Age 60 Battle vs ALPA
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This issue is like Chinese water torture. It just keeps coming up over and over again, you guys playing tag team out there??
To me there are two sides to this issue. To begin with it is clear to me that the age 60 rule is a purely arbitrary limit; it does not match up well with the social security system (for what that is worth), and has seen its longest days of that I am sure. In a number of countries in Europe 60 is no longer the limit. Usually the FAA and the USA are leading changes in our industry this time when the tide comes it will come from the other side of the ocean.
Now what is clear to me is that the hidden agenda here is not only 60 but it is 60 plus keeping your position at your current employer. And that is one of the major issues that ALPA is fighting against. To me continuing beyond the age that you signed your contract for is totally unacceptable.
I realize that the industry has gone through a hell of a ride in the last five years in the USA and a lot of my fellow colleagues in the States have seen their terms and conditions torn to shreds. Pensions don’t seem to be protected in any way shape or form. And each day is bringing more legacy carriers to the brink of chapter 11. But each pilot out there (with a few exceptions) has been operating with the knowledge that the gig was up when you turned 60. It is not fair that you allowed your colleagues ahead of you to clear out when their time came, and now when it is your turn to move on you are screaming age discrimination. You knew the deal when you signed up, this is not discrimination. I like to take my hypocrisy straight up, not hiding behind a lot of bollocks like discrimination.
From time to time this issue flares up in my airline. My experience has been that the people screaming for an increase in the pension age are exactly the people who you don’t want to be sitting beside. They are working on their third marriage and some still have young kids they have to put through school. The numbers of moody bastards in this group it out of proportion to the total (barring a few exceptions that have a true love of this lifestyle). It tends to always be about the money!
Just a little about Chapter 11: To a European chapter 11 is a truly marvelous management tool. It allows insolvent airlines to keep flying and damage other carriers that are operating under “normal” laws of competition. It has allowed airlines like United and US Airways to shove concessions down the throats of their employees under the guise of survival (true enough), but in the process other companies can only follow in bringing down their T&C’s. And they will be forced to use the same chapter 11 to do the same. It is truly sick that this is allowed to go on.
Keep up the fight I expect the next thread to open up on this topic soon, let the torture continue. Gr. O.
To me there are two sides to this issue. To begin with it is clear to me that the age 60 rule is a purely arbitrary limit; it does not match up well with the social security system (for what that is worth), and has seen its longest days of that I am sure. In a number of countries in Europe 60 is no longer the limit. Usually the FAA and the USA are leading changes in our industry this time when the tide comes it will come from the other side of the ocean.
Now what is clear to me is that the hidden agenda here is not only 60 but it is 60 plus keeping your position at your current employer. And that is one of the major issues that ALPA is fighting against. To me continuing beyond the age that you signed your contract for is totally unacceptable.
I realize that the industry has gone through a hell of a ride in the last five years in the USA and a lot of my fellow colleagues in the States have seen their terms and conditions torn to shreds. Pensions don’t seem to be protected in any way shape or form. And each day is bringing more legacy carriers to the brink of chapter 11. But each pilot out there (with a few exceptions) has been operating with the knowledge that the gig was up when you turned 60. It is not fair that you allowed your colleagues ahead of you to clear out when their time came, and now when it is your turn to move on you are screaming age discrimination. You knew the deal when you signed up, this is not discrimination. I like to take my hypocrisy straight up, not hiding behind a lot of bollocks like discrimination.
From time to time this issue flares up in my airline. My experience has been that the people screaming for an increase in the pension age are exactly the people who you don’t want to be sitting beside. They are working on their third marriage and some still have young kids they have to put through school. The numbers of moody bastards in this group it out of proportion to the total (barring a few exceptions that have a true love of this lifestyle). It tends to always be about the money!
Just a little about Chapter 11: To a European chapter 11 is a truly marvelous management tool. It allows insolvent airlines to keep flying and damage other carriers that are operating under “normal” laws of competition. It has allowed airlines like United and US Airways to shove concessions down the throats of their employees under the guise of survival (true enough), but in the process other companies can only follow in bringing down their T&C’s. And they will be forced to use the same chapter 11 to do the same. It is truly sick that this is allowed to go on.
Keep up the fight I expect the next thread to open up on this topic soon, let the torture continue. Gr. O.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: woop woop
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The age 60 rule will be dead and buried this time next year and 62 initially then 65 will be the new limit.
The population is ageing, living longer and goverments will no longer be able to support retirees.
The answer is work longer to support yourself so the state does not have to support you.
