Different my ass, the guys I am flying with are not 777 captains. They are at best 777 first officers. That have been furloughed, on strike, liquidated ect.. These guys are not all at the top scale. Just flew with one that if he had not struck at cal he would be on top of their list but he did now he is 777 fo here, is he over 60 yes, is he at the top, no. Did he give up a hell of a lot of his career earnings for the rest of us, hell yes he did. I understand that it set people back but they are not all 777 and 400 captains here that are over 60, many have had very tough careers.

 

Yes, it's one for one as long as the training pipeline is already filled. When age 65 went into law, the training pipeline was shut down at UAL and most other carriers. Shutting down the training pipeline eliminates the need for pilot jobs which is why there were more furloughs when 65 went into effect than there would have been retirements.

I'd say that triggering 12 training events per retiree is way too high; I'd suspect the number is closer to 4 but I'm making a guess.
How many PIs are required to train those 4 training slots?
How many months are those 4 pilots in the training pipeline go without a line?
How many dedicated LCAs does it take to train those 4 pilots?

Add up all of those numbers and 25 retirements/month triggers a significant need for additional pilots beyond the 25 retirements/month. This is a one time need because once the training pipeline is filled, the number will remain static to train the replacements for 25 retirees/month ... this assumes no growth and no shrinkage. Obviously growth/shrinkage will effect the size of the training pipeline.

Much ado is made about UAL parking all of the guppies and some 747s. Those pilot losses could have been absorbed by retirements and very few furloughs would have resulted. The rule of thumb that I've heard is that it doesn't make financial sense to furlough a pilot for less than 2 years. Look at UAL currently. The 75/767 fleet is fat on pilots because of the parking of aircraft, yet there are no furloughs. Why no furloughs? Because age 65 retirements start in less than a year.

 

Unfortunately, I agree with your entire statement. Age 65 is done and there's nothing that any of us can do to turn back time. As a result of age 65, you and many others will have to work until 65 in spite of planning to retire at age 60.
I was hired at UAL 11 1/2 years ago. I've spent almost 8 of those years on furlough. Since age 65 went into effect, I spent 2 1/2 years on furlough. Even with the parking of all of the guppies, some 747s and an economic downturn, I would not have been furloughed if the age didn't change to 65.

 

Andy:

All good points; I would say the ripple-effect is between your 4, and maybe as high as 6 (what I saw in the 1999-2000 time frame, although there were more aircraft types to choose from then ).

My point to Sonny was a brand-new seat (new airframe) may bring as many as 12 pilots that he quoted...but we aren't seeing new-growth seats.

Still, with the loss of available pilots during/due to training, you are probably looking at 1.2-1.5 pilots per retirement (my estimate). That's a good point.

And agreed on the current 757-767 manning/furlough/retirement analysis.

 

Complaining about a senior old fart getting 5 more years while those argue bottom getting furloughed may be "Unfair" but guess what, life is unfair. This wasnt done by our own pilots This was done by Congress (age65) and management (parking planes) The bond allocation is another story. Our own MEC did this. The only way they could have been more unfair about it would have been to single out those they disliked and given them nothing.

 

Agree 100%

 

I'd love to use the the 1999-2000 seat training numbers but as you mentioned, we have less aircraft types today so that there will be less training events.
There is also less incentive to bid between a 777 and 747 since they are both on the same payband. With only 6 paybands, there will be a lot less bids that require training. When I was hired in 2000, there were 16 different pay rates; all the way from 747CA to 727FE; we have retired the DC-10, 727, and 737 fleets since then.
And as mentioned by syd111, not all retirements are widebody captains. Many are widebody FOs and narrowbody captains. Those retirements will not trigger as many training events.

 

On a more optimistic note I had a couple UAL guys tell me in the jumpseat (i'm non-UAL) that once retirements start, the combined UAL/CAL list will average 1 retirement every 18 hours. That's 9/week.

Does this sound right?

 

That's about right. The problem on the horizon is the start of a new grassroots effort to raise retirement age again.

 

And to outsource more flying to 70-100 seats. What will your career look like with age 70 and loss of scope? We can't let it happen!