due to to ALPA and SWAPA lobbying efforts on its behalf. Had ALPA held the line on Age 60 there is a good chance we would not have seen the change.

Too bad that ALPA was once a union that boasted it focused on safety. With their action on Age 65 they betrayed much of the foundation of the union. ALPA has evolved to the level of being only a faction for political and rhetoric purposes. The pilots union is dead and has been for a long long time.

L

 

Regardless of what you may think of 'age 60,' ALL Americans will be working longer before retirement. I am 56 and I won't be able to collect social security until I am 66 yrs 6 months, and this number is only going to go up for younger people.

The fact is we will ALL be working longer to pay social security taxes to support the growing senior population. If you fancy a bitter pill to swallow, think of it like this: your upgrade was delayed for 5 years and on top of that you are paying taxes to support the retirement of that captain that stayed around an extra 5 years.

To make matters worse, the current administration is printing money at breathtaking speed. Within 2 years we will have double-digit inflation, with no COLA in any of our contracts. Remember that line during the election about "95% of Americans will see their taxes go down"? That WAS NOT referencing social security taxes. As a matter of fact, social security taxes will go up via proposed abolishment of the social security wage ceiling, currently $102,000 for single persons.

Not a rosey picture, but this is the wondrous way our democracy works.*




*Yes, I know we have a representative republic. I wrote that for the benefit of those that think they won the 2000 election.

 

There were some legit reasons for raising the retirement age:

- The original age 60 law was not based on any scientific data, but rather it was a corrupt backroom political deal between the CR Smith (CEO of AA) and some of his political cronies. He didn't want to pay his senior captains the top of the wage scale, so he cooked up a scheme to have congress get rid of them.

- If you assume that age 60 made some kind of scientific sense 50 years ago, you can logically conclude that the age should be raised today. Back then an airline pilot didn't work out, ate eggs for breakfast, steak for dinner, washed it down with a fifth of gin and smoked a pack (or two) a day. ince society in general and pilot in particular are healthier these days we can expect them to have a lower risk of incapacitation at a given age.

- If the rest of the world is doing it, it's not really fair that our guys should be restricted to age 60.

With that said, the senior (old) leadership at alpa sold out that large majority who voted no on age 65. Whatever your personal feelings on the issue, alpa's job is to represent their members as a whole, not just the senior widebody captains.

The horse is out of the barn, and it's not going back in. The airlines do not stand to benefit by repealing age 65, and there are far too many other hurdles as well.

 

You raise some very valid points, I am not for, nor against it, I was just wondering what the general concensus for the bulk of pilots much senior to me is the same as some Ive talked to . I guess Im trying to get a read on the long term effects of this on all of us who still have time left in the industry. I think there is some legitimate concern that it is similar to SS and every generation having to work longer before they can enjoy the fruits of their years of hard work and enjoy a relaxing retirment. I dont think its been around long enough to see if it ends up being positive or negative...Like I said Im just looking for some opinions on both sides. You do have to admit though that it had to have put a damper on movement when the industry did a 180 last summer.

I guess im wondering if their are guys between 60 and 65 that want out, if they could get full benifits like they expected, wouldnt it help the industry to give them full retirment before 65, and then you bring some furloughs back saving money on unemployment and retraining costs, for lapse in currency on furlough? Again either way wouldnt affect me, I'm too junior..just thinking out loud. Am I even in the right ballpark?

 

I anticipated that the net effect of age 65 on pilot movement would be about a 2-3 year slowdown. I assumed that many folks would hang it up voluntarily before age 65.

Turns out I was dead wrong. Other than medicals, it seems that very few folks are opting out early. Some of it has to do with reduced pay and pension bennies, but a big part of I think is that MOST pilots who are over 60 are pretty senior and make decent or better money with their choice of schedule. At that point the job for many is not particularly unpleasant...so why not hang around and make a few bucks?

There is no possible way to restore pensions or roll back age 65, so I think we are simply stuck until 2012.