Age 60 and the B-Fund
09-29-2006, 02:40 PM
#63
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 63
I bet you're a real dream to fly with.
09-29-2006, 03:11 PM
#64
done, gone skiing
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Rocking chair
Posts: 1,602
The Grim Reaper will not be denied
Having read numerous posts on this thread and others, re: age 60, for and againist; I'd like to add another observation regarding the reasons (some) pilots may oppose age 60 retirement, fear of retirement. 
Think about it, life is full of defining events, most happy, some not. Graduation, first "real" job, marriage, career job, birth of children, than as you get older; (for pilots) upgrades, capt, wide body, etc, etc, than usually followed by some unpleasant events, death of parents, children moving out (debatable, but threw it in anyway
), eligibility for AARP membership, and one of the last BIG milestones, RETIREMENT . For many people just the act of retiring is proof they are on the way out (if their kids haven't already told them!). Whether its 60, 65, or 75, its doesn't matter, retirement has a stigma akin to death.
Since few people are looking forward to death, continuing to work is one way of putting off (in one mind) the inevitable. While many people look forward to retiring, it is a big change in ones life, and its one more signpost to having your (final) ticket punched!
Think about it, life is full of defining events, most happy, some not. Graduation, first "real" job, marriage, career job, birth of children, than as you get older; (for pilots) upgrades, capt, wide body, etc, etc, than usually followed by some unpleasant events, death of parents, children moving out (debatable, but threw it in anyway
), eligibility for AARP membership, and one of the last BIG milestones, RETIREMENT . For many people just the act of retiring is proof they are on the way out (if their kids haven't already told them!). Whether its 60, 65, or 75, its doesn't matter, retirement has a stigma akin to death. Since few people are looking forward to death, continuing to work is one way of putting off (in one mind) the inevitable. While many people look forward to retiring, it is a big change in ones life, and its one more signpost to having your (final) ticket punched!
09-29-2006, 04:19 PM
#66
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 3B
Posts: 1,052
Would you be willing to admit keeping age 60 is about you and your entitlement to a certain seat, airplane and more money? Of course you won't because of "your high horse holier than thou" opinion of what is yours. It's not your seat until you are sitting in it, there were no guarantees when you showed up on day one.
In my opinion, if you care, to me it is right to keep the rules of the game the same for those who are out on furlough right now. I don't want to work past 60, and I am 46. I don't think it is right to hose the guys on furlough so the guys at the top of the ponzi scheme that is seniority can have a windfall. To me that is not RIGHT.
I feel that it is a safety issue, and if you happen to be one of the few over 60 who can still bring it, sorry but you just have to prove yourself somewhere else. I am willing to do that myself if for some reason I change my mind down the road. I want the rule to stay in place for the benefit of the guys on furlough, although yes it will help me upgrade on time as well.
If those in favor of a change were really concerned about what was right they would certainly be in favor of a staggered implementation and increase the age one year at a time, but I doubt they would go for that because it really is just all about them.
09-29-2006, 04:41 PM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 1,395
FXDX,
I am 45, and I am in favor of changing mandatory retirement to 65.
I also believe you should be able to retire at 60 if you would like, without penalty. That will have to be negotiated, should the Congress change the rules. You should also be able to retire if you lose your medical after 60, without penalty.
You want the guys ahead of you to get out of the way, I can understand that. But what about the guys that just lost their pensions? Pensions that they planned to live on in retirement? You are more than willing to say "screw them"? Would you feel that way if you were 59? I doubt it.
You worry about the guys on furlough. Well, if they want to fly that bad, I hear the overseas airlines are hiring. That is your solution for the over 60 guys, if it is good enough for them, it should be good enough for the furloughees. Shouldn't it?
Why should an American give up their job at 60, while foreign pilots over 60 are allowed to fly in our airspace under the same regulations? Why should a guy have to give up his job at 60, then go get another job that will allow him to fly in the same airspace, but for a different employer?
The issue is all about money. The over 60 guys want to keep making it, the young guys want them out of the way so they can make it. There is no safety issue here, or we would be talking about prohibiting the foreign airlines from letting their older folks in our airspace.
My social security age is now 67. Theoretically, I should be able to work until then, or that should not be my social security age.
Do I want to work until 65? No, but 63 would be ok. I just want the choice, and you don't want me to have it.
I am 45, and I am in favor of changing mandatory retirement to 65.
