Age 60 (bk Reality, Legislation, Alpa Vote)

[SmoothRide]

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)

First, let me state that I am gratified that my post has generated some renewed debate on this issue - both pro and con - because it is important to hear differing points of view.

Rather than having other people like AAviater who, curiously, seem to know me so well that they can speak for my Age 60 motivation(s) on this forum, I feel compelled to set the record straight and speak for myself. I have ALWAYS felt this was an age discrimination issue largely muddied in union/company politics and government bureaucracy. Those who oppose it generally wave the "Safety Trump Card"...who, after all, can argue against that? If you DO know the politics behind the rule, then you should state it, otherwise your argument seems disingenuous. An arbitrary age limit crafted in the late '50s when propeller airplanes were still plying the skies seems ridiculous in a modern age of better medical and aviation technology, greater scrutiny by so many public "eyes" (FAA, TSA, airline management, coworkers, etc) focused on one's professional competence and living longer, usually healthier lives. Finally, nearly every other foreign airline allows their pilots to fly beyond age 60 at their option (usually with an under 60 copilot) in US airspace. What's wrong with this picture? If the FAA needs data, they have only to study the many years of statistical medical data of all these foreign pilots!

Sure, there are all manner of individual and organizational motivations based on self-interest. But don't assume in knee-jerk fashion that my view (or any other person opposing your view) is based on greed or some Machiavellian desire to somehow 'screw' a fellow junior pilot. After all, one doesn't get into this occupation knowingly expecting not to be furloughed for example. I could, of course, accuse young Age 60 dissenters of greed too but it hardly merits meaningful debate. Yes, life can be unfair sometimes (9-11, SARS, dot com busts, et al) but changing Age 60 only defers a seat change. If you didn't want to work past age 60, you might have to...get used to the new reality. If you perceive things are AOK, then don't. That would be your prerogative, of course.

This issue has been controversial for a long time but was likely tolerated by dissenters because generous pilot DB plans over decades helped "ease the pain" and also bridge everybody from 60 until SS kicked in. It is precisely the sea change of industry instability over the last 5 years that has made this issue more pertinent. My opinion is that the good 'ole days are gone FOREVER! It is prudent to expect pay, working conditions, DB plans in this (and other) industry will be swept away or at the very least heavily modified! It is time for fresh thinking and planning for one's retirement future. IMHO, it is foolish and irresponsible to burn employment bridges when so much uncertainty still remains. Yes, fire fighters, police, ATC are required to retire early but these are public servants and are logical exceptions (strength/athleticism for example) and they have very lucrative DB pension plans. Their pensions are also paid by taxpayers...you are not! First responders won't see their plans turned over to the PBGC. ATC controllers have to be frosty - they don't have a "copilot" backing them up. Big differences.

If you analyze the ALPA straw poll data you'll see some interesting statistics. Namely, if you perceived you had "adequate retirement income", you overwhelmingly thought Age 60 should stay but if you didn't, then you supported change overwhelmingly. Age-wise, the statistics reveal that the % of people for/against change is inversely related to one's age with the percentile "crossover" point being approximately 50 years of age. Also, status wise, if you were a Captain, your opinion was more balanced but if you were an FO there was a sharply greater opinion opposing change.

My point?...don't assume people's motivation is greed. I personally believe our government management of the SS, Medicare/aid and skyrocketing health care is so inept that you'll need every penny in your golden years. Call me Chicken Little but I think we are are headed for a train wreck. And if the PBGC takes over your pension, I am pretty certain that that paltry sum (a 50 yr old gets about $17,000 vs $44,000 for a 60 yr old) is not inflation-protected so...you can also realistically expect it's true buying power to be halved by the time you are nearing the end of your life expectancy and, naturally, carrying heavy medical expenses. Adding insult to PBGC injury?...PBGC calculations currently discount the above $$ figures ANOTHER 30% for 'early' retirement compared to normal citizens (60 vs 65). It's outrageously discriminatory.