If everyone else in the workforce can retire at 65 then to force a pilot to retire at 60 is discrimatory its as simple as that.
The guys waiting for the left seat and whinging that raising the age limit will keep them from it conveniently "forget" that they too will be retiring at 65.
The industry is not what it was 20 years ago and large paypackets by and large are a thing of the past.
The population is ageing, living longer and goverments will no longer be able to support retirees.
The answer is work longer to support yourself so the state does not have to support you.
If everyone else in the workforce can retire at 65 then to force a pilot to retire at 60 is discrimatory its as simple as that.
The guys waiting for the left seat and whinging that raising the age limit will keep them from it conveniently "forget" that they too will be retiring at 65.
The industry is not what it was 20 years ago and large paypackets by and large are a thing of the past.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agent Mulder makes a few good points.
Now my few cents' worth. I'm South African and I can probably claim that we are the world's experts on discrimination.
So, if it is discriminatory to enforce retirement at 60, is it not also discriminatory to enforce retirement at 62, 63, 65 or some other arbitrary age? I know that you are comparing 60 to some other arbitrary standard of 65, but there are various other professions that have no retirement age and some (as pointed out previously ATC's) that retire at 55.
Further, if pilots should be allowed to fly "on condition" past the current 60, should upgrades in your company then not also happen "on condition"? Why not advertise LHS positions in your company and let the best suitably qualified person (written exams, sim performance, interview) get the job without any regard for seniority. Oh, but that would leave room for the company to manipulate command, would it not?
I think that there should be a mandatory retirement age for pilots. I have flown with useless 40 year old captains and perfect 59 year olds, but I have seen the effects of age in the best 59 year old captains (screens on "grill", cockpit speaker on "bullhorn"). I think 60 is a good age to leave the airline. If you can still operate safely, go and fly Part 91 where you can transfer your considerable experience to some newbie or share war stories with your compatriot.
SAA pilots voted recently to increase retirement age to 63. The vote was narrowly won by the pro's, but probably because SAA had been employing 40 year old RHS's for the past few years and they would be lucky if they saw the LHS in under 15 years and would probably need to work to 63 to make financial provision for their retirement.
I have heard a rumour that management might make the 63 rule happen. That has had some unfortunate effects down the line. SA regs forbid command over the border over 60 years. This means that the captains staying after 60 now have to fly domestically. Cape Town seems to be the retirement capital of SA and these guys now all want to move to Cape Town and any more junior captain who wants to live in Cape Town (and there are many who have lived there all their lives) is now buggered.
If this happens, it would also kill the movement from other airlines to SAA, thereby effectively removing opportunities from the bottom of the pile. The SA aviation industry is very small by international standards. Something like 3200 ATPL's and Comm's combined (about 1400 airline pilots) and hiring might come to a complete standstill for 3 years.
Retirement age is probably the second most emotive issue after seniority, and I think that if the industry wants to move into the future, seniority should go where flight engineers and navigators went. When that is done, the 60 year old first officers who could never get command, can vote age 63 in. (For first officers obviously)
Edited to avoid the wrath of the spelling nazis.
Now my few cents' worth. I'm South African and I can probably claim that we are the world's experts on discrimination.
So, if it is discriminatory to enforce retirement at 60, is it not also discriminatory to enforce retirement at 62, 63, 65 or some other arbitrary age? I know that you are comparing 60 to some other arbitrary standard of 65, but there are various other professions that have no retirement age and some (as pointed out previously ATC's) that retire at 55.
Further, if pilots should be allowed to fly "on condition" past the current 60, should upgrades in your company then not also happen "on condition"? Why not advertise LHS positions in your company and let the best suitably qualified person (written exams, sim performance, interview) get the job without any regard for seniority. Oh, but that would leave room for the company to manipulate command, would it not?
I think that there should be a mandatory retirement age for pilots. I have flown with useless 40 year old captains and perfect 59 year olds, but I have seen the effects of age in the best 59 year old captains (screens on "grill", cockpit speaker on "bullhorn"). I think 60 is a good age to leave the airline. If you can still operate safely, go and fly Part 91 where you can transfer your considerable experience to some newbie or share war stories with your compatriot.
SAA pilots voted recently to increase retirement age to 63. The vote was narrowly won by the pro's, but probably because SAA had been employing 40 year old RHS's for the past few years and they would be lucky if they saw the LHS in under 15 years and would probably need to work to 63 to make financial provision for their retirement.
