House committee votes to raise pilot retirement age to 67

alaskadrifter said:
The problem isn’t with attracting FOs right now, it’s with retaining CAs and Checkairmen. The system is working fine, and for once the market is swinging in the pilots’ direction.
Click to expand...

Correct. Plenty of FO's waiting in the system for a dwindling amount of captains and line check pilots. Some of the majors have been approached to 'help us fix this' — Uhhh.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
I'll go against the grain - mainly because I did "that" route.


The problem is self-inflicted. No other country is doing 1,500hr and ATP to sit in a B737/A320. They are ab initios in those planes with 250 hrs. And barring 3rd world country crapholes, the first world countires have managed it just fine AND safely. (Lufthansa, British as an example).


Ditch the ATP rule and you fix the "shortage." Airline hires a guy with 0 experience, chosen strictly based on his/her education, work experience, competence in fields related to aviation (math, science), and their personality. Throw them through 0 to 250 hr Pvt/Inst/Comm/Multi, bring them for 100-200 hrs in a Level D sim, and off to the line you go.


...of course, you do that, and you can say good bye to these pilot salaries you see today.
Click to expand...
100 to 200 hours in a level D sim, how much is that going to cost? That's about what 15 years of initial type ratings or probably a whole career of recurrents. It would be cheaper to put them in a 172 and let em fly to 1500.
 
thehobbit said:
100 to 200 hours in a level D sim, how much is that going to cost? That's about what 15 years of initial type ratings or probably a whole career of recurrents. It would be cheaper to put them in a 172 and let em fly to 1500.
Click to expand...

That’s probably an over estimate. Shouldn’t take that long.
 
IMG_1924.jpeg
 
ClearedForOption said:
Not for us... (personally) in the next 2 years (saying that this roughly takes effect in Aug....) ~140 dudes out of the whole group get an extra 2 years. A hair less than 3% of the total list. With the impending Y+B=G and how that's gonna affect our list it's almost a rounding error.

(*The caveat is that language that supposedly allows a tortious interference of our collective bargaining agreement where those pilots who have already retired are allowed to come back.)

I have no desire to work from 65 to 67 and my whole financial plan has been designed to be able to punch out on my 65th birthday, but I disagree that this is a "safety" issue. The correlation between (to quote Ambrosi's letter...) "According to numerous studies, including a 2017 study by EASA, there is an increased risk of cardiovascular issues, diabetes, and cognitive decline with increasing age" and safely operating an aircraft completely ignores the medical standards already in place. (And ignores all the medically qualified 135/91 pilots flying in the airspace right now.)

And... how many of those things are a direct result of the crap schedules, road food, and sedentary lifestyle that I and all my brothers, sisters, and siblings are guilty of because of the squeeze of a PBS "optimizer" and loose scheduling language. If you want safety... then actually "follow the science" of sleep and fatigue and fix the trips. (In the 117 world I can STILL do a 16 hr day, have a min rest period, and follow it up with another... 16 hr day. Legally.)

The one correlation that I find very interesting is that if you look at the history of scabbery in our industry this push for the retirement age change is lining up very closely with the retirement dates of pilots from the 2 major strikes of the 80's... UAL85 and EAL89.

Anyhoo, I don't know why I'm seemingly arguing for the change. I'm just feeling contrarian about this issue. Maybe I just don't like age-ism. Maybe it's something I ate.

I mean, you gotta take out the part where people can 'come back' - that ship has sailed. Working agreements all have the same boilerplate... you are done and off the list. But going forward... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Click to expand...

So allowing those between 65-67 to come back does the law say we have to give them their seniority back?

Where was the ALPA PAC on this? Did they get out spent?
 
thehobbit said:
100 to 200 hours in a level D sim, how much is that going to cost? That's about what 15 years of initial type ratings or probably a whole career of recurrents. It would be cheaper to put them in a 172 and let em fly to 1500.
Click to expand...

I’m not even sure anyone has 100 to 200 hours of level D sims available for a single pilot, better yet an entire generation of pilots.
 
Bandit_Driver said:
So allowing those between 65-67 to come back does the law say we have to give them their seniority back?

Where was the ALPA PAC on this? Did they get out spent?
Click to expand...

One set of proposed text says just that, the other one doesn't. People more well versed in legislative affairs can speak to the reconciliation process if the resolutions pass.

There is currently an ALPA-sponsored drive to ask your elected reps to vote against any raising of the minimum retirement age. (Call to Action) This was based on policy adopted by the BOD at last years meeting.

As I said in another thread, I believe this is just one reaction to the poor planning on behalf of all airline management during Covid. These retirements were on the books for the last 25-35 years and rather than focusing on building a transportation company that will last generations and investing in the people that are a part of those businesses, everyone is focused on single quarter financial returns and EPS.

