I'm on Med LOA from NetJets so have read only in the crew room section of the union message board. This won't affect me personally but I was wondering how it's going to work with the NJA Loss of Medical plan if the age 65 bill is passed this summer.

For non-NJA types our LOM pays 60% for 6 months then 60% capped at $5000/month for 30 months for 3 years total. You maintain full benefits for the 3 years. After 3 years you're terminated with severance pay.

For those affected by age 65, I can see a rush to a Non-Pilot Friendly AME. I mean if you're getting canned why not take the 3 year LOM? I'm sure many pilots that old can find stuff that would ground them.

NetJets could try to claim "Force Majure" and not give the 3 years after age 65 but I doubt that would win in arbitration since NJA spent around $500K lobbying for the rule that will apply only to NJA.

Just curious what others think will happen with this. I read the message boards daily (not much else to do!) and haven't seen this question raised.

Interesting concept. Hadn’t crossed my mind. Nor anybody else’s, apparently.

Given the current political situation as described by the head of the Industry Affairs committee today, I don’t think it’s going to happen. At least not this year.

In my view, Netjets money would be better spent approaching major airlines to combine their lobbying efforts to force an INDUSTRY-WIDE mandatory retirement age of 67. If you hold out to the public under Part 121, Part 135, or Part 91K, the mandatory retirement age would be increased ONE more time, to 67 ACROSS THE BOARD.

The 121 airlines can’t find enough pilots and would like to keep theirs a little longer and Netjets wants to cut loose the public relations and benefit cost liabilities of 70+ year old pilots. There is some common ground there.

Should be brought back to 60.

That will never happen and 60 was too young to begin with.

But you knew that already....

Here's the rub...whatever the mandatory retirement age is (60, 65, 67) make people forced out of their profession eligible for maximum Social Security on that date. Being governmentally forced to retire 3,5 or 10 years early while having to wait until Age 70 to max Social Security is just plain wrong.

NetJets has spent a lot of money on lobbying pushing this age 65 rule. If they're really concerned about safety I believe it's within the contract for them to send older pilots to a company doctor for a through physical. But with the 3 year LOM plan, grounding a pilot cost the company around $250K-$300K in salary plus cost of benefits for 3 years. Including those I bet it's over $400K total cost. That's why I did the original post, I can see a fight over this if the rule passes. It's just not that hard to come up with something you can be grounded for, especially at that age.

But this is more about $$$, I think 75% of the over 65 pilots are senior Captains at or near the top of the pay scale. They'll be replaced by new hires. At the last union meeting the VP of Flt Ops attended he admitted they're having recruiting issues. A big part of that is indefinite wait times for Captain upgrades. Age 65 will help with that, at least a little.

As for if this rule will pass, it's an unknown right now. The big thing NetJets did to pay for this was endorse ATC privatization. That's been pulled from consideration, as has the reduction in the 1500 hour rule for ATP's. But they also spent a lot on lobbying so who knows.

The Union message board is filled with posts from pilots who are P.O.'d at the union for not opposing age 65. This is mostly just emotional ranting, Lawyers have told the union they must stay neutral or face DFR lawsuits from one side or the other. All the union has done is try to negotiate a 1 year "spool down" if the rule passes Congress. This actually helps both affected pilots and the company. They're already short of pilots, to have 250+ suddenly leave would be like dropping a nuke into the schedule. Lots of expensive sell-off's. The Union has been criticized for doing this, saying it's an endorsement but the Lawyer's don't agree.

I should have mentioned the optional Union sponsored LOM that kicks in after the 3 year company plan. It has been verified age 65 rule will not affect that policy.

You’re right about the nattering nabobs on the union MB. Heaven help you if you even suggest that having 70+ year old fossils at the controls is a liability bomb waiting to explode.

70 is a fair compromise for all sides

Not based on industry average retirement ages it isn’t.

[QUOTE=Jetlife , Hey I left here but I’ve never really left “

Really ? And why is that ? : )