I have heard a rumour that management might make the 63 rule happen. That has had some unfortunate effects down the line. SA regs forbid command over the border over 60 years. This means that the captains staying after 60 now have to fly domestically. Cape Town seems to be the retirement capital of SA and these guys now all want to move to Cape Town and any more junior captain who wants to live in Cape Town (and there are many who have lived there all their lives) is now buggered.
If this happens, it would also kill the movement from other airlines to SAA, thereby effectively removing opportunities from the bottom of the pile. The SA aviation industry is very small by international standards. Something like 3200 ATPL's and Comm's combined (about 1400 airline pilots) and hiring might come to a complete standstill for 3 years.
Retirement age is probably the second most emotive issue after seniority, and I think that if the industry wants to move into the future, seniority should go where flight engineers and navigators went. When that is done, the 60 year old first officers who could never get command, can vote age 63 in. (For first officers obviously)
Edited to avoid the wrath of the spelling nazis.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems most of the pro 60 retirement age (or less) want to ensure their piece of the 'command pie'.......a sort of job share rotation thing.
How big is this piece of pie? - about 20years?.......bummer if you're clever bugger and got an upgrade aged 24, game over at 44!...............or the guy for whom aviation is a second career; still able, still interested but is forced to retire.
How big is this piece of pie? - about 20years?.......bummer if you're clever bugger and got an upgrade aged 24, game over at 44!...............or the guy for whom aviation is a second career; still able, still interested but is forced to retire.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Desert
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Faheel,
Who wants to work to 65? Maybe you do but most pilots do not, this board excepted. ALPA just voted to fight legislation to raise the retirment age and the US Supreme Court ruled that you can have a retirement age in regards to pilots.
Forcing a pilot to retire at 65 is just as discrimatory as forcing him to retire at 60, get over it. Also the FBI and ATC have to retire at 55 so not everybody retires at 65. You knew the rules!
I surely hope that the age will not be 62 by next year. That will be the worse thing Congress could do to the industry. The fight works both ways. The 10,000 pilots out of work do not want to see them raise the age either.
Even if "we" beat the bastards this year and the age 60 does not get raised they just keep on coming and coming. Where does it end? At some point after years of getting beat in the courts and board rooms you would think they would finally stop and give up but NOOOO!
Who wants to work to 65? Maybe you do but most pilots do not, this board excepted. ALPA just voted to fight legislation to raise the retirment age and the US Supreme Court ruled that you can have a retirement age in regards to pilots.
Forcing a pilot to retire at 65 is just as discrimatory as forcing him to retire at 60, get over it. Also the FBI and ATC have to retire at 55 so not everybody retires at 65. You knew the rules!
I surely hope that the age will not be 62 by next year. That will be the worse thing Congress could do to the industry. The fight works both ways. The 10,000 pilots out of work do not want to see them raise the age either.
Even if "we" beat the bastards this year and the age 60 does not get raised they just keep on coming and coming. Where does it end? At some point after years of getting beat in the courts and board rooms you would think they would finally stop and give up but NOOOO!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: woop woop
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rainman I dont need to "get over it "
as I said before when the retirement age goes up to 60 plus I will fly to it if I feel like it, I don't intend to vacate my seat for some who coverts it like you.
I don't owe you a living, as for the rules bit I am astounded that you seriously think that rules are set in stone. Look at your majors screwing the guys out of their pension, err the airlines knew the rules but broke them. and now there are new "rules"
You need to get a reality check because the rules are going to be bent, broken or tossed out during your career and you had better learn that right now.
as I said before when the retirement age goes up to 60 plus I will fly to it if I feel like it, I don't intend to vacate my seat for some who coverts it like you.
I don't owe you a living, as for the rules bit I am astounded that you seriously think that rules are set in stone. Look at your majors screwing the guys out of their pension, err the airlines knew the rules but broke them. and now there are new "rules"
You need to get a reality check because the rules are going to be bent, broken or tossed out during your career and you had better learn that right now.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Unionville, PA, USA
Age: 76
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who wants to work to 65? Maybe you do but most pilots do not, this board excepted. ALPA just voted to fight legislation to raise the retirment age and the US Supreme Court ruled that you can have a retirement age in regards to pilots.
An earlier ALPA President on the issue of polls.
ALPA president, J.J. O'Donnell, before the House Subcommittee on Aviation,
July 18, 1978, on Age 60 (note his comments on the use of "polls" in this
matter):
"...anyone could get any poll to say anything they wanted. I would not
encourage polls of our membership because there is no way to educate them,
and no matter who wrote it, you will get some bias written into the polls.
