Repeal Age 65

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Welcome back, dude!

This place is like heroin. I'm very proud of myself for going cold turkey for so long, though. :nana2:

 

[flyinguitar]

Is there some history I am unaware of?

 

[Stone Cold]

Is there some history I am unaware of?

Yes...

 

[Nick]

History

Is there some history I am unaware of?

PCL_128 announced he was leaving this website for good, as others have done on this site before and other forums throughout the internet.

Most of the time they come back and that is what we see here with PCL posting again.

A few other members have done the same "goodbye" thing and they always come back. Maybe PCL is right, JC is right up there with heroine, caffeine, nicotine, etc.

 

[OldTownPilot]

65 was going to happen.

The FAA was being pressured by the ICAO (which they are a member of) to align their retirement age to ICAO standards i.e. 65.

The ALPA survey had the response "I do not support 65, but if it is going to happen I want ALPA to be integral in the rule making". Over 30 percent of the respondents chose this, along with the guys that were for 65 was well over 50%. Of course this group along with the rest of the "no to 65" people was also well over 50%

65 was going to happen, and ALPA was integral in the law, probably keeping already retired 60+ guys from getting their seniority back.

It all culminated with the economy and oil in a perfect storm of frozen hiring and furloughs. There are going to be a lot of bitter dudes about the whole thing, but the past is the past, nothing can change what has been done. You have to walk forward from now, before that solid brick wall called time runs you over.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Yes, age 65 was going to happen eventually. However, it's pretty clear that ALPA could have delayed it by at least a year or two if they had continued fighting it, and probably for longer, since the excuse of a "pilot shortage" is now gone with the faltering industry. That delay would be saving a lot of junior pilot jobs right now. Prater screwed the pooch on this one bad.

 

[Stone Cold]

Why delay it by a year or two? The market was getting out of hand, and this actually helped the decay...why would an ALPA guy like you dissent over this?
It has helped in the quashing of even lower time guys/gals being hired. I know, a few airline guys/gals might be delayed by a year or two, but overall, who did the 65 rule hurt, other than the 250tt guys/gals? Sorry, but I think most of us agree there are a time and place for them, and carrying 50-90 pax isn't the right time and place for 250TT people.
So, they get delayed and have to build some experience. How does that hurt? Would you rather have age 65 come into play after all furloughs happen and then delay all the furloughees coming back?
I think it's prudent to apply it now and get the pain over with...after all, it was a done deal, right?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Who did it hurt? Every single pilot that wasn't already at the top of his bid category in the left seat of his retirement aircraft at his retirement airline. Everyone else got screwed to varying degrees. The guys getting screwed the most are the ones getting furloughed. The junior Captains who continue to sit reserve for another five years, or worse, get downgraded to copilot again, are also screwed. The copilots that were expecting upgrades will now wait an additional five years to make a decent wage. The regional Captains wait an additional five years to get out of regional hell. Need I go on? The average pilot will lose about $500k to $1 million in career earnings because of this change if they choose to still retire at age 60. If they decide to go on to age 65, they still lose a couple hundred grand just because of the lost compounded interest on retirement accounts earlier in their career.

 

[Stone Cold]

Who did it hurt? Every single pilot that wasn't already at the top of his bid category in the left seat of his retirement aircraft at his retirement airline. Everyone else got screwed to varying degrees. The guys getting screwed the most are the ones getting furloughed. The junior Captains who continue to sit reserve for another five years, or worse, get downgraded to copilot again, are also screwed. The copilots that were expecting upgrades will now wait an additional five years to make a decent wage. The regional Captains wait an additional five years to get out of regional hell. Need I go on? The average pilot will lose about $500k to $1 million in career earnings because of this change if they choose to still retire at age 60. If they decide to go on to age 65, they still lose a couple hundred grand just because of the lost compounded interest on retirement accounts earlier in their career.

