Age 60 (bk Reality, Legislation, Alpa Vote)

[SmoothRide]

I would like to know the member's feelings about pending Age 60 legislation (SB 65, HR 65) to raise pilot retirement ages, how it and the new BK reality will affect opinions voiced in the ALPA straw poll taken last spring on the subject. Also, does anybody REALLY feel confident that the other pending pension relief legislation will keep defined benefit plans from ultimately being assumed by the PBGC down the road?

In analysing ALPA's polling results, it appeared that if you were younger than about 50, an FO or perceived your retirement and/or financial security was not/would not be in jeopardy, you voted NO.

Speaking personally, I handcarried my written comments and vocal opinion to my Senator and Representative's offices this past week. I believe a trainwreck is looming down the track and Congress is very distracted by a lot of other issues. I was allowed about 20-25 minutes time with a staffer since Congress was not in session.

I suggest that if you have an opinion, it is VITAL that you get off your ass and be proactive. If you wring your hands and throw them up in dispair, but do nothing, then you deserve nothing. This industry and it's many occupations are at a crossroads.

 

[ac500]

can't think of one reason it should not be repealed.

 

[AAviator]

I can't think of one reason to change the rule.

And thanks for the reminder. First order of business for monday, call, fax and e-mail my reps to let them know I feel S.65 and H.65 should stay as they are. D.O.A.

 

[Groucho]

I can't think of one reason to change the rule.

Speaking as a US Airways pilot, I say change it.
As more pilots lose their pension or have them taken over by PGC you will see more pilots wanting an increase in the retirement age. Do I want to work beyond age 60? No. Do I want to see my chance of ever seeing the left seat move farther away? No.

What's the alternative. "Hello Walmart Shoppers", or "Do you want fries with that?"

 

[SmoothRide]

I can't think of one reason to change the rule.

And thanks for the reminder. First order of business for monday, call, fax and e-mail my reps to let them know I feel S.65 and H.65 should stay as they are. D.O.A.

That is your perogative, of course, but I suspect you are either being disingenuous or have been living in a closet for the last 5 years and are unaware (or don't care) what is happening in this industry. If you work for Delta, Northwest, Mesaba and are banking on legislative relief, don't count on it. Many think government pension relief will ultimately get postponed until next year. You don't really believe that management can afford to wait forever for it, do you? And perhaps more importantly, even if it does get pushed through, what assurance do you have that management won't come back later asking for givebacks years later and give your pension up to the PBGC for any number of convoluted reasoning...after you're retired and "fresh out of options". It'll be pretty hard then to give up your country club membership and downsized, won't it?

But then maybe you are an FO with 15 years to go, can't see beyond tomorrow and just can't wait to move that dead wood out of YOUR seat? I would then probably expect you to miraculously "change your mind" at some point after you turn 50. But maybe I'm wrong and you work for AA or Continental and think your company is bulletproof?

 

[BoeingBoy]

But then maybe you are an FO with 15 years to go, can't see beyond tomorrow and just can't wait to move that dead wood out of YOUR seat? I would then probably expect you to miraculously "change your mind" at some point after you turn 50. But maybe I'm wrong and you work for AA or Continental and think your company is bulletproof?

I know that wasn't addressed to me, but......

My stats:
* 59 years old next month
* Senior captain
* Lost DB pension for a DC plan in US BK! (scratch 50% of anticipated pension)
* Lost over 75% of DC pension in US BK2

That should make me a poster child for changing the retirement age, don't you think? But it doesn't. I was "fortunate" enough to be called in the ALPA survey on this issue and I told them in no uncertain terms that I was against changing the rule.

First, I have seen no evidence that medical science is at the point of distinguishing who is fit to fly past 60 and who is not.

Second, even if measures are devised to differentiate, every pilot knows (or knows of) a medical examiner who will renew a medical if the applicant can walk into the office and write a check.

Third, it's just not right to claim "Wait, times have changed so change the rules now that I've reached the top of the heap".

Over the years, lots of pilots have faced losing large portions of their pension when their employer went out of business - Pan Am, Braniff, Eastern, etc. The only difference between them and the current crop facing retirement with economic uncertainty is the numbers affected. The "Me, me, me" generation is raising crys of alarm, caring only about themselves.

Jim

 

[jimntx]

To be fair regarding the pensions, there should not be a PBGC penalty--as there is now--for people who retire before age 65 when the retirement is legally mandated. Now if you walk out the door just because you can and you are tired of it all, that's another matter. But, cockpit crew, who are hurt by a PBGC takeover much worse than anyone else, should not be further penalized because the Federal government says they have to retire at an age that causes an "early retirement" penalty.

I highly doubt that there is a flight attendant at ANY airline who would ever be eligible for an annual pension that exceeded the PBGC cap--about $45,000/yr. For that matter, other than executives--who probably aren't included in the PBGC turnover--and pilots, I don't know of anyone else at an airline who would get a pension that large. I planned and saved and invested with the idea in mind that neither my "pension" nor my Social Security would meet all my financial needs in retirement.