I also believe you should be able to retire at 60 if you would like, without penalty. That will have to be negotiated, should the Congress change the rules. You should also be able to retire if you lose your medical after 60, without penalty.
You want the guys ahead of you to get out of the way, I can understand that. But what about the guys that just lost their pensions? Pensions that they planned to live on in retirement? You are more than willing to say "screw them"? Would you feel that way if you were 59? I doubt it.
You worry about the guys on furlough. Well, if they want to fly that bad, I hear the overseas airlines are hiring. That is your solution for the over 60 guys, if it is good enough for them, it should be good enough for the furloughees. Shouldn't it?
Why should an American give up their job at 60, while foreign pilots over 60 are allowed to fly in our airspace under the same regulations? Why should a guy have to give up his job at 60, then go get another job that will allow him to fly in the same airspace, but for a different employer?
The issue is all about money. The over 60 guys want to keep making it, the young guys want them out of the way so they can make it. There is no safety issue here, or we would be talking about prohibiting the foreign airlines from letting their older folks in our airspace.
My social security age is now 67. Theoretically, I should be able to work until then, or that should not be my social security age.
Do I want to work until 65? No, but 63 would be ok. I just want the choice, and you don't want me to have it.
09-29-2006, 06:55 PM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
Fox,
You can say my pension is safe, and I'll never worry about a furlough at FedEx. I sincerely hope you are right. However--I got about 5000 data points that say banking on your retirement from an airline is a crapshoot.
So--that is one reason I continue to "drop trips" to fly in the ANG. If that pension goes away--its moot anyway...we are speaking Arabic or Mandarin or some other tongue. Well...maybe my kids or neighbors...I'll be dead first.
As for those who say I'm lucky I went from the USAF to FedEx....you are right. I've been blessed. But I did a lot of hard work and some homework along the way too.
You were at Seaboard. You have been here > 20 years. You should get a full retirement. Why are you wrapping up your argument in "what about the poor guy without a retirement from Pan Am..." Well...maybe we CAN go case by case, and those guys can stay and gain the retirement. What is YOUR motivation? I dont' think you are hanging around (if you can) for a battle against age discrimination--you are staying because your seniority allows you a great quality of life and a lot of money. I'm at least honest enough to say why I'm against age 60--its bad for me, its bad for junior guys in general, and it sucks for the furloughed. You want to stay in the trough--but you wrap it up in a bunch of noble BS. I ain't buying. Congress and the rest will decide--Redeye is right--but if it does I guarantee you I'll slug out 5 more years in the ANG so I can accumate some additional retirement benefits. I have no faith in the system that is currently in place still being there 20 years from now. Rather--I have a vision of having to stay on the treadmill until 65 just to hope to match what you could leave with now. So--I'll do what I can on my own to make sure I STILL have an option to retire at 60...even if its without the airline's help and support.
You can say my pension is safe, and I'll never worry about a furlough at FedEx. I sincerely hope you are right. However--I got about 5000 data points that say banking on your retirement from an airline is a crapshoot.
So--that is one reason I continue to "drop trips" to fly in the ANG. If that pension goes away--its moot anyway...we are speaking Arabic or Mandarin or some other tongue. Well...maybe my kids or neighbors...I'll be dead first.
As for those who say I'm lucky I went from the USAF to FedEx....you are right. I've been blessed. But I did a lot of hard work and some homework along the way too.
You were at Seaboard. You have been here > 20 years. You should get a full retirement. Why are you wrapping up your argument in "what about the poor guy without a retirement from Pan Am..." Well...maybe we CAN go case by case, and those guys can stay and gain the retirement. What is YOUR motivation? I dont' think you are hanging around (if you can) for a battle against age discrimination--you are staying because your seniority allows you a great quality of life and a lot of money. I'm at least honest enough to say why I'm against age 60--its bad for me, its bad for junior guys in general, and it sucks for the furloughed. You want to stay in the trough--but you wrap it up in a bunch of noble BS. I ain't buying. Congress and the rest will decide--Redeye is right--but if it does I guarantee you I'll slug out 5 more years in the ANG so I can accumate some additional retirement benefits. I have no faith in the system that is currently in place still being there 20 years from now. Rather--I have a vision of having to stay on the treadmill until 65 just to hope to match what you could leave with now. So--I'll do what I can on my own to make sure I STILL have an option to retire at 60...even if its without the airline's help and support.