Therefore, I feel the democratic process we have at ALPA is to let the
governing bodies give me direction. These directions are that we oppose the
Age 60 regulation and we have for years."
Rain,
You are a total pain in the neck. You have no empathy or perception. Your qualifications to fly professionally are in doubt every time you exercise your digits.
Consider, losing your licence and job, battling to regain it starting again at the bottom of the seniority list after 20 yrs and then having some halfwit telling you when you can retire.
I've decided to consider DEC at EK purely to sc**w U.
Enjoy your career?
You are a total pain in the neck. You have no empathy or perception. Your qualifications to fly professionally are in doubt every time you exercise your digits.
Consider, losing your licence and job, battling to regain it starting again at the bottom of the seniority list after 20 yrs and then having some halfwit telling you when you can retire.
I've decided to consider DEC at EK purely to sc**w U.
Enjoy your career?
How about the US govt entity, which theoretically can back up pensions (you might bring in only US $30,000/ year under their rules, even as a career airline pilot).
The PBGC admitted on Yahoo Airline News, today, that their rules are based on people working until they are 65.
Therefore, the age 60 retirement rule is another contradiction, within the same federal government.
As little as a career pilot flying 737, 757, then 744-400 might get from the PBGC, if an airline pension plan totally disappeared, the PBGC would even reduce their own modest pay, and leave you not too far above the povery line, because it would have been based upon retirement at 65, not the FAA's age 60 rule.
The FAA uses age discrimination, even in the face of this. They could have required AMEs (approved doctors) decades ago, to give a more thorough exam. Read on Pprune about what is required in Japan and Europe/Britain etc. Who has always designated the US requirements? The FAA. Who else can they blame, if they feel that ( their) very basic medical examinations, which are the same whether you are 25 or 59 (except for an EKG each 12 months or so...), prevented AMEs from properly evaluating a specific pilot's ability to fly until age 62 or 63 etc?
Don't get me wrong. I'm for whatever can bring back pilots who are laid-off, or about to get laid-off a second time after one year or less back on the job.
But this is a separate topic from an academic debate over medical qualifications. With several large US airlines in Chapter 11 and maybe one more to follow, plus the fact that US airline pensions were never fully funded, pilots in other countries would understand the situation better if their laws tolerated severe under-funding of pensions. What if Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavian lands etc tolerated this? How would you guys/gals then feel?
The PBGC admitted on Yahoo Airline News, today, that their rules are based on people working until they are 65.
Therefore, the age 60 retirement rule is another contradiction, within the same federal government.
As little as a career pilot flying 737, 757, then 744-400 might get from the PBGC, if an airline pension plan totally disappeared, the PBGC would even reduce their own modest pay, and leave you not too far above the povery line, because it would have been based upon retirement at 65, not the FAA's age 60 rule.
The FAA uses age discrimination, even in the face of this. They could have required AMEs (approved doctors) decades ago, to give a more thorough exam. Read on Pprune about what is required in Japan and Europe/Britain etc. Who has always designated the US requirements? The FAA. Who else can they blame, if they feel that ( their) very basic medical examinations, which are the same whether you are 25 or 59 (except for an EKG each 12 months or so...), prevented AMEs from properly evaluating a specific pilot's ability to fly until age 62 or 63 etc?
Don't get me wrong. I'm for whatever can bring back pilots who are laid-off, or about to get laid-off a second time after one year or less back on the job.
But this is a separate topic from an academic debate over medical qualifications. With several large US airlines in Chapter 11 and maybe one more to follow, plus the fact that US airline pensions were never fully funded, pilots in other countries would understand the situation better if their laws tolerated severe under-funding of pensions. What if Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavian lands etc tolerated this? How would you guys/gals then feel?
Last edited by Ignition Override; 17th Sep 2005 at 03:52.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People with very few principles are hiding behind high-minded ones to try and shove this change down the throats of the large majority who do not want it. Let’s make one thing perfectly clear it is about the money, it always is!
You can read the arguments pro and con on this issue, and they both have merits, and they have been exhaustively made in many different threads. It is always the guys approaching 60 who are arguing they are too good to be lost to this industry (they are not) and the younger ones making the argument that it slows their progressing (a temporary situation at most). There are variations but they don’t stray too far from these two basic ones.
