Age 60 and the B-Fund
10-02-2006, 07:15 PM
#91
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 3B
Posts: 1,052
Again, I'll ask the question since so many of you have been furloughed. How would you feel if your furlough got extended 5 years just as the industry was on the cusp of recovery so the older guys could hold on to their seat (either one, its not just Captains hitting 60) another 5 years?
Try to think back at that time and imagine the rage you would have felt then.
Then try to explain again why changing the rule to favor you now over current furloughees is "right".
To me, doing the right thing is not making an under 60 year old stay in the right seat so an over 60 guy can fly in the left seat that he got because everybody ahead of him had to retire at 60.
So the over 60 guy can't fly without you (under 60 guy) and you can't upgrade as long as he sticks around for another 5 years. Yeah, that makes sense. Talk about a Catch 22.
Plus don't worry about all the guys on furlough now. Ok, I got it now.
Try to think back at that time and imagine the rage you would have felt then.
Then try to explain again why changing the rule to favor you now over current furloughees is "right".
To me, doing the right thing is not making an under 60 year old stay in the right seat so an over 60 guy can fly in the left seat that he got because everybody ahead of him had to retire at 60.
So the over 60 guy can't fly without you (under 60 guy) and you can't upgrade as long as he sticks around for another 5 years. Yeah, that makes sense. Talk about a Catch 22.
Plus don't worry about all the guys on furlough now. Ok, I got it now.
10-02-2006, 07:32 PM
#92
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 42
"Sorry, Scabbie Dawg! You say it all! Thanks for the proof! Still waiting for your PM. I'll check again tomorrow."
Keep checking Jackass. I'll give you my PM face to face George the III and my guess is you won't be wearing one of your emoticons when we are through. Thanks for the apology though. At least you got that out of the way. And thanks for continuing to build the case for Mandatory Age 60 retirement. I may submit your writings to Congress as proof that it is still an excellent idea! See you when I see you MGP the III and we'll see how free you are with your name calling then.
Keep checking Jackass. I'll give you my PM face to face George the III and my guess is you won't be wearing one of your emoticons when we are through. Thanks for the apology though. At least you got that out of the way. And thanks for continuing to build the case for Mandatory Age 60 retirement. I may submit your writings to Congress as proof that it is still an excellent idea! See you when I see you MGP the III and we'll see how free you are with your name calling then.
10-02-2006, 07:35 PM
#93
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: 767 Cap
Posts: 1,306
No Captain, you just move on with your life like everybody else. I'm probably older than you are for crying out loud. Just because you have been through a furlough doesn't make you the burning bush of aviation. Congrats on finding another job. You've done it at least once, do it again at 60. If I want to continue flying past 60 I will.
Thanks also for your condescending response, Mr Old and Wise Captain.
Thanks also for your condescending response, Mr Old and Wise Captain.
If you're older than me, you probably won't retire at 50% of FAE. I know I won't. Are you satisfied with that? I'm not advocating forcing you to fly till 65, just the opportunity to do so. If I have to do it in an SO seat (assuming there are any left,) so be it, but a left seat (or a right seat for some guys who have only been here a little while when they hit 60) would be so much better.
It's not like the FAA has a contract with us. When you got your first certificate, they didn't give you a quarantee that all the old guys would retire and leave room for newbies. That was just the rule at the time. The Feds have no problem changing rules to both our benefit and detriment. Since the rest of the aviation world has changed, why can't we?
As for condescending, the attitude that you are owed a certain progression at this company is a little condescending. I'm not a burning bush, but there are a lot of guys, who through no fault of their own, find themselves in their fifties with no military retirement, little or no pension from previous airlines, and a desire to keep flying for FDX as long as they can. We know we're not owed anything, but perhaps we don't want to roll over and play dead, without a wimper.
10-02-2006, 07:36 PM
#94
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Again, I'll ask the question since so many of you have been furloughed. How would you feel if your furlough got extended 5 years just as the industry was on the cusp of recovery so the older guys could hold on to their seat (either one, its not just Captains hitting 60) another 5 years?
Try to think back at that time and imagine the rage you would have felt .
Then try to explain again why changing the rule to favor you now over current furloughees is "right".
To me, doing the right thing is not making an under 60 year old stay in the right seat so an over 60 guy can fly in the left seat that he got because everybody ahead of him had to retire at 60.
So the over 60 guy can't fly without you (under 60 guy) and you can't upgrade as long as he sticks around for another 5 years. Yeah, that makes sense. Talk about a Catch 22.
Plus don't worry about all the guys on furlough now. Ok, I got it now.
Try to think back at that time and imagine the rage you would have felt .
Then try to explain again why changing the rule to favor you now over current furloughees is "right".
To me, doing the right thing is not making an under 60 year old stay in the right seat so an over 60 guy can fly in the left seat that he got because everybody ahead of him had to retire at 60.
So the over 60 guy can't fly without you (under 60 guy) and you can't upgrade as long as he sticks around for another 5 years. Yeah, that makes sense. Talk about a Catch 22.
Plus don't worry about all the guys on furlough now. Ok, I got it now.