For the record, I am a 52 year old FO with 17 years invested. By advocating for a change in the Age 60 rule I realize that it likely will adversely affect my own seat seniority in the near term but it will help create options and provide leverage for a very uncertain future that will include an onslaught of baby boomers that will create immense pressures on our society. One can only control what they see in the present. The future doesn't look too hot.

 

[AAviator]

The most junior captain at DAL has less than 10 years seniority. If personal finances are your motivation for your half truth filled above post, why are you still an F/O after 17 years?

 

[luv2fly]

The most junior captain at DAL has less than 10 years seniority. If personal finances are your motivation for your half truth filled above post, why are you still an F/O after 17 years?

While a 17 year FO could hold captain, there are no captains with less than 10 years that I know of.

 

[AAviator]

While a 17 year FO could hold captain, there are no captains with less than 10 years that I know of.

My bad. Airlinepilotpay.com shows the junior captain a December 1996 MD88 capt. in N.Y.

Damn internet.

 

[SmoothRide]

The most junior captain at DAL has less than 10 years seniority. If personal finances are your motivation for your half truth filled above post, why are you still an F/O after 17 years?

AAviator,

Half truth filled post? I noticed that you didn't rebut one thing I said. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your point.

Insofar as my career choices are concerned, it really is none of your business. But since you asked, I'll simply offer the obvious - quality of life. It has remained remarkably stable even though others all around me have chosen/had to downbid - some several times - or relocate/commute to a different base in all the airline industry turmoil of the last 5 years. Everybody's got a reason. I flew left seat for years in the military and certainly don't need it for my ego, that's for sure.

Try to stay on topic, okay?

 

[Salmon37]

I would like to know the member's feelings about pending Age 60 legislation (SB 65, HR 65) to raise pilot retirement ages...

Disregarding the pension/earnings issue, it really boils down to this...

Foreign carriers are allowed to let pilots over age 60 operate aircraft in U.S. airspace. U.S. pilots are discriminated against continuing their profession by U.S. law.

Is that fair?

 

[AAviator]

AAviator,

Half truth filled post? I noticed that you didn't rebut one thing I said. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your point.

Insofar as my career choices are concerned, it really is none of your business. But since you asked, I'll simply offer the obvious - quality of life. It has remained remarkably stable even though others all around me have chosen/had to downbid - some several times - or relocate/commute to a different base in all the airline industry turmoil of the last 5 years. Everybody's got a reason. I flew left seat for years in the military and certainly don't need it for my ego, that's for sure.

Try to stay on topic, okay?

First, nice edit job. I see you've backed away from a couple of statements you made before, but edited like "EVERY foreign airline allows their pilots to fly past 60". There seems to be a lot of misconceptions about what actually IS going on in other parts of the world with regard to age 60, and what is actually driving them. Mostly it’s a shortage of qualified pilots. That’s clearly not the case in the U.S. Here in the U.S., ever since the rule was implemented guys have been challenging the rule. We've come full circle on it too. BTW, this clearly is not a re-newed debate as you described, rather, a re-hashing of an old one. Did you know the phrases “retire you old fart†and “get out of my seat†were coined in 1959, right after age 60 became law?

As for the foreign countries, yep, some of them allow pilots to fly past 60. France, Italy, and Portugal won't allow a pilot over 60 in their airspace unless he's in the right seat. In Italy, the same guy can't touch a flight control for take off or landing. Lots and lots of caveats out there, but none you're interested in. Hell, Nick Lacey the FAA's director of Flight Standards told the senate committee on commerce, Science and Transportation The JAA didn’t even do any studies on raising the age when they did. They just did it! And who said you have to retire at 60 anyway? You can still fly corporate 'til you die.

SmoothRide, you're not going to sell me the idea that keeping the age 60 rule is bad. In fact, you're not going to sell it to a lot of people when they find out your "quality of life" is suddenly in jeopardy (in part by your own hands). And for the issue of fairness, how fair would it be to all the guys that retired before a rule change if there ever is one? What about all the guys junior to you who will see their careers stagnate when you stick around, especially if they're actively planning to go at 60 or earlier? Some guys will actually be FORCED to stay longer. How do you feel about that? (I already know your answer) Think about it, your career has benefited from the rule, but now, approaching the top of the heap, you don't like it, and need to actually DO something about it.