To me the issue will solve itself in the next decade, but I want to make the price higher for the old ones, when the change comes. They operated under the system as is; where everyone cleared out at 60. They were able use the advantages of this system, but are balking when it comes time to pay the price. They signed a contract with their current employer in which it is totally clear that they too clear out of the left seat at age 60. So when that day comes I would like to see these people honor their contract and (be forced) to retire from their current airline. Only new hires will have the date of their retirement age moved to 65. If the oldies want to continue to fly they can fly past the age of 60 but they will have to do so at another outfit.
As far as LHR rain not being able to show any empathy or an emotion like that. He is not the most diplomatic person I agree, but he just opposes any change in the retirement age, and wants people to stop whining (at least that is what I read between the lines). Empathy or sympathy should be reserved for the people who lost their homes in New Orleans, or the folks starving in Niger right now, not for an airline pilot approaching his retirement age. You can find sympathy right between **** and syphilis in the dictionary. I am a wide-body Captain and I will honor my contract, and if I want to fly past my retirement age here in Europe I will be able to, but not at my airline. And this is as it should be.
Gr. O.
You can read the arguments pro and con on this issue, and they both have merits, and they have been exhaustively made in many different threads. It is always the guys approaching 60 who are arguing they are too good to be lost to this industry (they are not) and the younger ones making the argument that it slows their progressing (a temporary situation at most). There are variations but they don’t stray too far from these two basic ones.
To me the issue will solve itself in the next decade, but I want to make the price higher for the old ones, when the change comes. They operated under the system as is; where everyone cleared out at 60. They were able use the advantages of this system, but are balking when it comes time to pay the price. They signed a contract with their current employer in which it is totally clear that they too clear out of the left seat at age 60. So when that day comes I would like to see these people honor their contract and (be forced) to retire from their current airline. Only new hires will have the date of their retirement age moved to 65. If the oldies want to continue to fly they can fly past the age of 60 but they will have to do so at another outfit.
As far as LHR rain not being able to show any empathy or an emotion like that. He is not the most diplomatic person I agree, but he just opposes any change in the retirement age, and wants people to stop whining (at least that is what I read between the lines). Empathy or sympathy should be reserved for the people who lost their homes in New Orleans, or the folks starving in Niger right now, not for an airline pilot approaching his retirement age. You can find sympathy right between **** and syphilis in the dictionary. I am a wide-body Captain and I will honor my contract, and if I want to fly past my retirement age here in Europe I will be able to, but not at my airline. And this is as it should be.
Gr. O.
Yes, I did post after a few beers but the whining seems to be coming from the younger guys. I don't want sympathy, I don't need it but I'm certainly not giving it to others on this thread.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Desert
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't want to sound like I am whining or whinging but I just want to play by the rules. It is true that the closer pilots get to retirement age the more vocal they are about raising the age after they enjoyed all the benefits of the age 60 being in place. Don't you realize that PAA, EAL, BA, and Midway all lost not only their pensions but also their jobs and they did not do one quarter of the whinging that the current crop of pilots do.
This profession needs more pilots like Otterman. I man of pricinciples. No one is giving Busy B any smypathy don't worry. I did not know the half wits made the determination of age 60. Having made the rule in 1959 that was way before my time and having stood countless court challenges I guess all of them are wrong as well. Just because you had to start over don't take it out on the profession.
EK would welcome an old fart like you to the airline. Oh I forgot they are not hiring any DECs right now, what a pity. Enjoy your retirement!
This profession needs more pilots like Otterman. I man of pricinciples. No one is giving Busy B any smypathy don't worry. I did not know the half wits made the determination of age 60. Having made the rule in 1959 that was way before my time and having stood countless court challenges I guess all of them are wrong as well. Just because you had to start over don't take it out on the profession.
EK would welcome an old fart like you to the airline. Oh I forgot they are not hiring any DECs right now, what a pity. Enjoy your retirement!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR Rain: If you and others don't want to work past 50/60 because you have your pensions in order and/or are philanthropists then take voluntary retirement.
Otterman: Contracts/T's and C's are re-negotiated every year so what you signed in the year dot is null and void.
Nugpot: SAA is along with other one airline countries I think an example of devious manipulative management who have succeeded in monopolising the market rather than allow competition. More carriers would mean more jobs ie. more command positions for you.
Otterman: Contracts/T's and C's are re-negotiated every year so what you signed in the year dot is null and void.
Nugpot: SAA is along with other one airline countries I think an example of devious manipulative management who have succeeded in monopolising the market rather than allow competition. More carriers would mean more jobs ie. more command positions for you.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Phoebe Buffet, it is very true that contracts are re-negotiated each time the old one comes up for renewal. In most law-abiding countries the old contract stays valid until the new one takes effect. BUT that is not what we are talking about here. The FAA rule 60 law is an upper limit for being allowed to pilot the different FAR categories (some exceptions apply). This is a LAW. A contract is a mutual negotiated result, in which an employer and the representatives of the employees come to an agreement, with the law being the upper limit that can be agreed too.
