Mandatory retirement age now to 65?

Aero_Engineer said:
It actually is not that bad, Pilots who have the ability would wanna retire soon anyways. It sucks for the younger guys but you can look at it this way, we won't have any 19 year olds with 500TT getting hired to fly a complicated jet at a regional.
Click to expand...

But...but...a monkey can do this job! Why can't a 19 yr. old with 500TT do it??? :sarcasm:
 
Great news. Retiring at age 60 could be hard to do financialy. Also since I'm only 16 I won't have to worry about jobs getting competetive over the next couple years, since It will be about 7 years until I will start applying at any airline.

Awesome news for the future!
 
Well, that sucks for me personally. Mixed feelings about it as a whole.

If they upped it to 65, I am sure plenty of pilots would still retire at 60, but I bet plenty, who have had a year or so of retirement, will come back. Seems to me all this forward movement could stall right out for another 5 years.

Like someone else said, a 30-Something career changer like myself cannot really afford to sit in the right seat at a regional for 5 years. Guess I am hosed for a while.
 
LoadMasterC141 said:
but I bet plenty, who have had a year or so of retirement, will come back.
Click to expand...


Let's hope that is NOT ALLOWED to happen! Can you imagine if the guys who retired in the last 5 years want to come back with their senority? Send all those recently recalled guys back to the street...
 
It generally doesn't work that way. It works like: those who were discriminated against before the law, regulation, court ruling, etc are out of luck. My father had to change his name due to religious discrimination in order to work to feed his family. No one gave him any special consideration after Title VII was enacted.
 
jtrain609 said:
Pulling 95 hours of block time could be hard at 65 too, ever think about that?
Click to expand...
Well...

If I can only fly a few trips a month... and make a decent wage without ever even hitting min. guarantee as a Senior FO at a regional... then... I'm sure that a senior Captainat a Major won't, and won't need to pull down a 95 hour line.

By that time... they are probably so used to the system that they are making 90 hours pay for 50 hours flying... or... just flying enough to keep current... while still making more than several times my pay.

Don't forget that these guys and gals have the grand-children's christmas presents to think about... and the payments on the vacation home too... and the alimony payments to their first 3 wives... ;)

Seriously though... Overall... I think it's a good thing (getting rid of it). If you've done any research on it... it was just wrong to begin with... but it's been a policy for so long that now everyone thinks that it was put in place for "health & safety" concerns when that just wasn't the case.

It's kinda like the Wright Ammendment... Proponents think that it was a fair law enacted to help the economy... when in actuality it was a bully law designed to help AA primarily.

People forget the past though... that's a shame. History is a wonderful thing... :)

Bob
 
MQAAord said:
Let's hope that is NOT ALLOWED to happen! Can you imagine if the guys who retired in the last 5 years want to come back with their senority? Send all those recently recalled guys back to the street...
Click to expand...

According to an article I read in the San Francisco Chronicle this rule change won't apply to pilots who have already retired due to the age restriction.

I wish they would keep it at 60, so the younger generations could have a better chance of moving forward in this already challenging profession.
 
LoadMasterC141 said:
Like someone else said, a 30-Something career changer like myself cannot really afford to sit in the right seat at a regional for 5 years. Guess I am hosed for a while.
Click to expand...

Makes at least two of us. But I refuse to do another term with the military. Have to make the change with or without the 60 age rule. :(
 
This is HORRIBLY HORRENDOUS NEWS! Oh no, oh no! Did I mention this news is horrible? I have to check several sites right now to see if its true. I sincerely hope its not!
 
While this screws us younger folks, we need to look at the bigger picture here. A lot of pilots need these extra 5 years to help regain some of the retirement they lost.
 
Cav said:
Uggghhh. Horrible news. For those that are happy consider this. With 1st year legacy carrier wages ranging from $28-44/hr(that's a rough estimate) consider what the rule change is doing to the younger generation. It's going to take us longer to get to a job which will hardly pay a living wage for the first year if not longer. Also consider that a pilot applying to a legacy now will be much older with a lot more financial concerns most importantly the likelyhood of a family at home. It's just going to take us longer to make the same amount of money over our career.

