The wall of retirement posters in dtw begs to differ.

Besides, I was almost 11250 at the merger and now I'm approaching 10650.... That's 600 people leaving when there are technically no scheduled retirements.

It makes me exited to think how things will move once people actually have to start going. ;)

Why ya leaving and where ya going? Me. I'm excited!

Airline piloting is a crappy career by design. That was the case even when the industry was regulated. Hence the age old saying to always keep your first house and first wife.

I'm loathe to use personal finances as a yardstick for changing retirement age because that argument places pilots' personal needs above safety.
In 2012, I will hit 8+ years on furlough in the 12 years since being hired by United. I'm not alone in that fate; I'm just fortunate that I didn't get hired at AMR because those furloughees have seen their careers crater even more than United furloughees.
I've done OK financially since being furloughed but there are plenty of others who have had a very tough road to hoe. And the second furlough was even tougher for many of us than the first.
Have there been more old pilots than young pilots who have had their homes foreclosed on in the last decade? I'll bet that more young pilots have lost their homes.

So let's say we ignore safety aspects of aging because {sarcasm] we all KNOW that every airline pilot is Benjamin Button - as they get older, they are better, stronger, sexier, faster, etc. [/sarcasm] We would need to use personal finances as a measurement of whether or not we should allow pilots to continue to fly past a certain age. What's the maximum amount of personal wealth that a pilot could have without being forced to retire? $1 million? $10 million? Pick a number because if anyone's using the personal finance argument as the reason for/against an age change, they're saying that safety doesn't matter.

65's now the law. It isn't going to get rolled back to 60. But you would have to be extremely naive to think that there aren't forces at work pushing to increase retirement age. Frankly, it's in the government's best interest to have all citizens work until one day prior to dying.

... I'm still waiting to read details from Johnso29 on these 163 retirements at Delta.

ahem, justdoingmyjob... from earlier in the thread. :D

I was trying to figure out how to put a "your" where there should be a "you're" but couldn't make it work. Just making sure your up to speed on things.

We've been through 2 early out incentive programs at DL and each time around 150 took it. The most recent program was offered in June or so of last year with the outs taking effect from sept-jan... 163 took that offer.

From what I can gather listening to guys talk in the crew room, for most of the fNWA guys, it can make more sense to go early rather than wait to 65 because of the cost of health insurance. I don't really listen though. AFAIC, they will go when they go, and I'll just keep waiting for that day.

Other than trying to scare the Bejebus outta them while flying, the only other way I can think to hasten their departure is to ditch em in some Ebola infested cathouse in Africa.

your a good friend!

600? Really? How many have you had retire in the last year? Month by month?
The early buyout took out 215 in 2009. 215 pilots take Delta buyout offers | ajc.com

Were there other external factors for the other 375 retirements?

Edit: You posted that there was another early retirement package which took out another 163 while I was posting. So that accounts for all but 200.

Thanks. That confirms 'special circumstances'. Johnso29 tried to sell the retirements as pilots who chose to benevolently retire before reaching age 65. He failed to mention incentive packages for those retiring 'early'.

Nobody "benevolently" retires, regardless of industry. It is incentives that make it worthwhile to go before you have to. My own Dad, used to say, "The day they give me a piece of paper with the right numbers on it, is the day I go." That day eventually came, and he promptly did not let the door hit him in the butt.

YES! Funny how all the young guys who moan about Age 65 swear they'll retire at 60. Wanna bet how many actually do?

Sounds like you made a bad career choice. BTW, its ROW to hoe. Its a farming term.

No kidding. So I guess its time to quit whining about your furlough. You KNEW it was a possibility when you donned an airline uniform. We all did. Unfortunately, YOU got burned. Tough beans. By your own admission, you're doing well financially.

Perhaps its time to let it go.

Every time I read one of you myriad whining posts I am reminded of the old line from Animal House:

"Hey, you messed up. You trusted us."

