Here's to 12/13/2012!
 

Will the 5 year seat lock finally be over? Lets have a beer on 12/13 to celebrate this stupid law that helped keep this once great industry stagnated for 5 years. 5+ year FOs who've been forced to sit at the bottom so the top guys could keep on truckin' at the super senior top pay scale. Or the whipsawed guys on their 3rd or 4th regional, all while on 1st or 2nd yer pay. Age 65 was passed five years ago and screwed just about everyone. Thanks guys! It's finally almost over.

Amen to that. The five year industry freeze is almost over.

Disclaimer...I'm not anywhere near 65 (I'm in my 40s).

So, when it is your time to retire, after having been pushed around for all/most our careers, will you retire at 60 and give someone younger a chance?!!

I'm not sure I can afford to retire at 60 and that is the honest truth...whether the rule had changed or not. Please don't lecture me about poor financial planning, blah, blah, blah...

Will you be able to retire at 60? Even if you are ready to retire at 60, will you actually do it because you are done flying? Will you give someone younger a chance at your left seat?

How is that any different for any/all of the guys that have stayed for the additional 5 years...Ask yourselves if you'd make that same decision or not. And please be honest about the answer...I truly don't know if I will go at 60 (the retirement age had not been raised to 65 when I started out), even if I can afford it; there I said it!!

I am financially on track to be out before 60. Glad to see this day come!

Yup, maybe even 55.

They did not get pushed around, they caved on scope, because as they said "it don't me" "I won't fly those small turds". So we all got stagnated for 5 yrs because of there poor decisions, and of course ALPA.

Well personally thats not the question to ask yourself. The correct one would be "Would you push for lobbying to raise the age to 70?" Finances aside no one should work that long! Life is about living and not working. If you spend 3/4 of your life slaving to live 5-10 more years not. WHY? I see people all the time all they talk about is work, work, work!! What about life? Enjoy it while you still can!

My soapbox for the day!

Ahh yes. The poor souls who've made north of $150-200k per year for the last 10+ years. But I digress. It's the fact that in one day, just one day, the junior guys (and by junior I mean the entire pilot group other than major captains) got screwed for five years. The top guys get an extra 5 yrs at the top while we got 5 yrs at the bottom. Not to mention furloughs and scope relaxation. Yea I really feel bad for those top dogs. And no, there's no way I want to or will work until I'm 65. Go play golf. Enjoy life. Fish. Spend time with family. I dont care. Let us have a chance to make more than $35k/yr.

How a person cannot "afford" to retire after making $3-7m in a career is beyond me. I'm just fine in my trailer park with budweiser and nascar, y'all need to come back down to Earth, really its not that bad. I'll retire at 55 and I don't even have to worry about the pool boy porkin the wife.

My ***** is that the expectation for decades was that as a 121 pilot you would work to 60 then retire.... plan accordingly. That was always my desire to be retired at 60 from flying or even earlier if able. NOW the expectation is that I should work to 65.... because as many those who supported age 65 said... well... yes you were screwed for 5 years but you can get them back at the top... horsecrap.

The reality is it was passed and we are at the end game now...( for awhile at least ) .... i am sure that many who would like to retire at 60 will now work beyond that if able because of lost wages at this point in their career.....only time will tell. For awhile at least...there is no more putting it off.

For the guys who were 59 or so, it was a winning lottery ticket.

They were likely wide body captains and for the past ~9 years had "prepared" to retire. They got 5 bonus years at the top of the food chain. Not saying everyone fits that description or even lobbied for it, but it happened.

Powerball willing, I'd retire as soon as the chief gets in the office Thursday (I would be on an overnight already, so I couldn't Wednesday night).

Only in a group of pilots would you find passionate complaints about the government easing a restriction on forcing you to retire... Funny/ironic how in a mostly conservative occupation that attitude is rampant.

If they do raise it do it as a 1 year increase every 3 years so we don sit for 5 years

In a world where seniority is everything, having that stagnate for half a decade is a big deal.

As for me, I'm doing everything I can to put myself in a position to retire at 60, or earlier if possible. I love flying but there are far more important things I'd rather do.

True. especially for the pilots that work at an airline that STILL had/has a retirement plan in place and went on an FAE formula. Especially if 1) he just recently went into the CA's seat and 2) got a new contract with higher rates. For them, it literally was a "lottery ticket". And chances are, there was a time in their career when the age 60 rule benefited them at some point. Helping them to climb the seniority list at some point. So yes, in the wake of 9/11 they literally had the time to plan for it. Many of them are STILL flying not only for the paycheck, but as had been mentioned, they "screwed up" in some fashion. Can't keep their d1ck in their pants and/or spent so much time chasing this stupid job that their wife and kids won't talk to them. Usually wife number 2 or 3, and set of kids 1 AND 2. And sadly, this job is all they really have.

For the guys that weren't so lucky, had crappy careers and were recycled at various airlines, it truly does suck. IE; Pan Am, Braniff, TWA, Eastern, etc etc etc. They really didn't have a chance to plan/recoup the losses they sustained when the company went t1ts up, only to go the bottom at another company, only to watch their pension plan terminated, etc.