However, I turned 60 in March of this year. I can not imagine what the shock would have been like if I were a pilot and I was told in summer of 2004 that the pension that I had been contractually promised for 30 years and that under the current contract would be $125,000 at age 60 was now going to be $44,672.42. "Hey, Jim. Maybe you had better rethink that trip in April next year after you retire to buy the vacation home in the Caribbean."

It doesn't matter one whit whether or not a pilot "deserves" that large a pension. The truth is that their contracts over the years have promised them a pension in that rarefied atmosphere. Now, facing retirement some of them are being told, "Do over. Do over. We changed our mind about your retirement." It's scary.

And, considering the concern that the current Administration has for working people and the news I read today that they are planning further cuts in programs for the poorest Americans while increasing tax cuts for the wealthy, I'm beginning to wonder if I should even count of Social Security. And I'm in the group that Bush PROMISED would not be affected by any changes in the program.

 

[smfav8r]

I have one question for you SmoothRide, did you feel this way when USAir was in the midst of loosing everything to the PBGC????

Or is this because you can see it from your front door, it must be time to do something about it!!!

If it is the latter, I hope the age 60 rule stays, for people like you!!

The seniority system currently in place has proven to be a broken model; your junior, your expendable!!

My guess is, you could care less about those furloughed younger/junior pilots with 3 young kids to feed.

You've had your 25+ years and you now you need more to make up for that pension and how many x-wives????

ME ME ME ME!!!!

For those of us out of a good job with our 1 child and another on the way, and not a chance to go back to it because of the senior folks who could give a s**t about the junior ones....have fun those last 5 years and I hope you think about that junior guy scraping buy while living high on the hog on every trip!!!!

 

[BoeingBoy]

"Hey, Jim. Maybe you had better rethink that trip in April next year after you retire to buy the vacation home in the Caribbean."

jimntx,

I can't argue with a thing you said - it isn't fair. But that's life - nobody ever guaranteed it'd be fair. Don't get me wrong - if I could wave a magic wand and put everything back to the way it was a few years ago I'd do it. But I can't, and promoting something that unfair to those junior to me waiting to move up (as I once did) isn't fair either. For me personally, offsetting some of the "unfairness" I've been dealt isn't worth being doubly unfair to those below me.

The ironic thing is that I routinely fly with F/O's around my age - in the last month I've flown with 1 F/O on his next to last trip and another who celebrated his 59th birthday on the trip. None of these pilots have been in favor of changing the retirement age, though they've not only lost their DB pension, but been bumped from captain or widebody F/O.

Jim

 

[ac500]

I can't think of one reason to change the rule.

And thanks for the reminder. First order of business for monday, call, fax and e-mail my reps to let them know I feel S.65 and H.65 should stay as they are. D.O.A.

Please copy and paste your e-mail that you have sent to your reps, I am curious as to your rational behind keeping this rule.

I've seen some guys have to retire that did not want to do so. So, please give me a few good reasons why they should be made to do so.

 

[AAviator]

Please copy and paste your e-mail that you have sent to your reps, I am curious as to your rational behind keeping this rule.

I've seen some guys have to retire that did not want to do so. So, please give me a few good reasons why they should be made to do so.

The aide I spoke with today told me that 2 key house members withdrew their support for the legislation, leaving support non existant in the house. Less than 10% supporting. In the Senate similar story, no momentum. What has the momentun is pension legislation, which is good.

---snip---

Dear Senator XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

As a constituent and XXXXXXX pilot concerned about commercial aviation safety, I am writing to urge you not to support S. 65, a bill that proposes raising the retirement age for commercial pilots. I also urge you not to support any bill that advocates raising pilot retirement age past the current mandatory Age 60 retirement age.

Other professions responsible for guarding the public’s safety – such as federal police, firefighters and air traffic controllers – impose mandatory retirement ages. Why should commercial airline pilots be exempt?

The so-called Age 60 Rule is a well-established, time-tested safety regulation substantiated over 40 years by medical science, the FAA and the Federal Courts. While some pilots have changed their minds on the Age 60 Rule based on the airline industry’s current financial difficulties (particularly as they relate to pensions), we must never bow to the pressure of economics over safety.

The justification for the Age 60 Rule should not be used as a regulator of the pilot-supply pool for economic purposes as some will argue. The Age 60 Rule is a safety regulation and should not be changed or repealed unless there is sufficient evidence proving that any change would not degrade public safety.
That case has never been made.

Congress should not eliminate a regulation that continues to serve us well. For safety’s sake, we should keep the retirement age for pilots at 60.

Thank you.

Sincerely, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[alexander37]

The aide I spoke with today told me that 2 key house members withdrew their support for the legislation, leaving support non existant in the house. Less than 10% supporting. In the Senate similar story, no momentum. What has the momentun is pension legislation, which is good.

---snip---

Dear Senator XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

As a constituent and XXXXXXX pilot concerned about commercial aviation safety, I am writing to urge you not to support S. 65, a bill that proposes raising the retirement age for commercial pilots. I also urge you not to support any bill that advocates raising pilot retirement age past the current mandatory Age 60 retirement age.