Shack! That was my point. Both Johnso29 and 80ktsClamp chose to leave out some pertinent details regarding retirements at Delta. You also pointed out some reasons for fNWA pilots to retire prior to 65 (I was aware that there were some financial issues that would benefit some fNWA pilots to retire prior to 65).
It's akin to pointing to AMR's retirements in the second half of 2011 and saying, 'see, many pilots are retiring prior to reaching 65'.

Given a choice, many (most) pilots would like to keep drawing paychecks until the day they die while crossing 40W. Safety be damned.

Hey Andy,

Did you see the story about the Russian pilot who died on the flight deck this week. Massive heart attack. Age? 44.

Give it up on the "safety" red herring. I guess by your yardstick, people should retire at 44 now.

Thanks; I grew up in the city. We had roads, not rows. My apologies for my ignorance with respect to tilling the earth.

Can I use that answer the next time some jackwagon cries about not being able to retire?
As for an age change to age 65, I never envisioned it until late 2004. My bad. Heck, it took a couple of weeks for the ramifications of 9/11 to start to sink into my cranium.

No; missed that story. I take it you suffer from Benjamin Button syndrome.

65 was coming no matter what. However, they implemented at the worst possible time. They could have also have staggered/graduated up to 65 over a longer period of time.

They stopped career progression cold, and in doing so made the profession look even more unattractive for young people. I believe the end result will be cabotage of our domestic market purely because our country's staffing requirements will fall far short of demand.

You guys are funny.You do know it took 25 years plus to change the age 60 rule.

Not that it makes any difference to him but said pilot was riding in the back.

Holster that logic. That's dangerous talk there.

DAL retirements
 

Well, Here’s the actual retirement numbers for DAL (Sorry, don’t have any numbers for pre-merger.)
2009: 203
2010: 156
2011: 259
Total, 2009 – 2011: 618
(Notes: the 215 that were part of the early first early retirement program were spread between 2009 and 2010. All of the retirements from the second program left in 2011.)
　
Our Retirement and insurance committee put out some data about a year ago on projected retirements and actual behavior of over age 60 pilots. The projections were that roughly 45% would retire before 65, and 55% would stay until 65. The hard data reflected that. At the time, the oldest pilots were 63, and slightly over 40% of them had already retired or gone on LTD. So, if anything their projections seem a little conservative.

Most of the FO's I know at Alaska aren’t as angry about the change as they are about the guys that fly extra while pilots are furloughed.

I'm only able to pull up the last 14 months of retirements from the SSC reports. It's not pretty.
2010
Nov 0
Dec 0
2011
Jan 0
Feb 0
Mar 2
Apr 1
May 2
Jun 1
Jul 0
Aug 1
Sep 0
Oct 2
Nov 2
Dec 2

UAL (doesn't include CAL side) had a total of 13 retirements in 14 months.

You're right...it doesn't make any difference.

While I personally agree with that opinion, I also defend the right of anyone to exercise their legal contractual rights. Just as I would defend you for calling in sick for your kid's school play if you had to.

Don't blame them for trying!

Blame you for not STOPPING!

Agreed.

I actually had a CP here tell me for anything involving family, to come ask for the time off. Then he said, "If we can't get it off for you, I'm going to tell you to call in sick."

You seem to be in denial about DAL pilots retiring early Andy. The mandatory retirement age is 65 years. All the numbers provided are of pilots who retired before 65 years. Those are early retirements. The fact that an incentive package was provided to some is irrelevant. Those pilots still chose to leave before the mandatory retirement age. Many left before the Age of 61 & will be responsible for the cost of their own health care. I know 2 pilots who were 56 years old when they left just in 2011.

And I never implied that those who retired early did so for the good of the pilot group. I never said it was a charity move. Quit grasping at straws. I'm sorry your career has been masked by furloughs. It's a terrible situation that I could never wish upon anyone. But just because early retirements aren't happening at UAL, doesn't mean they aren't happening at DAL.

