PDA

View Full Version : Retirement age


sizematters
17th Nov 2005, 23:35
update 17/11/05@1520
Today by a majority vote the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has amended the bill S.65: A bill to increase airline pilot retirement age to reflect social security age to the following: Pilots will be allowed to work until their 65th birthday providing it is a crew served operation and that the other pilot be under 60. Further that the over 60 pilot must take two FAA medicals per year and one with EKG, further that the National Transportation Safety Board evaluate the new rule two years after enactment. The enactment is to be within 30 days of activation of the ICAO revision of its retirement guidence of age 65. This is anticipated to be November 2006.

The bill has been marked for presentation on the Senate Floor as amended for final vote.

sizematters
18th Nov 2005, 02:26
Cx already has retirement at 60, they just re-cycle guys onto the freighter (both classic & now -400 as well) on yearly extensions.....and so anyone who wants to continue working can. This situation just undermines the position for everybody else at CX and it would be far better to reach a sensible agreement for people to work to 60 rather than allow this "Back door" deal to continue.

busdriver
18th Nov 2005, 02:33
"More guys to train you"......

What a load of #$%t! You can be sure that I am voting NO to age 60. Some S/O's are already pushing 4 years for there J/FO upgrade whilst you continue to earn the big bucks in the left seat.

Why would you want to work anyway over 55, unless you have 4 ex wives and 10 kids to support?

Forget it go on pension!!!!!!!!!!

Fly747
18th Nov 2005, 09:52
Busdriver, I think you'll find that your vote doesn't count!
KA already retire at 60 and I think you'll soon see a move to 65 endorsed by the CAD. KA have already had a pilot over 60 but he had to move to the right hand seat.

Baywatcher
18th Nov 2005, 12:02
Fly 747

Exactly so. The CAD will follow ICAO recommendation to 65 by Nov 2006 as will the rest of the world! This will mean pax fleet to 60 and freighters to 65!:p

Fly747
18th Nov 2005, 12:26
The UK government are likely to increase the general retirement age to 67 due to the pensions crisis. The EU age discrimination law is likely to be enacted next year too. I expect BA to go to at least 60 in anticipation. Because they are short of pilots anyway it should only delay commands by 18 months.

busdriver
18th Nov 2005, 13:43
ONLY DELAY COMMANDS BY 18 MTHS...

That equates to HK$1.770750 give or take, that I loose out on!

Tell me again why should I say YES to age 60?

ALFRED
18th Nov 2005, 20:09
because one day you'll be 55. :hmm:

BuzzBox
18th Nov 2005, 22:53
Tell me again why should I say YES to age 60?

ALFRED's hit the nail on the head. How many of those arguing against retirement at 60 will be saying the same thing when they're approaching 55? Certainly not those on B-scales (like me!) when they realise their provident funds won't fund a comfortable retirement at 55. With retirement ages on the increase in other industries worldwide, retirement at 55 is becoming increasingly unrealistic and possibly unsustainable if the company is to continue its expansion.

Busdriver, have you stopped to consider that the biggest drag on YOUR command is the company's ability to train people. With a large number of trainers rapidly approaching 55 (no, I'm not one of them!), YOUR progression will be delayed if age 60 doesn't go through. With a new aircraft order on the horizon, CX is on the brink of an expansion - perhaps it might be in YOUR interests that age 60 does go through. :rolleyes:

BlueEagle
19th Nov 2005, 03:17
Fair bit of discussion on the Age Sixty rule on this board already, some of it here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/search.php?action=showresults&searchid=2369718&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending) .

arryboy
19th Nov 2005, 09:40
Busdriver.....your maths seems pretty poor, I doubt you'd get through a command course..............

If a delay of 18 months costs you 1.77 Million dollars

then the extra 5 years working gains you 5.9 million dollars

Hence net GAIN 4.13 Million Dollars


HMMMMMM................:D


and your provident fund continues to grow for 5 years.

Kinda puts a different light on things....................

kenfoggo
21st Nov 2005, 06:31
Inordinate amounts of toss-pottery being written on this thread.

I do not have 3 ex-wives to support. Nor do I have any failed investments that I have to fund. Neither do I have an outrageous lifestyle that I wish to continue till I drop.

BUT, I do think that 55 is young to retire. My own pension pot will be ok at 55 BUT I would like the opportunity to decide closer to the time. I want that option to be open to me.

Cathay is a business. To expand the business it needs pilots. 60 will become part of COS and soon, simply because the company cannot train enough pilots to fulfill expansion plans. The best thing would be to accept this and get the best deal possible for the people who elect to stay on past 55.

cpdude
21st Nov 2005, 16:26
Busdriver,

Why are you so overly concerned about a delay in your command due to age 60? Wouldn't all the other hoops you have to jump through first concern you more? You may never get an opportunity to begin a command!:}

amos2
22nd Nov 2005, 08:16
60 is, and has been since about 1970, the accepted retirement age. (When it was then increased from 55!)

So what's all this crap about 55?

Are you Cathay pilots on another planet or what??

:confused: :confused:

knackeredII
23rd Nov 2005, 06:33
Smug attitude to be saying you don't have 3 ex-wives to support! Do you think any of those that do planned it that way. Ah, the arrogance of youth! I know more than a few guys who, when approaching retirement, have their wives decide they've had enough and leave, taking most of the assets with them. Puts a whole different perspective on it.

