767pilot

Perhaps they will when people in favor of keeping the rule acknowledge the damage that age 60 does to the careers of the other half. In other words, it is all parochial no matter which side of the coin one finds himself.

To those who say that you can quit at 60 if it changes and you don't like it, I would suggest that the rule change takes away 3-5 extra years (not all will go to 65 for one reason or another) of quality of life from that guy. There needs to be some empathy for that too.

Group hug <G>

Daniel Larusso

QOL and that's 'all' huh? That's never been a big deal in this industry anyway. Parochial? Beautiful word triple word score, have you been watching 'Who's Harry Crumb?' lately? Seriously though, would these be the same people that no matter what airline find a way to negotiate/ratify higher pension rates benefits for themselves each contract cycle? I wonder how long that will hold up and who will get to hold the bag 5 years longer in the end? The rule has been the rule as long as everyone around here has been around, why exactly is one sides sob story suddenly more important than the others. Why do I not find it funny that the people pushing this cr@p the hardest are at carriers that are doing the best? No matter how Prater rock tries to spin it, the boys of UA, DAL, and the others who lost their A plans aren't the primary impetus on this deal from the pilot side.

767pilot

Interesting point. I guess it has to do with the fact that it is much more desireable tohold on to a job with a decent schedule and pulling in 250k than it is to hold onto one that is a lot harder than it used to be and only pays half as much as it used to. You are right though and I don't recall hearing Prater spin it one way or another, it is the "haves" that seem more interested in this than the "have nots"

Daniel Larusso

Hey, you're no fun!! Stuff like this is supposed to turn into big nasty arguments!! (j.k). You saw it for what it was, just a talking point I certainly don't have the answers. What I have realized the longer I do this is, that we pilots have a history of making bad financial decisions outside of the cockpit with the best of intentions and remarkably little ability to learn from those mistakes in the same way we learn from others. And dammit if we aren't confident in those errors-a very frustrating thing imo considering that we are in a necessarily unionized industry. Collectively we have power and intelligence but our intrinsic personalities haven't allowed us to effectively leverage it outside of flying the bird. I think I got a few triple word scores of my own in there-who says public college isn't effective?

ABK MAN

what if one could retire at 60 without taking an early retirement penality, and if one wanted to fly beyond 60, was physically and mentally capabale, then that one could choose to fly to 65? Or retire anywhere in betweern 60-65, once again without penality. just throwin it out there . . .

naive

MaydayMark

Oh, OK ... now that you said that I've totally changed my mind. You're kidding, aren't you?



Mark

MaydayMark

ABK man .. that sounds great but it shows a lack of understanding about how our seniority system works. EVERYTHING is seniority based. Monthly schedules, vacations, seat positions (pay!), training dates and more. So for every guy that decides to stick around past 60, my life gets just a little bit worse and I make just a little bit less money. If a bunch of them decide to stay ... well let's just hope that won't happen.

Here's the part I just don't understand. Let's take a guy that has completed his 25 years at the company. He gets 50% of his pay to retire. If he sticks around to be a flight engineer (that's all the FAA permits them to do today, and that isn't expected to change for at least 2 years) then he makes 61% of his MD-11 Capt pay to be a DC-10 flight engineer (but the DC-10's will be gone soon and 727 engineers only get paid 53% of widebody capt pay). So best case, he's working a full time job (with some REALLY TERRIBLE HOURS) for 11% of his pay (remember that he gets 50% to sit at home). I JUST DON'T GET IT.

I'm certain that some on the discussion will point out that some don't have their 25 years here fir various reasons. Still ... if you crunch the numbers, working past age 60 just doesn't make any sense (not even as a widebody capt! if the could even do that). I bet the company LOVES those guys, it saves them a ton of money.

I'll assume that those guys have no hobbies ... I can find 100 things I would rather do than this job full time for 11% of my pay.

Rant over ...



Mark

ABK MAN

Say that the 65 rule is in full effect, pilots maintaining their seats all the way to 65, not taking a back seat at 60. If one wanted to still retire at 60, would he now take an early retirement hit because he didn't stick out to the new limit?

Jetjok

OK Mark, I'll bite.

You said "So for every guy that decides to stick around past 60, my life gets just a little bit worse and I make just a little bit less money." Really - So is it your understanding that when the "Age 60" rule is changed to the "Age 65" rule, your life will get worse and you'll make less money? Or do you mean that by having guys who are senior to you stay longer, that you will not be able to fly the trips that they hold (and you don't), and that all the trips that they hold pay more than the trips that you can/would be able to hold?

As for you second paragraph in your post, the most telling statement is your last sentence, which says "I JUST DON'T GET IT." That's very true. You really just don't get it. I've tried to explain part of it to you in the past, but as usual, you still just don't get it. You see, sometimes it's not about the money. Sometimes it's about enjoying ones job, ones way of life, ones ability to travel the world, etc, etc. And I'm sorry to say, it's not for you to criticize another persons aspirations, or what they plan for themselves. That's for their parents and spouses. Don't you know people who still continue to work well into their golden years? Ever asked them why? Many of the older generation have a very different work ethic than you do. Many of them can never see themselves retiring.

Your statement about guys staying on after a 25 year career and only making a little more than they would if they had retired, is correct, but, again, it's not for you to dictate to them what to do with their lives. I agree with your statement "that the company probably loves these guys", but not for the same reason. I believe the company loves these guys because for virtually the same cost of a new hire flight engineer (who knows very little, if anything about the company, the flying we do, CRM, etc, etc), they get someone who knows the system, knows the flight operations manual, knows how to be a crew member, knows the aircraft, has years of experience, etc, etc. Again, all for about the same price as a new guy. Such a deal.

And Daniel, your comment, "Seriously though, would these be the same people that no matter what airline find a way to negotiate/ratify higher pension rates benefits for themselves each contract cycle?" is interesting, because you seem to forget the fact, that by negotiating higher pension rates and benefits for themselves, they also increased your benefits. Besides, if you didn't like your negotiated contract, you could have vetoed it in the voting process. But apparently the majority felt, for whatever reason, that the contract was worthy of passage.

Finally, whereas I understand and acknowledge that changing the Age 60 rule to Age 65 will have a negative effect on guys' upgrade times, vacations, and indeed all aspects of the seniority system, I would also hope that the guys who oppose this change (like you, Mark) will actually come out and say "it's all about the money" and about "me, me, me". Because that's what it's really about, and not things such as "safety of flight", or "what about the furloughed guys" or "what about guys trying to get hired", or, or, or.

Huck

It's all about the money, me me me.

(Well, me taking care of my kids, actually....)