Age 60 rule, according to Len Morgan

[WacoFan]

Would be interesting to see a group of age 65 people, or a group between 60 and 65 people, with cognition problems and study when they developed. I met a woman the other day who is caring for her 53 year old sister who suffers from fairly advanced Alzheimer's. It would be interesting to note when these cognition issues occur - maybe study a group of retired pilots that have dementia of some form and see when those cases first manifested themselves.

 

[falconvalley]

Of course I'll get called an uppity U-Boat Commander for this, but I'm pretty happy with my employers use of MMPI's, cognitive testing and psychologists during the screening process.

I could swiftly name five pilots at Skyway which I wanted to strangle, out of a group of 120 pilots. What, 5%?

After 15-ish years at Southernjets, out of almost 12,000 pilots, there are probably two or three which I'd love to conveniently run into in a dark alleyway. 0.025%?

Unscientific, of course.

Tests like that scare me, but I suppose that's better than the alternative. I've seen the alternative enough times to make me wonder what kind of firewall exists at some places, if at all.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Well, as you were the one to provide the information in that thread (you said), then can you not provide it here again?

Frankly, the last thread got so ugly that I'm just not entirely motivated to go digging it up again. As I said, no one is going to change their minds on this one. I (and a majority of ALPA's members) believed that it was wrong to change the rule. You disagree. You won. Such is life.

 

[seagull]

Frankly, the last thread got so ugly that I'm just not entirely motivated to go digging it up again. As I said, no one is going to change their minds on this one. I (and a majority of ALPA's members) believed that it was wrong to change the rule. You disagree. You won. Such is life.

I prefer a rational cogent argument in favor of a position rather than just a blind following of a mantra because it happens to benefit you. It is about WHAT is right not WHO is right.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

I agree, there is no one size fits all, but the fairest starting point is, and always will be, date-of-hire. It's the conditions and restrictions part that irons out the fairness for both sides over the long term. That way one side does not get a huge windfall, nor does one side get royally screwed over.



TP

You must be a USair east pilot. Yikes. If so, you'll find out soon how wrong you are if the AA merger happens.

 

[WacoFan]

You must be a USair east pilot. Yikes. If so, you'll find out soon how wrong you are if the AA merger happens.

Hoping that the acquiring airline pays homage to AA by simply adopting their SLI protocols regarding what happens when buying a bankrupt carrier. Meaning, staple. Just like when AA bought TWA while they were in bankruptcy. Really, AA has done the heavy lifting here and set a precedent, and USAir or whoever ends up with AA needs to respect their good work on that.

 

[typhoonpilot]

Hoping that the acquiring airline pays homage to AA by simply adopting their SLI protocols regarding what happens when buying a bankrupt carrier. Meaning, staple. Just like when AA bought TWA while they were in bankruptcy. Really, AA has done the heavy lifting here and set a precedent, and USAir or whoever ends up with AA needs to respect their good work on that.

I would disagree. Well, mostly disagree. Just because one side has done something wrong doesn't mean it is a good idea to do the same thing to them when the tables are turned. We should be above that kind of behavior.

What makes the airline pilot career so unstable is this concept of punishing a pilot for their management's decisions/mistakes. All airline pilots should treat each other with respect. That means when a merger/buyout happens the side who is financially stronger should not try to create a windfall for their pilots as part of the deal.

While relative position sounds reasonable on the surface the reality is that it is not. If one side's list has a significantly older average age then there are severe penalties to the junior pilot on that side's list as a result of a relative position integration. If the equipment is significatly different relative position does not make for a fair agreement either.

Date-of-hire with conditions and restrictions is the fairest way over the long term to iron out any of these differences. This becomes especially important when a second merger occurs. Just take the junior TWA pilots for instance. They got stapled on merger number 1 ( hire dates in the late 1990s ) They are at the bottom of the AA list. If one did a relative position merger again they would be placed behind 2011/2012 hires at USAirways. That's hardly fair for them over the long term because on their side they have the ability to gain seniority due to retirements. Under the relative position merger those attrition based advances will first go to much younger USAirways pilots so the TWA pilots get screwed not once, but twice.

One can look back the NWA/Republic merger as a good precedent for this. The merger was done as date-of-hire with conditions and restrictions. It basically fenced the Republic pilots off of the NWA widebody equipement for 20 years. Many felt that wasn't fair, and perhaps there was a way to make it a little more fair. But in the NWA/Delta merger those same pilots ( the ones who are still active anyway ) are at the very top of the combined list primarily because they kept that original date-of-hire. Had the first merger gone as relative position they would not have faired as well.



