Retirement Age 60?

[Numero Crunchero]

Just looking for viewpoints here. What do people think about CX moving towards RA60? There is some anti age discrimination legislation in outports that could potentially affect hong kong based pilots. Might have the ridiculous scenario where OABL or VETA can employ on a base till 60 but you can't work in HKG past 55.

What sort of deal would it take to have pilots accept a change from 55 to 60? Big payrise? Guaranteed upgrades for 5 years?

Personally I am against RA 60 cause I got my command due to people being forced to leave at 55. My argument is we all knew what we were getting into when we joined. But some older pilots are arguing that they need more money and it is good for everyone if you can work 5 years longer here than have to go to EK/Parc/Rishworths!

Anyway, let the vitriol begin;-)

[wileydog3]

What sort of deal would it take to have pilots accept a change from 55 to 60?

Legislation.

My argument is we all knew what we were getting into when we joined.

No, you didn't know what was going to happen any more than you know what is going to happen on your next flight. You plan and prepare but the environment has a tendency to change unexpectedly.

The landscape has changed dramatically since the age 60 rule was put in place and health was never a real factor in the decision. And there are NO guarantees and when we got hired, we were just glad to have the job.

It seems we have a tendency to forget how many resume's we sent out trying to get the job and once we have it, we seem to transform into a mentality of entitlement.

Finally, don't expect bold action from any regulatory agency. There is NO upside to saying YES and no downside for saying NO. I doubt if you are going to find any FAA authority who will take on the change because the first crash that occurs with an over-60 geezer in the left seat, the one on the hot seat will be the guy who changed the rule. Who wants to be that guy? And what does that guy attain by changing the rule? Nothing... but a load of potential grief.

And then there is the outright duplicity of the regs.. I can't fly a 737-300 in -121 ops but I can fly a BBJ? Huh? I can't operate an airliner into major airports most often equipped with radar, ILS, ground radar etc but I can operate into airfields without a tower, a non-precision approach and short runways?

It takes only a casual glance at the regs to see how silly the argument of preserving safety is.

[Harbour Dweller]

But some older pilots are arguing that they need more money and it is good for everyone if you can work 5 years longer here than have to go to EK/Parc/Rishworths!

If these older A scale Captains need more money what hope do the rest of us have?

By 55 you have had a long and rewarding career. Don't hold back others opportunity of promotion whilst destroying conditions for once they finally get there.

Go enjoy your toys and let your fellow pilots have a go.

I am against it.

[wileydog3]

Originally Posted by Harbour Dweller

If these older A scale Captains need more money what hope do the rest of us have?

By 55 you have had a long and rewarding career. Don't hold back others opportunity of promotion whilst destroying conditions for once they finally get there.

Go enjoy your toys and let your fellow pilots have a go.

I am against it.

Hope? There is always hope. But to suggest that by 55 everyone has had a successful career is to ignore the obvious... I know some guys who had the unfortunate experience to be with 3 or 4 carriers that went belly up.

Argue the merits of 60 on evidence, not expectation. You may be breathing your last breath in the next minute and your last physical may be the last one you pass. I also have a couple of friends who finally made it to the left seat after years of chasing time and airplanes and then had a stroke or heart attack.

And at 43, I would expect the argument about that old fart being in your seat far too long. Nothing unusual...

[jacobus]

drop dead in the bunk at 60...

Ah numero crunchero mon vieux,
Glad to see you back...You touched on the subject of OABL/ or one of the VETA overseas companies being litigated against for age discrimination etc. (quite likely in the UK shortly) etc. As far as I know two/potentially 3 ASL Capts' have already struck deals with the company to work beyond the 60 point;and have persuaded the CAD of the wisdom of that to boot, something which more than sticks in the craw as us mere mainline mortals can't even get the company to even discuss working beyond 55.
Yes, I take your point of life in a blue suit and knowing what we were getting into; however, we could NOT have foreseen COSAP 94, "CX having no place in the cargo game" and the formation of ASL (which f@#*ed my command and yours for that matter for 2 or 3 years) and in addition Basings, which were not on the table then...most guys were more than happy to get to that 15 year point, p@@s off from HKG, and hopefully leave town on the same horse that they rode in on..funny that, how divorces' always seem to be apposite around the time of the provident fund payout!!! Things have now changed for better or worse..and whilst I'm as keen as you are to play with my toys..if I had any...I will still have to carry on beyond 55..be it with CX or somebody else....If the expansion carries on as planned..with or without the intervention of H5N1..and as we've acquired KA we'd be stuffed anyway...double the aircraft parked up this time...then surely the implications of blocked commands should not be an issue..HEY , you're the maths gnome...you tell me...In addition, I feel that it is unfair to lower this to an 'A' vs 'B' scale thing..it's more complicated than that...correct me if I'm wrong....when our pay scales were frozen the B scale salary scale was designed to merge at B scale Captain year 12 with the old A scale salary.and then continue to rise...the rationale being that the last A scaler would have gone by then..ie he would be 55. The whole thing is further muddied of course by the company as usual cutting deals with extendees/STC's/Freighter extensions etc. etc..
Harbour Dweller...whilst not knowing your personal circumstances and just trying to play devils advocate, it would be interesting to know how you would view this if you were approaching the wrong side of 50, (squeeky bum time as Alex Ferguson calls it) and things were perhaps not going swimmingly;perhaps you would have a different take on being able to carry on /not carry on at your leisure...Anyway, plus ca change..Good times NUM CRUNCH..Good times..

