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.