Kristie mentioned that hopefully the medical for 60+ year old pilots will become more difficult. Unfortunately I fear the medical for ALL airline pilots will become more difficult.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. This is only good for the older pilots who may have made poor financial decisions and cannot afford to retire at 60. For us in the younger generation, it will just be hard for that much longer.

Champcar- that has to be one of the most ignorant comments I've seen on these boards in a long time. :mad:
 
Yeah it sucks to be one of the young guys...

I guess it's good for a lot of the older guys that got hosed after 9/11, though. Might be able to make back some of what they thought would just be lost income and a big hole in their previously planned retirement funds.

Could open up some Charter/Fractional gigs too. A good family friend (of my parents) was planning to retire in 2 years (since he's 58) and go fly at a fractional. I'm willing to bet he'll stick with the airline and someone else can take the fractional gig. Could be good for the somewhat experienced pilots, I guess?

"This is only good for the older pilots who may have made poor financial decisions and cannot afford to retire at 60." Or the ones that did not foresee 9/11. Also not a great comment in my opinion, GAPILOT.
 
flywithUS said:
While this screws us younger folks, we need to look at the bigger picture here. A lot of pilots need these extra 5 years to help regain some of the retirement they lost.
Click to expand...

Screw them! If they don't have enough money by age 60 that's there fault. Had they maxed out their roth IRA at 24 or 25 that extra million you make between 60-65 will look like chicken change. I hope this is appealed or something The CBS news story says it may take up to a year for it to go into effect. Where are the lobbyists? I thought ALPA was against this change!!!!

GAPILOT said:
I completely agree. This is only good for the older pilots who may have made poor financial decisions and cannot afford to retire at 60. For us in the younger generation, it will just be hard for that much longer.

Champcar- that has to be one of the most ignorant comments I've seen on these boards in a long time. :mad:
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

The HR department at Eagle is popping champagne right now. I strongly believe their lack of new-hires problem has come to an end.
 
TonyC said:
Long term is you will lose the ability to retire at Age 60.







.
Click to expand...
you might lose the ability to retire at 60 but you still have the option of retiring at 62 correct?

They don't want to deal with flying till 65 and will make plans to retire as early as possible.
Click to expand...
so here's something else i don't quite understand yet (along with the above statement)...if the retirement age goes up to 65, are pilots going to be told they *can't* retire until 65 or is it between a certain age that they can retire?

for most companies, you either have to be I think either 65 or 67 OR have 20-30 years in with the company... so what about those who don't have all those years with the company?? are they going to be forced to fly till 65?
 
Again, no one knows--al la Y2K. We all predict the worst and, yet, nothing much happens.

Pilots won't be told they can't retire early. They just won't be told they must retire early.

The ADEA (and OWBPA) prohibit forced retirements as you describe. Pension payouts and early outs are a different story. Most companies (and not just the airline industry) don't have defined benefit pensions any longer, so it's a moot point.
 
Kristie said:
you might lose the ability to retire at 60 but you still have the option of retiring at 62 correct?

so here's something else i don't quite understand yet (along with the above statement)...if the retirement age goes up to 65, are pilots going to be told they *can't* retire until 65 or is it between a certain age that they can retire?

for most companies, you either have to be I think either 65 or 67 OR have 20-30 years in with the company... so what about those who don't have all those years with the company?? are they going to be forced to fly till 65?
Click to expand...

I think that will be up to the unions and the contracts they come up with the new retirement plan calculation talks that will need to take place. My mom retired early and took a VERY small penalty from her pension.

There are a few ways to do it. For example 25 years with the company and age 60, no penalty in retirement. Say you have 25 years and are 58, then a 1.5% penalty per year under 60 to retire.

It will be up to the unions to hammer this out.
 
Seggy said:
What?

This is AWESOME news. Glad to see the rule changed.
Click to expand...

how is that AWESOME news? you now have thousands of pilots in the same pool as you...

just imagine what would happen to aviation industry (for pilots) if we all of a sudden has thousands of more pilots applying for a job... well in this case, they already have the job, so you know what that means? you're stuck where you're at for alot longer then you think... enjoy the 1900
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top