All the ALPA stats you provided are valid. With the reference to ALPA, guess what, the majority rules. The industry has upwards of 7,000 pilots on the street needing a job. You poor planning and preparation being in the top 10% of wage earners in this country isn't going to gain you any sympathy or support (from me or most other people for that matter). My advice---> Upgrade, and save your money.

I could go around and around with you on this, just like I have countless times crossing the atlantic with guys that suddenly, retirement is in sight, and they still have a BIG mortgage, a third wife, stayed an F/O TOO LONG, or just plain screwed themselves into a corner financially. The guys I feel sorry for are the ones that don't have a life outside of the airline biz, and there are a few of them.

Salmon37, to answer your question, yes. Its the law. Some foreign airlines have pilot retirement at age 55. Again, in the U.S. you can still be a pilot until you die, just not an air carrier operating under FAR 121.

Some good reading for you: http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/age60/

Pilots from the age 60-63 are statistically less safe than pilots in their 50’s. And guess what, there aren’t any part 121 pilots over 59 years of age in the U.S.

 

[AAviator]

For those of you not up to date on whats happening with the DAL pilot group, msnbc reports that since 2003 over 2300 DAL pilots have put in their papers to retire. In the last 12 months DAL has paid out upwards of 1 billion dollars in Defined benefit pension $ (lump sum $).

 

[Winglet]

For those of you not up to date on whats happening with the DAL pilot group, msnbc reports that since 2003 over 2300 DAL pilots have put in their papers to retire. In the last 12 months DAL has paid out upwards of 1 billion dollars in Defined benefit pension $ (lump sum $).

Wait until Mr. Arpey of AMR starts waving the BK card next Spring. You'd have to be an idiot not to have your retirement papers filled in, all except for the date.

 

[SmoothRide]

AAviator,

You're right, we probably won't agree. That's fine. By the way, the editing was mostly for grammar and typos...that's it. Not really sure what your point was anyway on that.

A SHORTAGE of pilots is the reason probably over 95% of the world's airlines allow their pilot's to fly past 60?? Pulleeze! That doesn't even merit a rebuttal.

As I stated previously, I have always been against the Age 60 rule in principle. The FAA Flight Surgeon has even admitted in testimony that it arbitrary and there is no protocol. They admitted in Congressional testimony that their medical 'statistics' for which they base their assumptions for over age 60 mortality is surrogate in nature - taken from NON-121 operators that operate less sophisticated aircraft in a more challenging ATC environment. And for goodness sake, if safety is supposed to be the #1 priority to the FAA and 1 life should be just as sacred as 10 or more...and the 135 pilots take the exact same FAA physical...are you still with me here?...then this rule is not discretionary, it is discriminatory. If they want the data, ask the foreign carriers to share it. Sounds rediculous, doesn't it? That's because it is. We're talking about rules that existed when technology (medical and aviation) were were not anywhere what it is now. When pinned down by Senator Stevens, the FAA Flight Surgeon had trouble seeing his own twisted logic. It is clearly an age limit, not a health limit.

Insofar as ALPA politics is concerned, it hardly matters that there was a modest majority that favored maintaining the rule. The demographics skew the data. ALPA debated whether to even allow furloughees to vote but when they were, it was predictable how they would vote, probably ensuring the eventual results. No surprise there. Just because ALPA has to follow the vote when stating it's position on the subject does NOT mean it is still not discriminatory. When the pilot age limit became law, it was still LEGAL TO DISCRIMINATE against American citizens with the blessing of the Supreme Court. It's time for you to take your leather skullcap, gloves and scarf off - we don't fly DC-3's anymore. And stop hiding your OWN motives behind the misfortune of furloughees. Life IS unfair, I feel bad for their 'bad timing' but it is not my fault and I am not responsible for their welfare.

Long live the senior citizen pilot!