[happyhappy]

Watch yourself

PLease. A word to the wise. I am not slagging off any particular user. Threads like these are often used as adhoc chains of communication from management to find out where the land lies on where the employees stand on particular issues. Additionally it gives them a good idea of what employees are likely to accept. This becomes their STARTING point for negotiations.

Statements like 'yes I would increase my flying hours 10% for a 5% payrise' do pilots no good at all and give management an amazing ammount of information. Same goes for flying with a manager when he casually asks your thoughts on certain matters.

As they say, never miss the oppportunity to keep your mouth shut.

The HKAOA has some secure forums, yes?

Just felt it needs to bought up again at this time. Thanks


ps. Now about the EK pay rise????

[Fly747]

Cathay already have 400 guys with age 60 retirement, they fly the white ones with the red worm.
Recently the 747 classic trng manager given extension to 62.

[Baywatcher]

The CAD increased the HKG licence to age 65 initially. Case closed!

[Numero Crunchero]

jacobus,
je ne parle pas francais mon ami! As you pointed out to Harbour dweller, I am also on the 'right' side of 50 so can be idealistic instead of pragmatic!

I can understand people wanting the option of working beyond 55 here...but I can't see how it can be introduced without seriously disadvantaging most pilots! I am still in awe of the 'it allows more expansion so your command will come quicker' theory...or should the word be heresy. I did well at maths at school, I did fourier transforms at university, but this piece of mathematics is beyond me.

Maybe it is time to fly in the "wheel chair guy"(homer simpson quote;-) steven hawking to explain to us simpleton pilots how having 300 captains not leaving over the next 5 years is good for FO/SOs. And maybe while he is here he can expain how it is discriminatory to make a guy leave at 55 but it is not discriminatory to extend him on C scales...as I read in a newsletter a few months ago. Guess that is why I will never be management, I never did learn the art of 'double think'! Orwell would be disappointed in me!

happyhappy or should that be hoi hoi saam saam,
I note your concern but I can assure you I am doing this for good intentions. I wish to have an input into the AOA in future on this issue...I was involved a few years back on the numbers side of things. What I want to know is what people want so I can try to quantify the costs/benefits. I do know for a fact that KRB and NPR did read CPRUNE so I am pretty sure that NPR or lacky would read PPRUNE. I do not think that a few people stating their thoughts here will hurt any future negotiation. At the end of the day it will come down to a vote, sign or be fired or some sort of governmental anti age discrimination intervention. So nothing that is said here would prejudice any of those outcomes.

PS the AOA forums seem pretty quiet. Not many people read/post there! And like CPRUNE, I would be surprised if NPR et al do not have access to it!

[Captain TOGA]

Originally Posted by Numero Crunchero

explain to us simpleton pilots how having 300 captains not leaving over the next 5 years is good for FO/SOs.

Well that is what Management are telling us. You are not saying that they are lying, are you?

[cpdude]

Originally Posted by Numero Crunchero

explain to us simpleton pilots how having 300 captains not leaving over the next 5 years is good for FO/SOs.

...cause the reality is 300 is really 30!

[jtr]

http://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/coe/gutu...sc/retire1.htm

In summary...

"On the other hand, if you are not able to get out of the pressure-cooker or the high-speed battleground at the age of 55 and “have” to keep on working very hard until the age of 65 or older before your retirement, then you probably will die within 18 months of retirement. By working very hard in the pressure cooker for 10 more years beyond the age of 55, you give up at least 20 years of your life span on average"

[Numero Crunchero]

I think this 'increasing retirement age allows more commands during an expansion' theory is a little like the trip fuel adjustment. Some people get it and some people don't! It does sound convincing to say that by keeping on C+Ts we can facilitate more expansion....bollox!

If every C+T is 54 then CX has the ability to 'extend' them until 60...but it will cost them in bypass pay. So how is RA55 a constraint? If they don't extend them they will have a higher rate of command courses as they will need to upgrade people to C+T from line captains and then replace those line captains with new captains! So even extending them is bad for commands but at least you will get bypass pay!

Whether it is 30 or 300, it still has an effect. How many commands last year???? 60+? So even 30 will delay command for up to 6 months.

[bobrun]

If someone has a clear explanation on how age 60 retirement would be beneficial to command upgrades during AND AFTER the expansion, I'd like to hear it too. I haven't seen any projections or analysis to substantiate such claims….so yes, bollox!