At my airline we retire at age 56. Our national legal limit for flying in an airliner is age 65. THIS gap is the root issue of any change to the age 60 rule. A few of the older pilots at my airline say that they are not able to exercise their full economic potential because they are “forced” out at 56. They knew about this age 56 since the day they joined my airline. They would like to continue to fly in their command positions until age 65 to make more money, damn the consequence to anyone else. And I am not just talking about the junior guys, but also guys like me who do want out when my time comes. If they were allowed to fly to 65 it would force irreversible changes upon my T&C’s, so I will resist them to the fullest extend possible. What I say to them is that; they are able to continue their careers, just not at my airline. And indeed some do by moving out to the Far East (etc), but most tend to call it a day, when they are faced with even the slightest obstacles (like transferring domicile and licenses).
What we are talking about here is that any change in the age 60 rule by the FAA will lead inevitably to changes at the legacy airlines to their retirement age. An age increase to age 65 will allow the sober pension schemes left at the legacy carriers a ten year reprieve (you would fly for five years longer, and you would draw your pension for five years less, because I would hope you would still pass away at the same age as before). This will bring their pension costs down considerably. So there are individual gains to be made for people in the sense that they have a longer career, but the big collective winners would be the airlines. And since they tend to pass their savings down to the passenger they would be the ultimate winners, I guess.
So Phoebe Buffet I hope you take the contracts you sign a little more seriously than your posts would indicate. Changing the 60 rule law is not an automatic change to your contract; all that happens is that the new law becomes the upper limit that your union and airline could use. Your contract does not become null and void each year, and certainly it won’t when and if the rule 60 changes. By the way Phoebe Buffet; what allows me to retire at age 56 is that my pension scheme is based on this age, if that were to change to another age I too would have to work to that age in order to make sure I am financially secure.
Any change in the 60 rule would have a ripple effect felt far and beyond the simple age change.
Gr. O.
At my airline we retire at age 56. Our national legal limit for flying in an airliner is age 65. THIS gap is the root issue of any change to the age 60 rule. A few of the older pilots at my airline say that they are not able to exercise their full economic potential because they are “forced” out at 56. They knew about this age 56 since the day they joined my airline. They would like to continue to fly in their command positions until age 65 to make more money, damn the consequence to anyone else. And I am not just talking about the junior guys, but also guys like me who do want out when my time comes. If they were allowed to fly to 65 it would force irreversible changes upon my T&C’s, so I will resist them to the fullest extend possible. What I say to them is that; they are able to continue their careers, just not at my airline. And indeed some do by moving out to the Far East (etc), but most tend to call it a day, when they are faced with even the slightest obstacles (like transferring domicile and licenses).
What we are talking about here is that any change in the age 60 rule by the FAA will lead inevitably to changes at the legacy airlines to their retirement age. An age increase to age 65 will allow the sober pension schemes left at the legacy carriers a ten year reprieve (you would fly for five years longer, and you would draw your pension for five years less, because I would hope you would still pass away at the same age as before). This will bring their pension costs down considerably. So there are individual gains to be made for people in the sense that they have a longer career, but the big collective winners would be the airlines. And since they tend to pass their savings down to the passenger they would be the ultimate winners, I guess.
So Phoebe Buffet I hope you take the contracts you sign a little more seriously than your posts would indicate. Changing the 60 rule law is not an automatic change to your contract; all that happens is that the new law becomes the upper limit that your union and airline could use. Your contract does not become null and void each year, and certainly it won’t when and if the rule 60 changes. By the way Phoebe Buffet; what allows me to retire at age 56 is that my pension scheme is based on this age, if that were to change to another age I too would have to work to that age in order to make sure I am financially secure.
Any change in the 60 rule would have a ripple effect felt far and beyond the simple age change.
Gr. O.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" posted 16th September 2005 16:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People with very few principles are hiding behind high-minded ones to try and shove this change down the throats of the large majority who do not want it. Let’s make one thing perfectly clear it is about the money, it always is!"
Oh no it isn't Otterman, all we want back is what we originally signed up for and then had taken away. All too easy to jump in and say we are trying to change the rules to our advantage, we are not, we just want back what is rightfully ours and maybe you and the 'Majority' are just a little too young to appreciate that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People with very few principles are hiding behind high-minded ones to try and shove this change down the throats of the large majority who do not want it. Let’s make one thing perfectly clear it is about the money, it always is!"