Typhoonpilot

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

The NWA/Republic merger is generally considered to be the biggest disaster in merger arbitrations in history. It resulted in 24 major arbitrations, cost so much money that the Republic pilots ran out of the merger fund to keep arbitrating disputes, and left a group of bitter and pissed off pilots for years. Arbitrators have seen that case and realized why it was a mistake, which is why you don't see them using DOH with C&Rs anymore.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I prefer a rational cogent argument in favor of a position rather than just a blind following of a mantra because it happens to benefit you. It is about WHAT is right not WHO is right.

I have no problem with that, but you seem to only care about what is right for one group, while not caring about the other. Thousands of pilots were furloughed as a result of this rule change. There were personal bankruptcies, divorces, child custody fights, lost homes, etc. I don't see the 60+ crowd too concerned about the damage they caused.

If you wanted to change this rule, and you could back it up with science (which hasn't been demonstrated yet), then I could accept that. I'll always support the science if you can show it. But I wouldn't have accepted it applying to those already in the industry. It should have been a prospective change. Changing the rules midstream and screwing over thousands of pilots who got furloughed was not acceptable.

 

[typhoonpilot]

The NWA/Republic merger is generally considered to be the biggest disaster in merger arbitrations in history. It resulted in 24 major arbitrations, cost so much money that the Republic pilots ran out of the merger fund to keep arbitrating disputes, and left a group of bitter and pissed off pilots for years. Arbitrators have seen that case and realized why it was a mistake, which is why you don't see them using DOH with C&Rs anymore.

History has now proven ( after the DAL integration ) that the date-of-hire worked out better for them in the long run.

Long term ATN, long term. As you get older and gain more experience that is how you need to start thinking. Since you're in ALPA leadership it is especially important. Leave something worthwhile for the next generation.


TP

 

[seagull]

Well, first off all, like you, the age 60 rule benefited me, and I am still a ways off from 60, let alone 65. It appears that you might assume I am advocating some sort of windfall for one group against another, but I can assure you that I am not.

However, I do believe all rules and laws should be able to show that they are based on something solid. There are quite a few that should be abolished, and age 60 (or even 65) is one of them. The age 23 for an ATP is another, actually. I had passed my ATP checkride and would have been fully capable of exercising the ticket just after my 21st birthday, even looking in hindsight with the wisdom of age and experience as a reference. The rules for deicing large swept wing aircraft with LED's is another one that should be dumped in favor of a scientific approach, instead of just applying a straight-wing turboprop guideline to the entire fleet.

Any time we discover a rule is arbitrary and capricious, it should be stricken and, if necessary, replaced with one that is not. It has nothing to do with economics, and everything to do with true fairness. Too many pilots like you want everyone out of the way, and then approaching retirement are the biggest advocates for change. I have been in this industry since I was 15, and I can tell you that it wasn't people like me (that were against the rule of basic principle from the start) who pushed the changes. It was more people like you, who were fired up about what they perceived the industry "owed" them, so went out and marched up Capitol Hill. They started out like you, "get out of my way", and then the industry did not fulfill "its end of the bargain" when they saw multiple furloughs and bankruptcies, so they went up and got it changed.

The difference between them and me is that I am NOT fired up about this issue. I always thought the rule was arbitrary and capricious, so should be eliminated under the standard, but I was not fired up about it. I'm still not. The rule, afterall, benefited me, and I planned my career around it, but that does not mean that I thought it was right, and so when the issue comes up, I will express my view that the rule was always wrong, and not because I wanted to fly more years.

What gets me more fired up is anytime someone tries to support a position that cannot be defended with science and facts. Oh, and the science has been demonstrated at this point, do a little research on the studies that have been conducted.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

History has now proven ( after the DAL integration ) that the date-of-hire worked out better for them in the long run.

Just false. A ratio'd integration on the front end would have worked out better for them in the long run.

As you get older and gain more experience that is how you need to start thinking.

Sorry, TP, but you're the one lacking experience here when we're talking about mergers and other union issues. Not me.

 

[greg1016]

In ATC, we have mandatory retirement (from the FAA anyway) at age 56. The rule was implemented after the PATCO strike, and hirees prior to the strike are grandfathered and have no mandatory retirement, and PATCO rehires are exempt but have to retire as soon as they reach 25 years (not too many of them left). Every year, a small but vocal minority tries to get the union to take up issue with the age 56 rule. Most of those people are ones that had kids in their mid-40s. The fact of the matter is 99.9% of us knew that we would be forced into retirement on our 56th birthday. It seems to me that about the same percentage on this forum (under the age 60 rule), also knew what they were getting into when they became part 121 pilots. One of the reasons I wanted this job is because I knew I would be retired and collecting a pension when I was still young enough to enjoy it.