Seriously, how many people are we talking about that stayed on and could hold a medical? I know Dough posted a while back how many people even age 60 could still fly and it was a fraction of the seniority list. Yes, it hurt people, but you even said it was inevitable. So would you rather do it now before the downturn or wait and displace even more pilots?

Yes, age 65 was going to happen eventually.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Seriously, how many people are we talking about that stayed on and could hold a medical?

At several of the legacies, it's hundreds. About 200 at UAL, CAL, maybe a few more at AMR. Haven't heard numbers for NWA, but heard that a lot of guys are still hanging around there. Almost all have stayed at FDX and UPS. Remember, the legacy carriers had anywhere from 200-350 pilots per year scheduled to hit mandatory retirement at age 60. That is a huge effect on furloughs at this point.

So would you rather do it now before the downturn or wait and displace even more pilots?

That makes no sense. The same number of jobs will be lost either way. The question is who's jobs are lost. The senior guys that have been making six figures for decades, or the junior guys who have yet to break $80k in their careers? We could have seen the senior guys go off the top of the list into retirement, but we're instead seeing the young junior guys with families to support being kicked to the streets with no jobs available anywhere in this hemisphere.

 

[Nick]

Medical & Age 60

Seriously, how many people are we talking about that stayed on and could hold a medical? I know Dough posted a while back how many people even age 60 could still fly and it was a fraction of the seniority list. Yes, it hurt people, but you even said it was inevitable. So would you rather do it now before the downturn or wait and displace even more pilots?

Haven't heard numbers for NWA, but heard that a lot of guys are still hanging around there.

As of 2005 at Northwest Airlines, 50% of pilots were still flying when they reached age 60 and the other half were medically retired before the mandatory date.

As people continue to live healthier lives, despite any increases in stringency for FAA medical certificates I suspect the number will still be about 50% at the age 60 mark. Each year after that up to 65 of course it will be slightly less.

 

[Goonie]

BUT MOM I WANT MY TOY NOW!!!!!!

Seriously, what makes your family worth any more than the next guys.
The guys flying that are 60+ most likely went through multiple furloughs, multiple bankruptcies, several and when they were coming up on retirement had most of there savings wiped out and you think its ok to throw 'em out on the street to collect social security because your more deserving than they are?

Oh I forgot, its because they didn't plan for retirement...well they should have planned better right?

Of course the same thing could be said about the younger guy who thought it would be a good idea to start dropping kids and buy his Mcmansion in suburbia while he already had a daiper load of debt to drag around.

Its a 2 way street.

I have no dog in this fight. Im not an airline guy, nor will I ever be but you typed the words outa my mouth.

 

[Stone Cold]

At several of the legacies, it's hundreds. About 200 at UAL, CAL, maybe a few more at AMR. Haven't heard numbers for NWA, but heard that a lot of guys are still hanging around there. Almost all have stayed at FDX and UPS. Remember, the legacy carriers had anywhere from 200-350 pilots per year scheduled to hit mandatory retirement at age 60. That is a huge effect on furloughs at this point.



That makes no sense. The same number of jobs will be lost either way. The question is who's jobs are lost. The senior guys that have been making six figures for decades, or the junior guys who have yet to break $80k in their careers? We could have seen the senior guys go off the top of the list into retirement, but we're instead seeing the young junior guys with families to support being kicked to the streets with no jobs available anywhere in this hemisphere.

Okay, to begin off with, it's sad that a pilot will not consider "the other hemisphere". Yes, some people's live's will not work there, and others of us will go where the money/jobs/best QOL/whatever the reasoning is.

So, You'd rather wait 2 years (a guess, but probably approximate for how much pressure ICAO is putting on the US), and have gas a what $160-200/barrel, when more and more furloughs are happening? I'm still trying to see how it makes a difference whether you get furloughed now and stop hiring now, or stop hiring now and wait 2 years(ish) to furlough even more during a worse downturn?!

Maybe I'm not conveying my point accurately, but I just am not following your logic...is it make as much money before the furlough, and then have a mass furlough when it's enacted, or what? This is the 10 year downturn in the industry. Period. Why would you want to have a downturn and then later on have more furloughs when the "eventual enactment" happens?