Other professions responsible for guarding the public’s safety – such as federal police, firefighters and air traffic controllers – impose mandatory retirement ages. Why should commercial airline pilots be exempt?

The so-called Age 60 Rule is a well-established, time-tested safety regulation substantiated over 40 years by medical science, the FAA and the Federal Courts. While some pilots have changed their minds on the Age 60 Rule based on the airline industry’s current financial difficulties (particularly as they relate to pensions), we must never bow to the pressure of economics over safety.

The justification for the Age 60 Rule should not be used as a regulator of the pilot-supply pool for economic purposes as some will argue. The Age 60 Rule is a safety regulation and should not be changed or repealed unless there is sufficient evidence proving that any change would not degrade public safety.
That case has never been made.

Congress should not eliminate a regulation that continues to serve us well. For safety’s sake, we should keep the retirement age for pilots at 60.

Thank you.

Sincerely, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

AA aviator , i suggest that you review the history of age 60 and you will see that it was not changed for safety reasons
Cr Smith , the president of American Airlines made a deal with General Quesada, the head of the CAA, to get rid of the hi price pilots by reducing the age that pilots could fly for part 121 carriers. Prior to this pilots could fly up till 65 years of age. The deal that was offered to Quesada was that he would be appointed to the board of American after he left the CAA.
Quesada did just that and issued an edict which changed the mandatory retirement age to 60.
There have been many medical experts that testified that age 60 should not be the retirement age of airline pilots
If that is the case why can pilots in asia fly past 60, the faa has pilots flying jets past 60 as well as Boeing
IMHO the age should be 65

 

[jimntx]

"Hey, Jim. Maybe you had better rethink that trip in April next year after you retire to buy the vacation home in the Caribbean."

jimntx,

I can't argue with a thing you said - it isn't fair. But that's life - nobody ever guaranteed it'd be fair. Don't get me wrong - if I could wave a magic wand and put everything back to the way it was a few years ago I'd do it. But I can't, and promoting something that unfair to those junior to me waiting to move up (as I once did) isn't fair either. For me personally, offsetting some of the "unfairness" I've been dealt isn't worth being doubly unfair to those below me.
Jim

First off, I hope you do not think the Caribbean crack was directed at you. I had just said "if I were a pilot". I meant me Jim. I realize I drifted a little off my own topic. What I meant to impart was the unfairness of FURTHER penalizing pilots by imposing the reduction for retiring prior to age 65.

The maximum PBGC-paid pension is a little less than $45,000/yr. However, a pilot who retires at 60 (forced legally) would not be eligible for even that amount because the current PBGC rules impose a penalty for those who retire prior to age 65--no exceptions, please. The penalty is imposed even if you do not apply for the pension until age 65.

You might have the ludicrous event of a flight attendant with a 40+ year career who topped out at $60-65k/yr drawing the maximum because she retired at 65 and be married to a pilot who made 2-3 times her salary, but drawing less than the maximum because he retired at 60. That ain't right.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Hey, jim - no problem at all. I happen to agree with your PBGC penalty comments, although the specific case would determine if it would make any difference.

For example, at US the so-called PC3 group that was over 53 when the pension was terminated will get 98% of the calculated benefit - calculated as though they retired 3 years prior to plan termination with all the early retirement and years of service penalties. That's because there was enough money in the plan to pay 98% of those calculated benefits.

Now, if you eliminated the penalty for having to retire at 60, the calculated benefit would be higher but the pool of available money stays the same. So the PC3's would get a smaller percentage of the higher calculated benefit. While I can't say that everyone would get exactly the same amount from the PBGC, on average it should be about the same.

It the pot of available money had been bigger, the PC4 group (those under 53 when the pension was terminated) would have had the extra to divide up under the current scheme, once the PC3's got 100%, This might have given them a higher benefit. Eliminating the age 60 retirement penalty would have meant some or all of that extra money would go to the PC3's, leaving less or none for the PC4's.

So it all depends on the plan funding before termination, the breakdown of the pilot group into PC groups, etc. Unless the plan is 100% funded on a termination basis, it's likely changing the law will redistribute the available funds instead of adding to everyone's benefit. And once the available funds run out, everyone in the lower groups gets the PBGC guarantee.

Jim

 

[AAviator]

Alexander37, I'm well aware of the history of the age 60 law. You'll have to give credit where credit is due: It works. Re-read SmoothRides post. He like most pilots wanting the change have found it suddenly financially inconvenient at the end of their career. Do you remember a few years ago when the same age bucket of guys were arguing that their experience within the industry was too valuable to shelve at age 60? I'll bet he's fresh on the anti age 60 scene.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/print/news/...n20050623f4.htm

Japan does allow captains to fly past 60, but only if the other pilot is under age 60. Sounds like they're really satisfied with the older safe pilot argument there, eh?


Manage your money. Live below your means. Live long and prosper. Nanoo nanoo.
B)