• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Age 65

Boom Boom said:
Sorry.. I don't buy it... This is a job.. If he loves flying then by a Pitts and do some fun stuff.. But positive rate, gear up enroute to some ILS is not the 'FUN' stuff... And he got his seat and senority because somebody before him retired... Or went out on Medical... Or some expansion/growth.. It is all about $$$... Both sides of the argument...
Click to expand...


I don't care if you don't buy it. Maybe you don't enjoy flying in the Airlines where you are at. When you are making big bucks to fly all over Europe, your kids are out of the house and you enjoy your work why not stay on. For you to say that these guys didn't put away any for retirement is just not a valid argument. For some this is true, others its not....
 
Ok, I wasn't trying to get the p*ssing contest started about the pros/cons of this, I read the other boards too. I thought that since it is now law, we could discuss the impact on the current Naval Aviator and the short/long term effect on the airline industry from the pilot perspective.

I know that opinions on this are hot and varied, so I tried to tie the question to what the pro's thought the impact would be on the O-3 getting out in the next year or so...
 
nugget81 said:
It should be noted that ICAO's age limit is 65. Why shouldn't the FAA match it?
Click to expand...
And they have hash cafes in Amsterdam so why shouldn't we have them in the U.S.?

If age 65 is just as safe as age 60, why does ICAO require 1 of the 2 pilots to be under 60 if the other is over 60?

There are other countries besides the U.S. that had age 60 and one that had age 56 (I think it is either France or UK).

Age 65 was inevitable. But groups like APAAD should have let the FAA do it's job. The FAA was working with medical, industry and pilot groups and planned to announce a proposed change soon. It could have been a gradual implementation that would have limited the impact and shared the pain equally.
 
What brought this on? Harmonization with ICAO/IATA rules and all the airline pilots that lost their pensions in the last 5 years of bankruptcys. If guys hadn't lost pensions they would still be opposing age 65. But they didn't have a back up plan. They trusted their companies to take care of them beyond all evidence that that wasn't wise. So when they realized how mistaken they were, how ill prepared they were, then their principles went out the window. It was all about them, their problems.

Not every airline union was for going to age 65. My union has opposed age 65from the start and never gave up the fight. They were walking the halls of congress these last few days doing all they could to stop it. If the ALPA guys that opposed age 65 (the majority) had any gonads they would go on the war path. I am talking electoral changes or even succession. For me, this means more then just slower advancement. My age 60 retirement benefits (darn good ones) are now on the negotiating table. Our negotiations with the airline just got far more complicated and will likely cost us more to retain what was not negotiable until now.
 
Loadtoad - let me equate this to something closer to home for you.

The military has a promote or you are out policy for officers. Everyone knows this and everyone expects it. It is one of the things that makes space for new guys to be commissioned.

So you are selected for SNA and are waiting to start OCS. The policy is changed overnight and now there are more officers in the Navy then the Navy needs. Right before you start you get a letter saying sorry, wait another 5 years and then you can start OCS.

Or better yet, you are already commissioned and getting ready to start primary when it happens. The Navy says, sorry, too many pilots. No primary for you until 5 years from now.

What if they take away high year tenure overnight and cancel all the O-4 and O-5 promotions because of guys deciding not to retire? So there are a bunch of O-3s in the squadron that otherwise wouldn't be there and now you are stuck being a 2P for your whole tour.

You say your Dad was financially smart and didn't lose his pension. Great for him but his whole career he knew he had to retire at 60. He benefited from the guys above him reaching 60 and retiring. It's his turn. He needs to retire at 60. Otherwise he is just another pilot with the "fuck you I've got mine" mentality that seems to prevail in the industry.
 
Question- are unions and management going to have to renegotiate contracts for employee retirement age and pension plans moving from 60 to 65 at inidividual companies? Presently, are employees able to retire with full benifits before age 60 and will people be able to retire before age 65 in the future if they chose to do so?

Another question- why would airline management want to keep pilots around an extra five years? Since its all about the $$$, wouldn't it be cheaper for them to let pilots continue to retire at 60?
 
Wink,

The APA is fighting the good fight. I wish the rest of us were.

Zippy,

Age 65 wasn't something management wanted. It was pushed by a minority of the pilots (mostly nearing 60) who, as was posted earlier, were better organized. Further, both ALPA and SWAPA membership polls showed that the majority of their pilots opposed any increase but in both cases, the union leadership blatantly ignored the desires of their members and pushed for the change.