Oh no it isn't Otterman, all we want back is what we originally signed up for and then had taken away. All too easy to jump in and say we are trying to change the rules to our advantage, we are not, we just want back what is rightfully ours and maybe you and the 'Majority' are just a little too young to appreciate that?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Both sides of 40W
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Otterman: So, we are now lead to believe that when your union (VNV), negotiated back in the 50's a reversal of the retirment age from 60 to 56yrs that was ok? Now it seems that bringing it up to 60-65yrs is not acceptable. Yes, it certainly is about the money, and it's up to the unions to decide ones fate? Even though it goes against the law of a country in reference to discriminating when it comes to age?
In my world, its a question of choice, opportunity and necessity. When I first started, my licence provided the prorogative of flying till I was 60yrs old. It, now allows me to fly till 65. And that's not law, it's just a rule and a regulation. It probably will become law in the near future and their again, I would say negotioate the 'possibility' of leaving at 56,60 or 65yrs. Not, 'you have to leave' at some arbitrary age? No, offence, just an opinion...cheeers and I wish you a very happy retirement!
In my world, its a question of choice, opportunity and necessity. When I first started, my licence provided the prorogative of flying till I was 60yrs old. It, now allows me to fly till 65. And that's not law, it's just a rule and a regulation. It probably will become law in the near future and their again, I would say negotioate the 'possibility' of leaving at 56,60 or 65yrs. Not, 'you have to leave' at some arbitrary age? No, offence, just an opinion...cheeers and I wish you a very happy retirement!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Blueeagle, folks in your situation are in a very tiny minority, and you had the advantages that the 60 rule gave you early on in your career. You are trying to take advantage of both situations. What is rightfully yours right now is to retire at age 60. And it is always about the money!
Now I know my posts are long, and apparently people are not taking the time to read all that I write. I don’t have a problem with increasing the age to which we are allowed to fly. Like I have mentioned the situation has already changed in my country. What I don’t agree with is the changing of our contracts to immediately reflect this rule change. I want people to be honorable enough to clear out when the date that they signed up for comes around at my airline and others; your pension is based on this principle. Nothing stopping anyone here in Europe from continuing their career somewhere else, except a pay cut and inconvenience in having to learn new procedures. But these people are apparently so sharp that this should pose no problem. But this is not what they want. They want it all.
MPH, Martinair I presume. Was seconded to your airline for about seven months back in 1994, good people, and I really enjoyed myself. But as long as the VNV has any input into this situation you will see the age of 60 being reinforced at your airline. Only last year the Dutch courts once again upheld this principle, and acknowledged the hardships an age increase would have on the junior members of our respective companies. And in the most recent contract negotiations the pension age of 56 at KLM was upheld, even though the present government went a long way in making an “early” retirement as unattractive as possible. The age that you have to leave at is not arbitrary it is a contractual obligation between you and the company. You have known about this day for as long as you have been flying. So it can’t come as a great surprise, and for us here in Holland it can’t pose a particular hardship, since our pensions are well funded and assured. But good luck in your endeavors, just don’t count on the VNV helping you out in this situation. I think it is fair to my colleagues for me to bow out at the age that I knew was coming for a long time. But solidarity is no longer something that our western society appreciates, it is a dog eat dog world out there I guess.
Gr. O.
Now I know my posts are long, and apparently people are not taking the time to read all that I write. I don’t have a problem with increasing the age to which we are allowed to fly. Like I have mentioned the situation has already changed in my country. What I don’t agree with is the changing of our contracts to immediately reflect this rule change. I want people to be honorable enough to clear out when the date that they signed up for comes around at my airline and others; your pension is based on this principle. Nothing stopping anyone here in Europe from continuing their career somewhere else, except a pay cut and inconvenience in having to learn new procedures. But these people are apparently so sharp that this should pose no problem. But this is not what they want. They want it all.
