Repeal Age 65

[tonyw]

She's 22. That's what women that age are like.

Men too.

It's just the way it is.

As for repealing the age 65 rule and going back to 60, I don't think it will matter.

They're offering buyouts, correct? So that means the older people who want out can get out and get some sweet incentives to do so.

If they want out, they'll get out.

If you force people between 60-65 out, you'll lose some people who still want to do it and bring in new people, who will not have the institutional knowledge or experience you lose.

 

[Orange Anchor]

Age 65 was enacted to help the airlines operate and minimize staffing issues, however, now in the current climate with almost stagnant hiring and the possibility of furloughs, one can argue that repealing Age 65 would be a benefit for the economy as a whole by minimizing layoffs and furloughs, and keeping at least some hiring ongoing.

Whats everyone else think of my brilliance?

Recent articles suggest that one is going to need anywhere from 70-80% of current income for retirement. Where is that going to come from?

Pensions have been trashed and investments are lagging. Moneys got to come from somewhere.

There are about 2300-2700 pilots on the street from recent failures/bankruptcies, etc. Those jobs are not coming back. There are almost another 2000+ working for bankrupt carriers or carriers near bankruptcy. That means there is almost 5000 guys/gals in jeopardy of losing their seats. So the impact will be felt inside and outside the airline industry.

And the folly of your suggestion is that Congress is actually going to do something... do anything. Right now, the focus is on whether Obama is wearing his flag pin, whether John McCain is qualified to be president because he ' rode in a fighter plane (to quote Clark). The chance of repealing the age 65 has about as much chance as admitting ethanol, as it is currently produced in the US, is a bad joke and a costly one at that.

 

[germb747]

Won't happen, and I don't support repealing age 65. As long as they continue to meet the medical standards, what's the problem? I flew with a 70-year-old captain the other day and he was perfectly capable (was a Part 91 FCF).

Besides, from a "selfish" point of view, keeping age 65 does two things for my family.

1) gives my dad an opportunity to work 5 more years (he's 59 1/2 right now).

2) slows down the hiring so that by the time I'd prepared to make my next move, I'll be ready to go when the flood gates open back up.

 

[Velocipede]

Exactly why I prefer to work with the more "mature" F/As. They show up on time, they take their job seriously and they don't generally take B.S. from the passengers. Perhaps its because most of them have raised children and know that if you tolerate bad behavior, that's what you get.

They're no nonsense women (generally) and I know I can trust them to maintain order in the cabin since I'm locked behind my fortress door.

Want a perfect example? Qgar.

 

[ready2fly]

Exactly why I prefer to work with the more "mature" F/As. They show up on time, they take their job seriously and they don't generally take B.S. from the passengers. Perhaps its because most of them have raised children and know that if you tolerate bad behavior, that's what you get.

They're no nonsense women (generally) and I know I can trust them to maintain order in the cabin since I'm locked behind my fortress door.

Want a perfect example? Qgar.

:yeahthat:

Until recently, there has been a "rash" of new hire FA's at Eagle that, while being VERY young and VERY easy on the eyes, were/are nowhere NEAR the level of professionalism that is needed for that job. And sadly, they don't seem to have any desire to achieve that level either. They just want to fly, look cute and flirt.

Personally, I'm with Velo on this topic.

 

[Qgar]

Exactly why I prefer to work with the more "mature" F/As. They show up on time, they take their job seriously and they don't generally take B.S. from the passengers. Perhaps its because most of them have raised children and know that if you tolerate bad behavior, that's what you get.

They're no nonsense women (generally) and I know I can trust them to maintain order in the cabin since I'm locked behind my fortress door.

Want a perfect example? Qgar.

Awww, thanks so much for that compliment, Velo! As for tolerating bad behavior, it's just not something I can do in good conscience. (My experience not only comes from raising kids but from working with children at preschool).
I respect everyone and treat them the way I want to be treated, but when they cross that line, I have no choice but to stand my ground (very politely, of course) since the last thing I or any other sane FA wants is "mob mentality" while locked up together for a while. I also don't want to have to resort to calling the cockpit if I can avoid it. I like to take care of my own problems and let the guys and gals up front fly the plane!
:rawk:

:yeahthat:

Until recently, there has been a "rash" of new hire FA's at Eagle that, while being VERY young and VERY easy on the eyes, were/are nowhere NEAR the level of professionalism that is needed for that job. And sadly, they don't seem to have any desire to achieve that level either. They just want to fly, look cute and flirt.