As an aside, the PAC is ALWAYS outspent. Participation rates are awful. The union busters are winning on that front.
 
Bandit_Driver said:
So allowing those between 65-67 to come back does the law say we have to give them their seniority back?
Click to expand...

So, here's the 2nd half of this, and where I'm leaning contrary to the masses: Our generation... the 'lost decade' generation. Do we potentially benefit from this rule change.

1st... letting folks come back. Heck no. It's a tortious interference of our contract. (and every working agreement as I'm assuming every property has the same boilerplate) When you hit the FAA retirement age... you are off the seniority list. Or to put it in playground terms... no cuts, no backcuts. History has been written. (My Uncle's 60th birthday was days, or a day, before the age 65 effective cutoff... he was done.)

2nd... do we benefit from it? I don't know. I can't quantify with any certainty the stagnation of my career or how my career path would have changed in a world where where the Age 65 rule didn't happen. Would I have ended up at our shop? Would I have been furloughed from the regionals? Would my upgrade have been cancelled? How quickly would I have been able to move on with the '08 financial crisis? What would my finances look like with access to a major/legacy pilot salary approx. 5 years sooner? Debt, homeownership, etc. etc. (For instance I was not able to take advantage of the dirt cheap home prices/entry into the SoCal real estate market because I was grinding out hours for Johnny O for $21k first year pay and $26k/year 2nd year pay and had my upgrade cancelled less than a week prior to class...)

Question: Is letting Gen X/Lost Decade access to two more years of work a way to make up for all those lost opportunities? Because no one is forcing you to work past 60, 62, 65... Yes, it's a seniority system. Yes, you get less access to your end-of-career seniority. But, when a huge core of us JC'ers started down this path, it was 60. Then either pension or working the electrical isle in Home Depot. Then the "deal" was Darth Vadered. Economies crashed and a whole group of us scrambled to find that last seat in a game of career-ending musical chairs.

I know that everyone wants to pin this on the 63 year old, let's call him a LegAAcy Capt, thrice divorced, on marriage #4... to a FA in FL. Also has the 5th family in South America. He wants out of his alimony payments and wants a boat. By God, he deserves a boat. Even his neighbor, the SAVE CA has a boat. He's worked his whole life!

Issues aren't as simple as taking a 140 character position on Twitter. There are nuances to all of these things. 1/2 a contract cycle is basically the blink of an eye. My plan is to be taking it easy at the end of my career, but are my kids gonna want to go to law school after wasting 4 years studying Flute? (Like my 1/2 sister is doing right now in her mid-20's.) This isn't Logan's Run or Foundation. (The 65 year old pilot isn't Brother Darkness and gets incinerated.)

There has been growth, tailwinds, sunny skies, etc. etc. for everyone's careers since about '15. We are due for tailwinds and a IROP.

The issue merits real discussion, not just a "get outta my seat Boomer!" Sadly, because it's entered the political arena, that time is past.
 
I don't really have an enormous issue with it. My (relatively uneducated) gut feeling is that there will not be a statistically significant amount of people who will be able to hold a Class 1 to that age, who also have the desire to continue. I feel like health "planning" (at least the elements we can control, which many don't) probably goes hand in hand with financial planning. That being said, there will be some people who will have unforeseen life situations that this might appeal to. And I'd buy the payback interest that some of you might have, that lived through the 2000's. Agree that it is probably too little too late, but maybe something is better than nothing more? I also say this as a person who is far enough down the seniority list that a couple years of stagnation doesn't really change my world much, and also as someone who is new enough to 121 to not want the upgrade anytime soon. Probably all words I will eventually eat, or at least cringe at reading in 2-3 years from now, but that's my TED talk.
 
In the broader picture, all first (and many second) world societies are going to have to deal with extended working lives a lot sooner than they thought they would even just a decade ago. Fertility rates have fallen off a cliff. Immigration can blunt the trauma, but this is already shaking down to the developing world, as well.

Now, that doesn't mean that Vadering (great term) the deal should be accepted in this particular case, but from a global perspective this is just the tip of the iceberg.
 
I wonder what the impact to LTD prices will be and how that would impact pilot contributions? I imagine quite a few more pilots would end up in sick leave for their last few years.

I am torn. Because of a tumultuous first half of my career, I am quite a bit behind on retirement savings, so an extra couple of high earning years would be helpful.

On the other hand, I don't want to go right from the cockpit to the coffin. I'd like to enjoy retirement. My wife is 7 years older than I am so the years during which she will be willing and able to DO things in retirement may be short lived.

Those are personal impacts, but it's tough for me to not look back at the change to age 65. I was still on my post 9/11 furlough when they went from 60-65. Not sure how different my life would be had that never happened, but I would undoubtedly be wealthier and flying a different airplane for a differed company. I hate to wish that on today's newhires only to benefit me. Im probably in the minority thinking about things like that though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top