Could you imagine being 40-50 years old, getting furloughed, kids are about to start college, and you're dealing with the joy of trying to start over at another airline. All in the process burning whatever savings you've accumulated to that point, if any. Being 50 years old, that eventual six figure income really isn't jack squat.

Has a legacy JS'er yesterday, it's his SIXTH airline. Hanging on on the bottom of the list on narrow body equipment. Didn't make it to the legacy till he was 40. Which means he's in his mid 50's now. He's maxed out on the pay scale. IF, IF he credits 90 hours a month for the ENTIRE year he'll barely gross 100K.

Nicely said, xjtguy...

It would be nice to retire at 60 (or earlier) but for a lot of pilots that is not to be...that is the (new) reality. At the very least, this gives some the option to keep working.

I'm hoping to get out at 60 (not likely) if the numbers work out (read, Wall Street has to cooperate!!).

Yes, I'd like to rest after my hard work is done, and enjoy life...but if I have a choice of working hard for a few years, I will. I'm not afraid of work...are you?

Totally agree with you. And 65 put another dent in that for sure. But it's been the least of our worries the last 5 years. Oil prices, economy, race to the bottom, all much bigger issues. Logic says if you're healthy to fly at 61, you should be allowed to fly. How that affects the rest of the dog eat dog airline system really should be irrelevant. The age 60 rule was there for one reason and one reason alone. SAFETY. When that starts degrade there is an argument against age 65. Until then I will respectfully believe it's all just politics and self interest.

I don't have to imagine it, I'm living it. You described my life perfectly except for the part about living with my in-laws.

That super sucks. When I used the word "imagine", it was for the (younger) guys posting that have YET to take their first career kick in the balls and see how truly ugly it can be when it happens. Even if one is a saver, planned well, etc.

I'm lucky in that I haven't had it as bad as many others. But A LOT is simply based on the fact that I put a lot of my personal life on hold and living on the p1ss poor modest income that a regional provides. Only been furloughed once and displaced out of the CA's seat twice, and I haven't even got to be in "the show" yet. And the way this career has been going, many of us, we will be/are just like the legacy pilot I described earlier. Mid-late 40's/early 50's before seeing a decent income. With most of that "decent" income being saved for retirement. Never truly being able to enjoy it while still semi-young.

I know that question was more rhetorical. But nope, not afraid of work. Raised blue collar and worked blue collar all through high school and college to pay for my ratings and college.

What I (and many others) AM (ARE) afraid of is having to work WAY longer than need be when I (WE) SHOULD be retired and trying to enjoy life.

Sucks that 9/11, BK's, pension terminations, Age 65, economic collapse/recession has lowered this career and moved the goal line farther and farther away.

Don't forget the world is supposed to end on December 21 so we may all get early retirement ;)

I can't wait.

Do you really know why you do not make more than $35K/yr.? This is why:

1: Aviation universities who charge you a small mortgage while enticing you all through college with dreams of flying international widebodies - and people who willfully go into debt pursuing the "dream".

2: People who willingly take jobs for minimum wage because of the "coolness factor".

3: Conflict of interest: major pilots who want to retain much of the flying while regional pilots want more of the flying so they can get the coveted "1000 hours PIC" and move onto a major all the while saying scope laws need to be improved at the majors so there will be more jobs but who willfully accept flying the mainline routes at their respective regionals. Oh yeah, one union that usually represents both mainline and regional pilots with a built-in conflict of interest.

4: Jobs that were once considered time-builders or stepping-stones to a major are now career destinations for many. (related to point #3)

Actually, you are also entitled to an extra 5 years if you want it too.

Your choice. Nobody will force you to work past 60, nor will anyone feel sorry for you either. Good luck. :)

Does this mean my jelly of the month club membership won't be honored?

True, but NOT every pilot goes to one of those schools and saddles themselves with that kind of debt.

But just like the legacy pilot that willfully lived beyond their means, as well as willfully voted away scope pre 9/11 for a big fat paycheck.

It's fun for some to point their finger at the regional side and play the blame game, "Woe is us the mainline pilots, the ones that had our scope taken away by those RJ pilots"

For every 20 something regoinal pilot that's mad and trying to blame the older guys for age 65, you've got an older guy trying blame a regional pilot for his own career woes.

See above. Just like pilots that willingly voted away scope for the paycheck.

True on some levels, a completely ignorant blanket statement on others. There are pilots at the legacy level that were allowed to get their time and get out of the regionals, all because of scope relaxation. When they get to the legacy, they want scope, as they should. However, had it not been for the relaxation, they NEVER WOULD HAVE MADE IT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If ALPA truly wanted to eliminate the conflict of interest, scope would be taken back with a extreme prejudice. The effect would be two fold;

1) Keep the flying at mainline, preserving as well as creating jobs. This is first and foremost.

2) Returning the regional to what it once was. A place with a 2-4 year lifespan before moving on.

True, some by choice, some not.

True. It would be hard to calculate what the ROI would be on getting hired at the legacy 5 years earlier though. Negating the "need" to work 5 years on the back end.