That's got to be one of the funniest things I've read in a very long time. The incentive package was the reason for most of DAL's early retirements; most, not some. And the way that the frozen Northwest pension is structured, there are additional financial incentives for fNWA pilots to retire prior to 65.

I suppose that sudden surge of AMR retirements had nothing to do with the company being on the verge of bankruptcy? If that's the case, why the sudden increase and decline in retirements at AMR centered on their BK filing?

In a nutshell, you are saying that financial incentives have zero impact on pilot retirements. Rather than acknowledge that financial incentives have a significant impact on retirements, you chose to portray the clearly demonstrated linkage as grasping at straws. I guess you're now going to say that pilots are more happy at United than Delta?

What is laughable is the extreme difficulty you're having in understanding what an early retirement is. My involvement began in this thread after this post below.


My response was this....

It proved that hockeypilot44's statement was incorrect. Then you came on here and told us that they weren't early retirements just because they were provided incentive packages. I said that guys were retiring BEFORE 65 years of age. They are not all being forced out by medical issues. They are leaving on their own terms. They are making the decision to leave before they are required to. I don't understand why you have such difficulty grasping this. What does the monetary incentive have to do with anything? Is a pilot who stays until Age 65 not also driven by monentary incentives? Is someone staying in the left seat of the 747-400 until Age 65 not doing it for money? You don't know. They could be greedy, they could need the money, or they could just love the job so muh they can't bring themselves to leave. It doesn't matter.

You've twisted this entire thread big time. My statement was simply that pilots at Delta are indeed retiring before Age 65 because they choose to do so. Why they do so was never nor will ever be relevant. It doesn't matter. If a guy chooses to retire before the mandatory retirement age of 65, it's an early retirement. Period.

Johnso, got it. Following your logic, if car sales rise, it's just because more people want to buy cars; the $5000 rebate/special financing offered by manufacturers has nothing to do with the increase in sales.
You left out pertinent information that heavily influenced their decision to retire early. At best, disingenuous.

Providing solid numbers of people retiring before the mandatory retirement age is not disingenuous. Just because it isn't happening at UAL doesn't make it disingenuous. Your misfortunate career at United does not change the definition of an early retirement. Neither does incentive packages. Early retirement is early retirement. Period.

I don't know why you insist on bringing the reason why they retire early into the conversation. The point of conversation was never why they retired early. It was simply that they were retiring early.

Andy, you're getting wrapped around the axle over semantics. These incentive programs really weren't much to write home about. It was basically a few months of health insurance and some severance pay.

The fact is that at DL guys are going earlier than 65 by choice which was the verbiage that hockey pilot stated. There are a number that have left prior to 65 outside of those programs as well by choice.

Don't worry
 

The rule is in committee in both the House and the Senate (as of late July). As a 737 check pilot with our airline and on the interview team I can honestly say this won't slow down the attrition much at all. The mainline carriers are ALL hiring people with E3 visas trying to enter the country. While this looks attractive they don't always hang around that long. Industry execs feel they need 13,000 pilots/year for the foreseeable future, and we are only able to produce about 5,000 or so for the mainline carriers. If you are looking to get on the age 67 rule won't slow down hiring much at all.

Personally would like the 67 rule just so I have the option to keep working if I choose to when I reach that age. If not I can choose to retire still. Having the option would be nice and I know a lot of people around that age really do end up retiring on their own without being forced into it. So it’s not a problem solver for sure

1. The rule was INTRODUCED on July 25. It left Lindsey Graham's brain on that date.

2. Per GOVTRACK website, it has a 4% chance of being passed.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/s4607

No kidding. Imagine having to retire at 65, hell, the 25 year old girlfriend might leave and the vacation home and yacht could get repoed!

I find it humorous that the FAA mandates retiring from a 121 cockpit while the cockpit of a 135 ops can fly FOREVER. Heck, some 135 ops use the same aircraft.
Why? Money and public perceptions. Cause it's big news when an airliner crashes and kills hundreds while a biz jet kills tens.
117 rest rules apply only to 121 pax ops and not cargo. Why? Money and public preception.