Personally, I'm with Velo on this topic.

Hey, Stan! Are you saying us older girls don't "want to fly, look cute and flirt?"

 

[Champcar]

So you want to rob Peter to pay Paul? You told these guys they can work 5 more years, now take that away from them so some young guys can keep their jobs. With the furloughs coming if you believe in seniority and unions then repealing age 65 is not the right thing to do.

 

[greaper007]

As was said before, I really don't think getting rid of 65 will do very much. Furloughs are happening because of capacity reductions, not lack of retirements. If anything, repealing 65 will only stop the furloughs at those airlines it's not going to get anyone hired.

 

[stuckingfk]

As was said before, I really don't think getting rid of 65 will do very much. Furloughs are happening because of capacity reductions, not lack of retirements. If anything, repealing 65 will only stop the furloughs at those airlines it's not going to get anyone hired.

haha

Reread what you wrote.

Isn't no furloughs a good thing? I'm pretty sure that's what the original poster was saying. He also said "keep some hiring going," and to me would be Delta and Southwest.

I'm not saying getting rid of the pensions was an ethical thing to do, it wasn't.

But if pilots would live within their means, keep the same person they're married to, and live debt free, then they wouldn't have to work the extra 5 years to compensate for lost $$$.

*before I get jumped, it's just a thought and yes, a lot easier said then done.*

 

[derg]

Absolutely.

The career changers are among the best too. Low drama, take care of business and have a healthy perspective.

 

[Mad Doggy Dog]

There were two new hires one flight. One was 22 and the other was 55. The 55 year old, career changer, did a fantastic job, had a great time doing it and probably sold a lot of tickets. Now the 22 year old was more interested in another flight attendant, how she could party without spending much money, meeting some baller on a sports charter, and already disliked passengers... and it was her third flight.

Did the layover conclude with a police helicopter search and a visit to an Amish judge?

 

[derg]

Man, I'm going to have to Google or Wiki that one!

 

[tonyw]

:yeahthat:

Until recently, there has been a "rash" of new hire FA's at Eagle that, while being VERY young and VERY easy on the eyes, were/are nowhere NEAR the level of professionalism that is needed for that job. And sadly, they don't seem to have any desire to achieve that level either. They just want to fly, look cute and flirt.

I think it's because the pay isn't that good, the hours are long, and the glamor of being a flight attendant -- if there ever is any -- wears off real quick.

So who do you get to apply?

For the most part, you get young people who don't know any better.

You can't blame a 22 year old for acting like a 22 year old. But they need to get the job done. And if they don't, well, they need to be replaced with people who do.

 

[Qgar]

I don't subscribe to that thought process, Tony. EVERYONE knows the pay, the hours and the difficulties of the job going in. Some people choose to ignore it or think they're such princesses that they can get away with being lazy because they're "cute." That usually doesn't fly and they end up hanging themselves or getting fired. In my short time at Colgan, I've seen it happen. Thinning of the herd, if you will, but if you ask me there's a lot more thinning that needs to happen--AND FAST!

 

[greaper007]

haha

Reread what you wrote.

Isn't no furloughs a good thing? I'm pretty sure that's what the original poster was saying. He also said "keep some hiring going," and to me would be Delta and Southwest.

I'm not saying getting rid of the pensions was an ethical thing to do, it wasn't.

But if pilots would live within their means, keep the same person they're married to, and live debt free, then they wouldn't have to work the extra 5 years to compensate for lost $$$.

*before I get jumped, it's just a thought and yes, a lot easier said then done.*

Yes no furloughs is a good thing. However, IMHO repealing 65 would just stop some of the furloughs. It probably wouldn't keep the hiring train going with capacity reductions. All I'm saying is...Considering that most of the people on this board are regional pilots changing 65 isn't going to do much for them getting on at a major right now.

My dad is 58 and a Capt. at SWA. He got on there early and reaped the benefits (profit sharing, stock options, fast upgrade etc.). Along with that my dad is one of the cheapest people I know so money at retirement won't be a problem for him. He just doesn't want to stop working, and I can't blame him. When I'm 60 and still in great shape I don't want the FAA to send me out to pasture.

It sucks for those of us at the airlines now. It will be good for the rest of the people that come behind us though.