It will open a can of worms with the retirement packages. Airlines will insist on decreasing benefits so that the future benefits at an age 65 retirement equal what a pilot gets now at age 60. You can also bet that they will demand either pay cuts or smaller pay increases saying that the highest paid pilots are now staying for 5 more years and are putting too much pressure on payroll budgets/costs. Of course the unions will oppose these changes. Management will declare bankruptcy and the courts will strip pilot pay & retirements. It will be a repeat of the last 5 or 6 years where pilots subsidized the industry because airlines are afraid of making passengers pay the true cost of their travel.
 
HAL Pilot said:
Or better yet, you are already commissioned and getting ready to start primary when it happens. The Navy says, sorry, too many pilots. No primary for you until 5 years from now.
Click to expand...

I guess I can see your point when you put it that way...

Been there, done that... except the Navy said "Sorry, too many pilots. We're going to try to attrite a good number of the remainder of your year group in API- those who don't make it, have a nice life, don't let the door hit you on the way out." That sucked.
 
Hal -I understand your point about everything you said in your post and it was a very good analogy. However life sucks and nothing in life is a for sure deal. Hell, I thought I had a pilot slot in my old unit until BRAC happened. Also because of the slow airline industry less pilots were getting out of the guard and more people were applying to get into it which made it a lot harder to get your foot in the door. Just like in many aspects of life, the people who get the good deal are happy and the people who are not say its not fair.

I applaud that you would take the moral high ground and retire because it is a matter of principle. I do have a feeling that many of the people who are opposed to this would also take advantage of this if the situation was reversed. Maybe I am wrong, I don't really know since I am not in the industry. I just have a feeling that when it comes to making room for the new guy or a few hundred thousand dollars more to buy a condo in fiji most would choose the later.

Like I said, I understand both sides of this argument.
 
loadtoad said:
I do have a feeling that many of the people who are opposed to this would also take advantage of this if the situation was reversed. Maybe I am wrong, I don't really know since I am not in the industry. I just have a feeling that when it comes to making room for the new guy or a few hundred thousand dollars more to buy a condo in fiji most would choose the later.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me, I'd retire early if I could. Hey, it is still a good job, not great anymore, in my opinion, but good. Still it is a job. Someone telling you when to be someplace and how long you have to be on the clock. Me, I have a ton of things to keep me busy in retirement, including flying.

Speaking of flying in retirement, it isn't like all these poor bastards (including my brother in law) that lost pensions and were forced to retire are going broke. There are a lot of flying jobs out there for guys over 60. Heck, in some cases it pays almost as well as the battered and deflated airline job they got retired out of. Fact is, if you want to stay because you love to fly, go get another job flying something new and different to someplace new and different. That is flying for the love of it. Otherwise, you just want to retain your seniority and keep the job you have even though it required changing the rules after the game started.

The reason airlines don't want to force out guys at age 60 is because they don't get paid any more then a guy at 65. Most airline pay scales top out at 12 years of service. Capt at 65 gets paid the same as Capt at 60. But his pension payout and cost of training his replacement gets put off 5 more years. Basic economics says you would rather pay a dollar tomorrow then pay a dollar today. So now the guys left with pensions, and there are not may of us, will have the company come out and try to change the contract so age 65 is the "normal" retirement and all the guys wanting to leave at 60 will get a far worse deal then they would have two days ago. Hal is right. The pressure this will put on company and unions will make things ugly. It is the law of unintended consequence. In the end it will be worse for everyone, including the 60-65 crowd.
 
wink said:
...Basic economics says you would rather pay a dollar tomorrow then pay a dollar today...
Click to expand...

Well this sounds like some pretty good economics on the airlines part with the way the dollar has been going!
 
Just for argument's sake, what would be the reaction if the retirement age had been moved from 60 to 55? I'd imagine there'd be a lot of similar bitching.
 
insanebikerboy said:
Just for argument's sake, what would be the reaction if the retirement age had been moved from 60 to 55? I'd imagine there'd be a lot of similar bitching.
Click to expand...
Well that disproves that axiom....there obviously is such a thing as a stupid question. This is a totally unrealistic question.
 
HAL Pilot said:
Well that disproves that axiom....there obviously is such a thing as a stupid question. This is a totally unrealistic question.
Click to expand...

Exactly why I posted it. Change isn't usually greeted well, regardless of what it is, so how would these Captains react if they were told to hit the road early?




Again, just for argument's/conversation's sake. If it's too stupid for you to respond to, oh well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top