Again, true. Nobody forced legacies to give up scope pre 9/11.

And NOBODY should feel sorry for the over 60's that can't afford the third wife, the second set of kids, the houses, the cars, etc etc etc.

I'll say it again;

For every 20 something regoinal pilot that's mad and trying to blame the older guys for age 65, you've got an older guy trying blame a regional pilot for his own career woes.

It is actually not ironic at all. How many republicans have you seen vote against our freedom and liberties? Lots and lots.

I'll probably get fried for this one but what the heck.

Since when did we begin to think it was ok for the government to tell us when we had to retire, what wages we got, when we could start work, etc. Is it really all about protecting us from those big bad corporate CEO's or from our own highly self destructive tendencies? Are we all so stupid that we need some bureaucrat that is theoretically smarter than us to decide what is good for us and what is not? I think most people would be offended at that notion yet we allow and in fact embrace it all the time.

So we hurt one pilot group to help the other? I would rather see no mandatory retirement age and leave that up to the judgment of either the individual or the company, or a combination of both or the AME. Because when you all of a sudden become 65 (and if you are not ready to retire) you are not allowed to change your mind if you know what I mean.

Really, most of the time these laws backfire on themselves and cause more problems than they solve.

Ok I am done now with my lesson in free market economics.

:D - note the smiley face but at the same time I am serious.

I think "the truth" has been coming to light in more significant ways in the past few years given 1. ever increasing internet resources/capabilities 2. the fallout and publicity from the Buffalo crash. And possibly a number 3. the boom of young regional pilots from the 2005-2007 era have been able tell their young friends what's *really* going on.

When I was in high school, getting my private at the local airport, all I had was the my (GA-only) instructor's two cents and what I could scrounge at the local library. Let me tell ya, that was *nothing* like the information a person can find in 10 minutes on the internet these days.

Or how many hours we could work in a day, how long our rest periods had to be, when we could drink alcohol, what kind of medications we could take, or what kind of equipment had to be operational on our airplanes. Aviation is regulated because individual pilots would make stupid decisions and passengers would pay with their lives.

Now don't go putting words into my mouth. I did not say we don't need any FAA regulations did I? While age 65 is obviously flying related I really do not think we would see a bunch of old geezers crashing airplanes left and right. I have seen 50 year old guys fly like they were 90 and 80 year old guys fly like a 25 year old. Their is a first class medical required after all.

I argue that it can make it less safe. Here we are telling the most experienced captains they cannot fly any more. Effectively it can water down the experience level in the pilot community as a whole. And this is coming from a guy who is just getting in the door at 40. It's like the throwing stones in glass houses.

I'm all for government butting out of my life. But what they did, overnight, to all the younger guys was terrible. I'm all for taking away mandatory retirement, but in a controlled manner such as 1 yr up every 3 yrs or so, like someone said in a previous post. It was a 5 yr seat lock in positions that weren't designed for long term prospects.

I'm just happy there - might - be a light at the end of this long, terrible paying/QOL tunnel soon.

I agree, and this is what I am saying about unintended consequences. One party always gets duped in favor of the other one in the interest of "fairness" or "safety" or "something else".

Nope. I just work to live, not live to work.

We are not going to see the type of hiring we did 5 years ago prior to the law changing. Airlines have merged; CAL, NWA, AT, no longer exist thus leaving less jobs out their to create movement. Retirements will occur but will be used as a means to deal with overstaffing, DAL and SWA mainly. Real movement won't begin for a few more years and that's assuming the retirement age doesn't go up again, I think it will but that's just me.

I, like everyone else, hated the five year seat lock, but in this current discrimination free enviroment why is it that we allow age discrimination to continue...?

Just happy the date is finally approaching and maybe some of this stagnation ends, and I'm not too old to go somewhere else. Guestimating that starting from the 13th of Dec to the end of 2013 there will be about 1,000 retirements from the legacies and UPS/Fedex, which is over 2 a day. Just a guess though.

Many years ago, back in the UK, I went to a union-organized pension seminar.

The speaker there said one needed to live for 14 years after retirement just to get back what one had paid into the pension fund.

As I don't expect to be around at 79 (hell, I'll be lucky if I make it to 74), I left as soon as I could. I was happy to give up my seat to a younger man (or woman).

12/13 is my birthday!

Giggity. However, I feel the major airlines will just reduce capacity. I don't think it'll really make a difference. Here's hoping I'm wrong. Cheers

Just think how ****ed you would be if they pushed the retirement age back forward to 60, and everyone missed out on those extra 5 years earning at the top of the wage scale?

Well no matter who feels that they should have been sitting in those left seats the last five years, it's almost over for both. Some guys are looking at well earned retirements and others are looking at well earned upgrades. All of are looking at (hopefully) the end of The Lost Decade.

Hopefully you've kept your family, your assets, and your liver and are looking forward to a Merry Christmas and a wonderful coming year.

I wish we could concentrate on how to fix an industry in which a 20 yr Captain that gets furloughed at company X doesn't have to start over at company Y. IMHO we seem to be focused on the micro issues while the macro issues seem to escape us.