MPH, Martinair I presume. Was seconded to your airline for about seven months back in 1994, good people, and I really enjoyed myself. But as long as the VNV has any input into this situation you will see the age of 60 being reinforced at your airline. Only last year the Dutch courts once again upheld this principle, and acknowledged the hardships an age increase would have on the junior members of our respective companies. And in the most recent contract negotiations the pension age of 56 at KLM was upheld, even though the present government went a long way in making an “early” retirement as unattractive as possible. The age that you have to leave at is not arbitrary it is a contractual obligation between you and the company. You have known about this day for as long as you have been flying. So it can’t come as a great surprise, and for us here in Holland it can’t pose a particular hardship, since our pensions are well funded and assured. But good luck in your endeavors, just don’t count on the VNV helping you out in this situation. I think it is fair to my colleagues for me to bow out at the age that I knew was coming for a long time. But solidarity is no longer something that our western society appreciates, it is a dog eat dog world out there I guess.
Gr. O.
Last edited by Otterman; 17th Sep 2005 at 08:14.
Well, I'm 64½ and still going strong, thank God. If it were possible to fly until 70 and the reward for doing so was to keep the Mini Monsoon from somewhere near Hounslow firmly in the right seat for another 5 years, then I would do it willingly!
Otterman,
I have no problem with reasoned discussion.
Having had my contract broken by my employer to cut my salary by 28% I do feel that I need to work longer to achieve my retirement sum.
Your words
"what allows me to retire at age 56 is that my pension scheme is based on this age, if that were to change to another age I too would have to work to that age in order to make sure I am financially secure. "
seem to agree with me.
I have no problem with reasoned discussion.
Having had my contract broken by my employer to cut my salary by 28% I do feel that I need to work longer to achieve my retirement sum.
Your words
"what allows me to retire at age 56 is that my pension scheme is based on this age, if that were to change to another age I too would have to work to that age in order to make sure I am financially secure. "
seem to agree with me.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am against the very idea of this arbitrary FAA age limit for flying. Always have been, actually. Of course, I never was an airline pilot. I just happen to be a pilot who now flies an airliner. That is the skill I want to market, you see.
I am due to 'retire' in just a few months at age 58, when I shall probably be offered an extension under roughly the same terms to work until 60. That is simply because it is difficult to find experienced people willing to work in my part of Africa.
I quite agree about sticking to the terms of a contract, as far as that goes. My quarrel is with a certain piece of legislation, the Age 60 Rule, that I hold to be discriminatory.
Anyone who wants to call me a whinger or a hypocrite, well, you must have a wonderful degree of perception to be able to read my innermost thoughts and feelings just from a few postings! And no, it's not that I drank all my dough away or went through three wives or anything you might like to find morally reprehensible, either. Wife Number One (and counting) is a German dentist, so that, in strict financial terms, you can KMRIA. I could go home and enjoy a comfortable life, except that I don't really enjoy a comfortable life. I actually like flying in Africa.
The mischief comes when one tries to find other work. This age limit just kills one's marketability, even though I am not in the target group, US airline pilots. Jeez! All I want to do is go fly in the bush somewhere. You can keep your precious airline jobs, since they are obviously not for the likes of me, squabbling over seniority and cheese boards and what-not; I just get ticked off over the idea of being grounded when I can still work.
I prefer to stick to the strongest argument against the Age 60 Rule, that it is discriminatory. Once discrimination was okay, and now it's not. So let's let this rule go the way of 'Whites Only' and various other ideas that have gone out of fashion. There is no young guy waiting to move into my seat, believe me!
I am due to 'retire' in just a few months at age 58, when I shall probably be offered an extension under roughly the same terms to work until 60. That is simply because it is difficult to find experienced people willing to work in my part of Africa.
I quite agree about sticking to the terms of a contract, as far as that goes. My quarrel is with a certain piece of legislation, the Age 60 Rule, that I hold to be discriminatory.
Anyone who wants to call me a whinger or a hypocrite, well, you must have a wonderful degree of perception to be able to read my innermost thoughts and feelings just from a few postings! And no, it's not that I drank all my dough away or went through three wives or anything you might like to find morally reprehensible, either. Wife Number One (and counting) is a German dentist, so that, in strict financial terms, you can KMRIA. I could go home and enjoy a comfortable life, except that I don't really enjoy a comfortable life. I actually like flying in Africa.
The mischief comes when one tries to find other work. This age limit just kills one's marketability, even though I am not in the target group, US airline pilots. Jeez! All I want to do is go fly in the bush somewhere. You can keep your precious airline jobs, since they are obviously not for the likes of me, squabbling over seniority and cheese boards and what-not; I just get ticked off over the idea of being grounded when I can still work.
I prefer to stick to the strongest argument against the Age 60 Rule, that it is discriminatory. Once discrimination was okay, and now it's not. So let's let this rule go the way of 'Whites Only' and various other ideas that have gone out of fashion. There is no young guy waiting to move into my seat, believe me!