Maybe someone can answer this question: When mandatory retirement was raised to age 65 did salaries stagnate? If so, did they stagnate because of a greater supply of pilots or did they stagnate because unions could not use the short shelf-life of a pilot to justify pay increases?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Maybe someone can answer this question: When mandatory retirement was raised to age 65 did salaries stagnate? If so, did they stagnate because of a greater supply of pilots or did they stagnate because unions could not use the short shelf-life of a pilot to justify pay increases?

Yes, pay has stagnated for a variety of reasons. Impossible to pin it on just this one issue, but it certainly didn't help. With the lack of movement as a result of the new rule, regionals didn't run into any staffing problems, and that allowed them to keep wages suppressed far more easily. Just one of the many negative consequences of allowing a few old guys to benefit at the expense of everyone else.

 

[Hacker15e]

I could see it annually, every six months completing an MMPI and psych module would be a little extreme.

I think that's even way extreme.

I've taken the MMPI twice where I have been able to see the results; once as a single college student, and again about 10 years later as a married, mid-level military officer and pilot. I had just about every life-changing and maturing event happen between those two testings.

There was absolutely no difference between the test results.

So, is there some evidence that MMPI would somehow uncover a massive personality swing which would warrant some kind of personnel action? Is there even an actual 'standard' in the aviation industry which both employers and 121 pilots could agree on which identified which kinds of personality traits would and would not be compatible with employment?

 

[DE727UPS]

Just false. A ratio'd integration on the front end would have worked out better for them in the long run.



Sorry, TP, but you're the one lacking experience here when we're talking about mergers and other union issues. Not me.

Really Todd? Can you be any tackier and less professional? The guy is an icon on the forums with respect to international flying and has been nothing but helpful since I've been paying attention. Tell me, are you still in a leadership position with ALPA?

 

[typhoonpilot]

Just false. A ratio'd integration on the front end would have worked out better for them in the long run.

Sorry, TP, but you're the one lacking experience here when we're talking about mergers and other union issues. Not me.

You're kidding right?

In that case a Republic DC-9 captain would be placed in a Northwest 747 left seat. Yes, it would have worked out better for them, very much so. However, would that have been fair to the NWA guys?

I jumpseated Northwest a lot in the early 90s. I heard the Republic guys ( A320 Captains mind you ) complaining about the unfairness of the seniority integration. Their career might have been adverely affected to a small degree, but nothing anywhere near the total destruction that we have seen with the staple jobs and poorly thought out "relative seniority" integrations that have been happening more recently.

NWA/DAL was an anomoly in that both pilot groups were roughly the same. That is the only reason the relative seniority worked out without much grief.



Typhoonpilot

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

The guy is an icon on the forums with respect to international flying and has been nothing but helpful since I've been paying attention.

That has something to do with the present conversation how?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

In that case a Republic DC-9 captain would be placed in a Northwest 747 left seat.

Wrong. That's not how these integrations are done using ratios, and you should know better, since the Nic Award included protection for the widebody AAA pilots by putting them all at the front of the list before the first AWA Captain. When ratio'd integrations are done, it's done by "stovepiping." In other words, it is determined what the highest paying equipment would be for each pilot if everyone bid for what they could hold. After that's done for both lists, categories are determined, and the ratios are applied for each category, not for the entire list. With such an award in the Northwest/Republic merger, Republic DC-9 captains would have been placed on the list along with other small narrowbody captains on the Northwest list, far below any widebody positions. By using a DOH list, instead, and trying to force it to work with a ton of conditions and restrictions, the integration became a legendary mess, and every arbitrator now avoids it.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

History has now proven ( after the DAL integration ) that the date-of-hire worked out better for them in the long run.

Long term ATN, long term. As you get older and gain more experience that is how you need to start thinking. Since you're in ALPA leadership it is especially important. Leave something worthwhile for the next generation.


TP

Absolutely wrong. But... well, you'll see one day. Maybe. Like has been stated, it has been observed over and over again that the NW/Republic merger was how not to integrate a pilot group.

The east's pursuit of DOH has torpedoed any chance of them making any money. So, instead of dealing with the arbitration that they signed up for to protect their widebody captain seats... they are now making less than junior narrowbody copilots at other airlines. So... you kept your seat, but are making less than if you sat right seat on it otherwise.

Brilliant.