If you are passonate about this decision and feel you must do some thing ....write your congressman or Senators.
The bickering here won't do anything.
10-02-2006, 07:39 PM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: 767 Cap
Posts: 1,306
I'll say it again............this is bickering back and forth and personal name calling ain't gonna change minds or make any difference in Washington.
If you are passonate about this decision and feel you must do some thing ....write your congressman or Senators.
The bickering here won't do anything.
If you are passonate about this decision and feel you must do some thing ....write your congressman or Senators.
The bickering here won't do anything.
10-02-2006, 07:46 PM
#97
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: Retired
Posts: 980
"Sorry, Scabbie Dawg! You say it all! Thanks for the proof! Still waiting for your PM. I'll check again tomorrow."
Keep checking Jackass. I'll give you my PM face to face George the III and my guess is you won't be wearing one of your emoticons when we are through. Thanks for the apology though. At least you got that out of the way. And thanks for continuing to build the case for Mandatory Age 60 retirement. I may submit your writings to Congress as proof that it is still an excellent idea! See you when I see you MGP the III and we'll see how free you are with your name calling then.
Keep checking Jackass. I'll give you my PM face to face George the III and my guess is you won't be wearing one of your emoticons when we are through. Thanks for the apology though. At least you got that out of the way. And thanks for continuing to build the case for Mandatory Age 60 retirement. I may submit your writings to Congress as proof that it is still an excellent idea! See you when I see you MGP the III and we'll see how free you are with your name calling then.
I'll check my PMs tomorrow.
10-02-2006, 07:46 PM
#98
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
10-02-2006, 08:05 PM
#99
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 3B
Posts: 1,052
Actually, if you don't like the game, you have two choices: Quit or change the rules. I prefer to hang in and support a change to the rules. Once upon a time, being hired by more than one major carrier in a career was unheard of. Now, it's quite common. New rules for a new era.
If you're older than me, you probably won't retire at 50% of FAE. I know I won't. Are you satisfied with that? I'm not advocating forcing you to fly till 65, just the opportunity to do so. If I have to do it in an SO seat (assuming there are any left,) so be it, but a left seat (or a right seat for some guys who have only been here a little while when they hit 60) would be so much better.
It's not like the FAA has a contract with us. When you got your first certificate, they didn't give you a quarantee that all the old guys would retire and leave room for newbies. That was just the rule at the time. The Feds have no problem changing rules to both our benefit and detriment. Since the rest of the aviation world has changed, why can't we?
As for condescending, the attitude that you are owed a certain progression at this company is a little condescending. I'm not a burning bush, but there are a lot of guys, who through no fault of their own, find themselves in their fifties with no military retirement, little or no pension from previous airlines, and a desire to keep flying for FDX as long as they can. We know we're not owed anything, but perhaps we don't want to roll over and play dead, without a wimper.
If you're older than me, you probably won't retire at 50% of FAE. I know I won't. Are you satisfied with that? I'm not advocating forcing you to fly till 65, just the opportunity to do so. If I have to do it in an SO seat (assuming there are any left,) so be it, but a left seat (or a right seat for some guys who have only been here a little while when they hit 60) would be so much better.
It's not like the FAA has a contract with us. When you got your first certificate, they didn't give you a quarantee that all the old guys would retire and leave room for newbies. That was just the rule at the time. The Feds have no problem changing rules to both our benefit and detriment. Since the rest of the aviation world has changed, why can't we?
As for condescending, the attitude that you are owed a certain progression at this company is a little condescending. I'm not a burning bush, but there are a lot of guys, who through no fault of their own, find themselves in their fifties with no military retirement, little or no pension from previous airlines, and a desire to keep flying for FDX as long as they can. We know we're not owed anything, but perhaps we don't want to roll over and play dead, without a wimper.
Ok Captain, that is a post I can respect. I don't agree and I will tell you why, but thanks for keeping the discussion on the up and up.
I don't feel that I am owed anything. I won't retire with a 50% A fund, unless I can fly to 67, which I would have to under the current SS rules. I accept that I will only get about a 36% of my high 5. Fair enough. I am more worried about those who are currently on furlough than I am about me or you. That is just the fairness issue to me.
I also disagree with the logic behind the rule change as ICAO has adopted it. So far nobody has been able to rationally explain the requirement for one of the pilots in the cockpit to be under 60. Why adopt a rule that doesn't make sense just because other countries are doing so?
Personally, I have no problem with a mandatory retirement age. I don't think that the AMEs will want to have to be the ones to tell pilots they can no longer hack it medically. They won't want to take on that responsibility and liability, nor do I think they should. A mandatory age saves everybody from that and if a few over 60 guys who can still bring it have to cut their careers short so be it. Better that than to have one guy who can't in command of an airliner with my family onboard.
So although I am sypathetic to guys who haven't saved enough or won't make a 50% A fund, I don't think their circumstances outweigh the safety or fairness issues. Plenty of folks in this country work their whole lives without a defined benefit pension and manage to make ends meet without falling into poverty.
These are just my opinions, certainly not the last word on the debate.
Thanks again Capt, for the civil discourse.
