SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Welcome back, dude!
This place is like heroin. I'm very proud of myself for going cold turkey for so long, though. :nana2:
Welcome back, dude!
Yes...Is there some history I am unaware of?
Is there some history I am unaware of?
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?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.
PCL said:Yes, age 65 was going to happen eventually.
Seriously, how many people are we talking about that stayed on and could hold a medical?
So would you rather do it now before the downturn or wait and displace even more pilots?
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?
PCL_128 said:Haven't heard numbers for NWA, but heard that a lot of guys are still hanging around there.
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.
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.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".
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?!
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?
You want to fault ALPA, take that argument to them
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.
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?
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?
People getting to work an extra 5 years are hurting others in the industry, but buying your job doesn't....and I don't consider PFT to be a significant issue.
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?
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.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).
:banghead::banghead::whatever: Missing the point AGAIN!Thank you! I take that as a compliment! :yup:
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.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.