Why do you feel this is the bad thing ALPA is doing? Enacting something that will eventually happen vs. the whipsaw in the regionals against the majors/lagacies that has been happening for years? I think that should have been addressed a long time ago. You want to fault ALPA, take that argument to them...not age 65 that would "eventually happen"

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Okay, to begin off with, it's sad that a pilot will not consider "the other hemisphere".

Um, yeah. Most people can't uproot their entire lives to move to China. I refuse to even leave Atlanta.

So, You'd rather wait 2 years (a guess, but probably approximate for how much pressure ICAO is putting on the US), and have gas a what $160-200/barrel, when more and more furloughs are happening? I'm still trying to see how it makes a difference whether you get furloughed now and stop hiring now, or stop hiring now and wait 2 years(ish) to furlough even more during a worse downturn?!

The downturn doesn't change based on when the retirement age is. The downturn is the downturn. Let's say Company A only needs 5,000 pilots to operate their schedule during this downturn. But Company A currently employs 5,300 pilots. That means there is a surplus of 300 pilots. If age 60 had stayed in place, those 300 surplus pilots would be retiring this year, and no furloughs would take place. But, since age 65 happened, only 100 pilots are now retiring. We still have a surplus of 200 pilots. Those are 200 junior pilots that will now lose their jobs. If age 65 had been delayed for two years, then 600 pilots would retire in the interim. Now it will be five years before they start retiring (after the downturn is already over).

Why do you feel this is the bad thing ALPA is doing?

Simple: it benefits the very few while harming the overwhelming majority. Besides that, the majority voted in the survey against supporting a change. Democracy should rule in a union.

Enacting something that will eventually happen vs. the whipsaw in the regionals against the majors/lagacies that has been happening for years?

The whipsaw is a separate issue that has nothing to do with retirement age. That's a scope issue.

You want to fault ALPA, take that argument to them

I've taken many arguments to ALPA. I was an ALPA rep for a long time, and I told Prater to his face that he was screwing over a bunch of pilots with his age 65 nonsense. He seemed more concerned with impressing his USAirways buddies that were begging him to support a change. Look how well that worked out, huh?

 

[Stone Cold]

Alright just 2 beer and wine induced questions and then I'm done...

First, a point, China is not the only place available overseas. For you airline guys, even, China is not the only place. Period. End of that one.

Okay 2 questions (in multiple parts, of course):

1) Your example airline is way too simple of an example. How many pilots have been brought back to AA since the "9/11" furloughs? How many are still on the streets from 9/11 with AA? Where are you getting 300/year...Kit Darby? Where are you getting any of your numbers from? How many at Airtran have stayed on since the 65 rule came into effect? How many have lost medicals, and how many people are you losing? How much open time is management expecting pilots to pick up during this time?

2)How do you figure the regional vs major/legacy whipsaw is a separate issue? This was the main ALPA issua that was never addressed over the last 7 years. Where do you think all the AA furloughs jobs went? How about the United furloughs upcoming with an expansion of express flying? I really am not understanding how you come up with your points and blindly follow other points...it's really like talking to Velocipede, once again...

Okay, one last pot shot...did you ever bring up pft during your talks with Capt Prater? How about these RJ courses? You were around during the beginning of these, right?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

First, a point, China is not the only place available overseas. For you airline guys, even, China is not the only place. Period. End of that one.

For most families, leaving the States at all isn't a viable option.

1) Your example airline is way too simple of an example. How many pilots have been brought back to AA since the "9/11" furloughs? How many are still on the streets from 9/11 with AA?

Still about 2,000 on the streets at AMR, if I remember correctly. Don't have those numbers in front of me, but that's in the ballpark.

Where are you getting 300/year...Kit Darby? Where are you getting any of your numbers from?

My numbers are coming from the actual seniority lists. Kit Darby is less than worthless.