[FlexibleResponse]

The only reason that an extension beyond the age of 55 years is being contemplated and orchastrated is purely for the benefit of airlines that are short of crew.

Of course it will delay Command for every F/O. That is pure and simple commonsense and arithmetic for Grade 1.

Is is not being done for your benefit! It is actually beneficial to airlines that pay a retirement wage (pension) for you to work as long as legally possible and then for you to die as quickly as possible after retirement!

If you have not planned your escape by the age of 55, then you are statistically doomed to die on the job or shortly thereafter. If in doubt, please re-read jtr's link above (copied below):

http://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/coe/gutu...sc/retire1.htm

[sisyphos]

I find it extremely short sighted to demand the retirement age to remain at 55.

- future market situation is unclear. there might be no ( good) jobs available when YOU are 55 and for what ever reason not ready to retire.
Most contract jobs are worse than cx.

- expansion will dampen the effect of upgrade delays significantly

- cx is giving guys extensions anyway, but ONLY as long as it suits them ( rightly so)

[jtr]

Originally Posted by sisyphos

I find it extremely short sighted to demand the retirement age to remain at 55.

I find it remarkable that you believe that is what is being demanded.
Sure, they can move the finish line if they want, but in a fair unbiased manner which suits all (well we know that will never happen, so lets say - suits most)
It is a long reaching change that affects many many aspects of our T+C and benefits.
Aside from the obvious ones such as promotion etc, there is..
Staff travel - Seniority
Basings
Rostering (Seniority based requests + Jokers)
C+T Positions
etc
It is in our contract that bypass pay shall be paid if folks extend. If they want to take that $ aspect out of the contract, there must be other benefits, or are you suggesting we just give it away like Murrays case?

Originally Posted by sisyphos

- expansion will dampen the effect of upgrade delays significantly

So what you are saying is that there WILL be an effect? What about the guy who just joined on Friday? Will the airline expand exponentially until the point that he gets his command? No? Then whatever changes to age 55 that occur must have conditions to reflect this otherwise he/she is getting screwed over.

Originally Posted by sisyphos

- cx is giving guys extensions anyway, but ONLY as long as it suits them ( rightly so)

And in some cases you have a 56 year old skipper with 15+ years in the LHS turning up for a flight earning not much more than the S/O. Only one winner in that game, which means all others are losers....

[BusyB]

Flexible response,

"The only reason that an extension beyond the age of 55 years is being contemplated and orchastrated is purely for the benefit of airlines that are short of crew."

No, its not the only reason as you know well. It is a reason but its expensive until Legislation makes it compulsory. Legislation in many countries (EEC, USA, Australia) is going to make HK the odd one out. How will you feel when a UK based guy has a retirement age of 65 and exercises his right to return to HK where you have to retire at 55?

[Numero Crunchero]

ok sisyphos, jtr has had a go, now its my turn.
Lets imagine that there are no new aircraft ordered. Command rate would depend on retirement rate so lets assume about 60 per year. So that would mean no commands for the next 5 years until this guys get to 60yo.

Now lets assume an expansion that requires say 70captains for new aircraft adn 60captains for retirement. Over the next 5 years we will need 650 captains...or with RA60 about 350captains.

So yes sisyphos you are correct....- expansion will dampen the effect of upgrade delays significantly. If you were FO no 351on the seniority list your command would be nearly 3 years from now or not at all with RA60. Now this FO #351 will earn command pay for two years less and always be 2 increments less for his entire career. So if you look at his career earnings at age 55, he will have significantly less career earnings than with RA55. He will probably earn that much money by about 57-59...I will work it out accurately some other time.

So not only does RA60 mean a later command/later upgrade to C+T etc, it also means less money in your career until somewhere between 56 and 60 where you finally catch up with what you should have had at 55.

Guys, beware of the sophistic logic being applied by the protagonists for RA60!

[FlexibleResponse]

Let's not confuse Legislation with company policy.

As I understand it, HKG CAD Legislation already allows Commanders up to the age of 60 (have I got this wrong?).

CX would like to change the company policy of retirement at 55, but it does not want to pay you the same COS that currently ceases at 55! It would like to continue to negotiate an individual COS on case-by-case basis.

If age 60 retirement were to become company policy, you could expect to see a typical CX imposed, non-negotiated change to the COS. Such a new COS will be a double-edged sword to the pilots that will turn out to be to the benefit of the airline.

Optimum Strategies for Creativity and Longevity
By Sing Lin, Ph.D.

An important conclusion from this study is that for every year one works beyond age 55, one loses 2 years of life span on average.

Hey! What the heck! Do what you want, it's your life.

Working beyond 55 will always be an individual choice (albeit possibly not in the airline that you currently work for). If you do not plan your escape, you will be doomed to retire at whatever age that the airline kicks you out the door, and then live (statistically) until only the age that is shown very clearly on the graph.

But then again, you might turn out to be Superman...