BlueEagle
23rd Nov 2005, 11:31
Well Amos, in the UK, in 1970, the retirement age was 65 and was later arbitrarily reduced to 60. 55 was used by the likes of CX, QF, BA etc to suit their pension fund requirements, as, after 55, it wasn't possible to increase the pension so why stay?!
But that was then.

kenfoggo
26th Nov 2005, 11:30
Knackered 2, sorry matey, it was not my intention to come across as smug or arrogant, apologies if I touched a nerve.

Just wanted to say I do not need to work past 55 at present. BUT... if the nagger does a runner with the family silver I would like the opportunity to work on . I would feel more secure if that option was open to me.

rgds

arryboy
11th Dec 2005, 01:51
Forget about retirement at 60...................65 it is.......................The US will vote this into Law in November 2006 and the European Union will enschrine 65 retirement in law early in 2006............As the Hong Kong CAD/Government follows the UK CAA/Government 65 retirement will become law at the end of 2006.................So no need to negotiate with the AoA, they will just issue ammended contracts, maybe even with a note saying, "sorry, boys, but it's the LAW !!!!"

BlueEagle
11th Dec 2005, 22:35
I'm no lawyer but I think you will find that even if the law states that the retirement age has increased to, (gone back to, actually!), 65 that doesn't mean a company cant issue a contract with a lower retirement age, if it suits them.

arryboy
12th Dec 2005, 00:55
BE..............If the company does not comply with the law....guess what....it can be sued.........................Not what CX wants now is it??? also, they want to extend the retirement age...............

so, are they going to flout the law ???? I doubt it

BlueEagle
12th Dec 2005, 02:33
Think you may have misunderstood arryboy. The upper age limit is only a maximum allowable age, not a 'must work to' age.
As I said, it will be at the discretion of the employer, if it suits them they will use it.

Mr. Bloggs
12th Dec 2005, 11:05
CX would never do something that drastic. It’s not their style.

The CX pilots would definitely “spit the dummy” and would take severe industrial action if that were to happen. I am sure CX is feeling the pressure.

On a different note, even if the CAD adopts the new 65 rule, it states “55” in your contract. BUT, we are all on individual contracts, so the pilots will have to sign individually. So as you approach 55, expect to get a new contract in your mailbox. If you are deemed worthy, of course.

Gobble
12th Dec 2005, 13:46
Who said you'll even be around then to let it concern you if you are a young bean today?

Try signing 'off' this forum and get out there and enjoy the time you got left!

Speaking of which.... I better do the same myself!

:}

sizematters
13th Dec 2005, 00:43
Mr Bloggs............what planet you on??? Severe industrial action?? the Aoa hasn't even got 50% membership and those they have got think "Severe Industrial Action" is to be nasty to new joiners....................whats it going to be then??? this severe industrial action??? No signing on for a flight until the actual sign on time??? Fly round at cost index 80 irrespective??? or Maybe something that will really hurt CX like all wearing silly badges ???


Give us a break...cx will do what they please, when they please, as they please.........................

why??

Because they can.......and the sad little "AoA club" will do what it always does.......

Nothing!!!

FlexibleResponse
13th Dec 2005, 10:19
If you are really smart, then you will plan your retirement at an age that suits you.

Otherwise you will surely be doomed to retire at an age that suits your employer...

BusyB
13th Dec 2005, 12:28
sizematters and friends,

I'm sure the Mandarin Airways MD11 Captain doesn't have the same opinion of the AOA as you. If you think that chasing $'s with CX is the only item the AOA is concerned with then the size of your brain obviously does matter.

As you obviously aren't a member I hope you never need their assistance because if you did you'll probably have dragged a member down with you.

Mr. Bloggs
14th Dec 2005, 11:01
Obviously you didn’t see the sarcasm in my response. I will try to make it more apparent next time.

cpdude
14th Dec 2005, 13:44
BusyB,

Is that the best you can do? Put all your eggs in that proverbial insurance basket using "what if" scare tactics. I don't have life insurance why should I be concerned about your little legal coverage in case I screw up. Well, don't screw up and if you still screw up...oh well!

No, that is no reason to join the AOA. There are good reasons to join but that is not one of them.

Oh and since you’re a self proclaimed pea-brain spotter, the AOA should be concerned about what their members are concerned about...don't ya think?

But, your becoming a good reason not to join!
:}

BusyB
14th Dec 2005, 16:49
cpdude,

you're the one talking about 1 basket, that was just an example.

Anyway, no point talking to you, you don't even know what insurance you've got. CX give you 5 yrs salary loss of life insurance!

cpdude
14th Dec 2005, 19:06
I am very aware of the Company insurance but we are talking about "extra" insurance. It was much easier to say "life" than to state all of the products available such as income protection, disability, term etc etc.

You are right on one point though, no point talking to you with your chest puffed out pounding your AOA chant.
:yuk:

BusyB
14th Dec 2005, 20:08
Just stick to the "easy" things in life. Don't strain yourself. I'm sure you'll be very happy as long as you look after yourself.

cpdude
14th Dec 2005, 22:35
Oh ... so that is what your sweet talking words of encouragement were for? Trying to convince me and other non-AOA members to join/rejoin. You were just looking after us were you?

How sweet...smile next time so I know you mean well when your darts are flying our way! :} :yuk: :mad:

sizematters
15th Dec 2005, 05:12
wow, hit a bit of a nerve there, did we???

UNION..........an organisation whose membership join together to stive for the common good

not just for the good of the few..............................


think about it !!!!!