How many at Airtran have stayed on since the 65 rule came into effect? How many have lost medicals, and how many people are you losing? How much open time is management expecting pilots to pick up during this time?

AirTran is a young airline. Retirements don't pick up here for a number of years. Only about 15 scheduled age 60 retirements since the age change. All have stayed on. I've flown with a couple of them, and they have no intention of leaving until 65. Even though those numbers are low, those are 15 additional furloughs that shouldn't be taking place. Those families deserve better, especially since these Captains can easily afford to retire.

2)How do you figure the regional vs major/legacy whipsaw is a separate issue?

Scope and retirements really have nothing to do with each other. Yes, scope shouldn't have been relaxed as it was. But that's separate from the retirement age. Both are causing furloughs, but the issues aren't connected.

it's really like talking to Velocipede, once again...

Thank you! I take that as a compliment! :yup:

Okay, one last pot shot...did you ever bring up pft during your talks with Capt Prater? How about these RJ courses? You were around during the beginning of these, right?

I support RJ courses, in general, and I don't consider PFT to be a significant issue. I never brought these up, and I can't imagine why anyone would. Tiny, tiny issues compared to things like scope and retirement age.

 

[minitour]

...and I don't consider PFT to be a significant issue.

People getting to work an extra 5 years are hurting others in the industry, but buying your job doesn't.

I see.

-mini

 

[Hootie]

The turmoil that this industry can create for itself has always been mind boggling, however, whats interesting is the significant change in demand for pilots over the last year, heck, the last 6 months.

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?

Ha! You're wasting your time! Old farts run this bitch! They gansta! Have fun paying into social security for the rest of your life.

 

[Stone Cold]

The downturn doesn't change based on when the retirement age is. The downturn is the downturn. Let's say Company A only needs 5,000 pilots to operate their schedule during this downturn. But Company A currently employs 5,300 pilots. That means there is a surplus of 300 pilots. If age 60 had stayed in place, those 300 surplus pilots would be retiring this year, and no furloughs would take place. But, since age 65 happened, only 100 pilots are now retiring. We still have a surplus of 200 pilots. Those are 200 junior pilots that will now lose their jobs. If age 65 had been delayed for two years, then 600 pilots would retire in the interim. Now it will be five years before they start retiring (after the downturn is already over).

So, this is not a fictional airline? Or is it? Where are the 5000 pilots coming from, and where are you getting 300/year. And, let's say, for the sake of argument, you have delayed age 65 for another 4-5 years, the industry turns around in 2 years (very wishful thinking IMO, but we'll go with that), and then age 65 is implemented a year or two after the airlines finally start recovery. You still delay the recall of furloughed pilots since the people on the street are not automatically and immediately recalled. Reference AA pilots on the street since 9/11.

Once again, I say get it over with and be done with it. You have said it's inevitable, so why fight what will eventually change?

Thank you! I take that as a compliment! :yup:

:banghead::banghead::whatever: Missing the point AGAIN!

I support RJ courses, in general, and I don't consider PFT to be a significant issue. I never brought these up, and I can't imagine why anyone would. Tiny, tiny issues compared to things like scope and retirement age.

Let's see, if memory serves me correctly, I believe ALPA did address the PFT issue at the regional level in the 90's, and this is why airlines got away from it. I am glad to see you not being hypocritical on this, since you did PFT, but I think you are once again looking at it from a me me me standpoint. So, no, this is not a small issue according to ALPA history...you just don't see anything wrong with it.

Where is the "contract" you speak of that said age 60 will always be in effect? I do not understand how you can sit there and say woe is me, I'm not in a captain's seat since people are not retiring when I expected them to.

I'll delete my personal comments that I had in here...for the sake of the forums. I'm done with agreeing to disagree with you. Good luck out there.

Good luck to all those out there facing furloughs, and the downturn in the airline industry. Even the charter market is feeling some pain. Not as bad as the airlines, but there is shared pain out there.

 

[Patrick]

Some excellent points raised here. I'm glad I started this debate!