It is about money! Then public perception.

If the feds truly wanted safe air travel then 121 and 135 ops would be one reg, one retirement age and one rest rules. ATP and COMM ratings are same for 135 and 121 ops. If different worlds in 121 vs 135 then why not different certificates and/or certifications of pilots?

No, there is a difference...

For scheduled 121, the public expects to be able to buy a ticket and not have to worry about operational details related to safety, and they expect a very high level of safety.

For charter (and 91), the customer is closer to the weeds and needs to take some additional responsibility in selecting who they fly with. It's also important that many 135/91 market segments simply cannot support 121-level safety and be economically viable... that's OK, if you want to incur a little risk in life to do a scenic helo tour or fly to a fishing lodge in Alaska that's OK, and it's not the FAA's place to tell you that you can never fly unless you meet the 121 10^(-9) safety threshold.

Same for private pilot operations, if you want ALL flying to be at 121 safety levels then only the very wealthy could ever afford private aviation, and that would require a professional crew.

Now I do take some issue with the blurring of some lines with scheduled 135, such as what some regionals are fixing to do, to get around R-ATP and age 65 limits. If they're going to run 135 scheduled ops in the paint job of a 121 major airline brand they need a giant cancer warning painted on the hull....

WARNING: This product contains flight crew members who DO NOT meet established airline safety regulations. Flight crew members (pilots) may exceed the maximum airline retirement age, and/or they may not have the necessary pilot experience to qualify to fly for regular scheduled airlines. This operation is conducted under a special waiver of established regulations, and may result in injury or death of passengers..

This - and no larger aircraft are not 135. They are 121 supplemental and fall under the same regs. Anything over 30 pax or 7500 lb payload capacity.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Unless one has flown 121 and 135/91K then they will have a hard time comparing. I've flown both and can compare both.

Turning left and sitting down after entering the door is a great way to go. The new 117 rest rules would serve well across both sides of the industry. Knowing only the day you start and end your work week, not knowing the start/end times of the work days in the middle is tough. Not knowing the length of the duty day is tough.

If there is such a difference then why not make two different standards for ATP to serve 121 and 135/91K segments? Simply have an add-on requirement if one goes from 135/91K to 121 world.

Makes no sense, exacly my point.

Both ops fly into the same weather, have same AIM to follow, same medical requirements, same training standards (AQP), get violated the same, have same stablizied approach requirements, fly into many of the same airports and many more that former airline pilots are shocked jets fly into...07FA, KTEX, KVBT, TUPJ and KUDD come to mind. Not to mention the countless non-tower airports with the wild west flying seen sometimes.

Blending of some of the regs and rules would be a welcome benefit and an improvement on safety. As would a required retirement age in the 135/91K world.

Point is if the feds wanted to make flying safer the could. They have separated 121 world from boxes and pax, why? Preception of the traveling public and over the safety of the crews. Remember, this is the same FAA that allows a <24 month old kid and let's say weighs 23 lbs to lap sit while a woman holding a 4 lbs purse in her lap to stow under the seat in front.

We can do better on all fronts of aviation safety.

Safety is expensive. Infinitive safety has infinite cost, the regulators can only mandate so much before the whole enterprise fails.

For political reasons, they have to make the airlines very safe.

That doesn't apply to niche and private operations, they basically set a floor and allow the customers to choose... some operations are very bit as safe as airlines, and quite expensive too.

If you expect .gov to extend airline safety to charter/fracs, why stop there? What about generic 91? What about private pilots? Shouldn't they have two pilots with ATP's, two engines, and the ability to climb out after a V1 cut too? And a dispatcher, etc? ASEL should clearly be illegal.

Airline safety is set for very specific reasons (including international conventions). Those reasons don't apply to other segments. The argument "but safety!" is meaningless out of context.