Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Regional (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/)

- - Age 67 Rule... (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/64825-age-67-rule.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fishfreighter (Post 1120523)

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

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."

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razorback flyer (Post 1120979)

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filejw (Post 1120654)

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GQpilot (Post 1121037)

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.

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!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fishfreighter (Post 1121052)

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."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy (Post 1120354)

I've been monitoring retirements at United since the new limit was enacted. There have been an average of less than 2 per month since it started. The latest System Schedule Committee report shows 2 retirements in November. Prior to the age change, we were seeing ~25 retirements/month.
I'll be happy to dig through the reports and post the exact retirement numbers for United over the last two years if you do the same, including airline and monthly numbers. You never stated the airline for the 163 retirements. I'm assuming that you're only referring to Delta numbers since that's where you're employed. If you've added AMR numbers into that tally, I've got some 'news' for you about a special circustance that caused the numbers to spike.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy (Post 1120500)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy (Post 1120509)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy (Post 1120512)

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'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy (Post 1120524)

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1122225)

Those are early retirements. The fact that an incentive package was provided to some is irrelevant.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy (Post 1122588)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 1120285)

This is false. Most are staying until they are 65. The ones leaving early are not leaving by choice (usually medical problems).

My response was this....

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1120288)

Really? That's a pretty inaccurate statement considering we aren't even 5 years into age 65 yet. Not to mention the 163 guys that voluntarily retired before Age 65 between last August & Jan 1st. ;)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy (Post 1122758)

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.