 

[tonyw]

I don't subscribe to that thought process, Tony. EVERYONE knows the pay, the hours and the difficulties of the job going in. Some people choose to ignore it or think they're such princesses that they can get away with being lazy because they're "cute." That usually doesn't fly and they end up hanging themselves or getting fired. In my short time at Colgan, I've seen it happen. Thinning of the herd, if you will, but if you ask me there's a lot more thinning that needs to happen--AND FAST!

I pulled up a copy of the contract ASA and the AFA inked.

http://www.afanet.org/elections/aef...txt?q=pay&order=r&id=d0f0fa18400db613&cmd=xml

You are not going to get a huge number of people who are going to want a job that pays $16,500 max for the first year.

When the minimum wage is going to be $7.25 an hour soon, that kind of pay is a slap in the face.

For the most part, the people you're going to get for that kind pay are not going to be the best and brightest. Sure, there are exceptions, but the odds of getting an MBA who graduated from Tuck to apply are not good.

 

[Ian_J]

Patrick man... you can't just drop a "repeal 65" bomb then duck and cover your way out of the thread! You gotta come back and take your lumps and defend your opinion!

 

[Patrick]

Sorry folks, been a little busy the last couple days! I just started this as a debate, never saying I had any loyalty to either side of the argument.

I agree, repealing Age 65 would not stop the furloughing that is happening/ will happen. But, in response to the notion that "repealing Age 65 would be a band-aid fix" let us not forget that Age 65 was a band-aid fix in the first place. And yes, I am aware it had ICAO implications.

I think we're all aware that for many of the "old timers" the loss of their pensions and the generally poor performance of most investments has created a need for them to work longer, but there is something to be said for living within one's means and planning for later. Its no secret what captain pay on a 777 was, so if you retired from that kind of career, pension or not you should have a sizable nest egg waiting.

I'm also not directly insinuating that repealing Age 65 would all of a sudden keep the hiring train running. I think it could cut down on some of the furloughs that are coming, which can be argued to be a benefit for some, and a slap in the face for others.

Everyone has their own interests in mind, and/or the interests of those that they care about. For the record, I don't take either side on this topic, I just wanted to start a healthy debate.

 

[flyinguitar]

As someone who had the class date for their first post-instruction flying job cancelled last month and is back in the trenches with students, I feel I'm pretty qualified to be upset at the state of the industry.

That being said, as long as they are medically qualified and we don't start developing a string of in-flight heart-attack incidents, I think it is criminal to deny work to over-60, experienced airline captains. It's been a while since the last major U.S. airline plane crash, and g-d willing it will be a long time before the next one, but something will go wrong in an airliner again and I think that we should be placing the most qualified people in charge of the biggest airplanes. In my short time as a pilot, I've learned that experience is crucial.

(I am by no means suggesting that new captains are in any way unqualified to handle emergencies - I just think it is foolish to force all those years of experience out of the cockpit.)

With regards to other arguments, such as "they should have saved more for retirement" or "getting jobs for the new generation of pilots and preventing furloughs is more important than qualified veterans being allowed to continue the job they've had for decades," I am quite unconvinced. Put yourself in their shoes: even if you had plenty of money for retirement and that option was open to you at age 60, you wouldn't want anyone telling you you had to stop working! You'd want to make that decision yourself - sure, if you can retire, and want to do so to help speed things along for younger folks, that's very generous and I appreciate it. But no one has the right to tell you to do that!

 

[Qgar]

I pulled up a copy of the contract ASA and the AFA inked.

http://www.afanet.org/elections/aef...txt?q=pay&order=r&id=d0f0fa18400db613&cmd=xml

You are not going to get a huge number of people who are going to want a job that pays $16,500 max for the first year.

When the minimum wage is going to be $7.25 an hour soon, that kind of pay is a slap in the face.

For the most part, the people you're going to get for that kind pay are not going to be the best and brightest. Sure, there are exceptions, but the odds of getting an MBA who graduated from Tuck to apply are not good.

Why on earth would someone with an MBA be interested in being a FA?

Also, are you saying that most FA's are not bright? I know that's not what you meant, but come on. Maybe some of us had other very successful careers in our younger days and just want to try something different.

Again, the starting pay sucks, but everyone knows what it is going in. Some of us even have 2nd jobs to supplement the income.

Oh, and there's always being such a good FA that management asks you to become an ATS. :hiya: That's a FA who does IOE's and line checks on FA's who've been written up. (Extra bucks in that!)