CL65driver

Jesus, CargoBob, let up on the politics for a bit! Surreal is a nice guy, who cares if his politics differ from ours- he IS entitled to his own opinion, isn't he?

CargoBob

I will overlook your lack of attention to detail...Surreal and I have a historical beef from previous posts. Surreal is a socialist and I am a Capitalist...The evils of Capitalism (there are many) far outweigh the evils of socialism--check out France!

I fly for FedEX--have not taken a pay cut...I sympathize with my airline pilot bretheren. My little bro being one! The answer is not socialism; which is what surreal believes in whether he realizes it or not. Read all his posts in their entirity.

I believe the controllers work pretty damn hard but they have not taken a hit financially as far as I know????????????Maybe I'm wrong?

surreal1221

They will be taking a 30% financial cut as soon as the beauracracy of the FAA can figure out how to implement their new found prize of reducing labor cost. One in 4 controllers who are eligible for retirement, will be retiring as the FAA will be reorganizing how they rate facilities, in turn reducing pay rates for large facilities that are now going to get reorganized to be listed as a smaller facility (ATC-12 to an ATC-9 facility. . . ).

So yes, you are wrong, controllers are and will be taking a hit financially. I've already provided you enough links. If you spend enough time there, you'll eventually find the proposed pay rates from NATCA and the FAA.

What many ignore is that the vote on HR 4559 was not a vote to save pay, it was simply a vote to get the FAA to return to the negotiations table which they refused to do. They refused to return to the table, imposed their "contract," and the union is not getting treated fairly. Eventually getting a bill to the house floor was a big deal, and then to have it voted along by party lines just shows the American people that congress is being handled like the classic good ol' boy club. Do not be mistaken, the FAA is not in the business of improving safety, they are in the business of generating a profit. It's a sick manegement style that is running wild through a number of government agencies, dare I even say FEMA or DHS?

You'd be surprised how many liberals are in the military. We are out numbered, but there are a good deal of us. The military isn't full of southern conservative good old boys like you would think. There are many different types of people that join the military, from different walks of life, and we all still manage to get the mission done. Some of us don't feel happy doing the mission, but it's our job and we will continue to do it to the best of our ability, with the tools provided, until we clock out to move onto bigger and better things. A number of people stay in the military because they enjoy the lifestyle. Some stay in because they were young, dumb, and became dependent on the military to provide everything for them. My wife makes a good living, and after my four years for military service I feel I've done enough, and I'll leave the military for someone else to come in and fullfil the mission, as I move on to bigger and better things flying for a living.

Andy

Attaching a legislative amendment to a funding bill is not allowed in the Senate. It looks like some Senator is trying some political hay while knowing full well it'll be removed.
The age change is dying a slow death in House subcommittee. ... been there since early 2005.

ryane946

In my opinion, there are two sides to this issue.

1. Those who are currently approaching age 60 and would like to continue earning money
2. THE REST OF US.

Everyone complains about how airline jobs are getting worse and worse everyday. A big reason for that is there are a lot of pilots who are willing to do the job for small wages in hopes of making the big time. But the fact is if this passes, there will be more pilots in the workforce, and pilot QOL will decrease for EVERYONE under age 60.

There are more pilots. Regional mins go up. That means we spend more time as a low wage CFI. Yippie. Now we get hired at that regional, but since there are more pilots at the majors, regional progression is much slower. Add more years as a regional FO, and more years stuck as a regional captain. You finally upgrade to a major airline. You spend more years as a FO because fewer 60 year old captains are retiring. PAYCUT, PAYCUT, PAYCUT, BIG PAYCUT... Even once you upgrade to major airline captain, progression is slower. PAYCUT. I don't think pilots deserve any more paycuts.

Personally, I have no desire to be working at age 60. Why would you? When I'm 60, I want to be enjoying my life, hanging out with my wife and grandkids.
No desire to still be working at age 60. But if this law passes, I might have to (after all those paycuts (and I'm talking hundreds of thousands of dollars in paycuts for EVERYONE if the bill passes)).
I hope it doesn't pass.

rickair7777

I'm pretty sure this will happen in the next decade (most of Europe already has it). But it should be phased in slowly to avoid "shock cooling" the pilot profession, ie adding one month to the retirement age every year until the final age is reached (63 or 65 or whatever).

I am resigned to it, but am concerned because not everyone will medically qualify until age 65, so if industry compensation standards adjust to an assumed age 65 retirement, a lot of guys are going to get cut off at the knees. We need to scream to ensure that the legislation, when it comes, allows for voluntary retirement at age 60 with equal benefits.

Packer Backer

It's funny that you never really heard about this "problem" till the paycuts started comming. It's all about the greed of those approaching 60. Now that the ATC guys are getting cuts, do you think there will be public complaints from them about their retirement age?

PaperPilot

I have a close relative who was recently forced to retire due to age, and I think the world is better for it . . . even though he was a “great” pilot and had a “perfect” career.

Why do I think it’s a good thing? Because he has no attention span in real life, he has to drink like a fish so he can sleep and when he’s not flying his mind is always 1,000 miles ahead of (or behind) his body.

His complaint is not the lost income (he says he’ll do about the same), but that less experienced pilots will lower the level of “safety.” First of all, if it’s not written in a manual, or given to him in training, he’s as blind as an OLD bat! But mostly, the truth is he just hates loosing the power he feels when he puts on a uniform, flirts with the stewardesses, “steps on the gas” and has 200 million dollars worth of machine and passengers under his control.

It’s about TIME he slowed down, mowed his own lawn and talked to his mother!

surreal1221

No, controllers know it's not a good idea to put a 60 year old in front of a scope. 56 works just fine.

preludespeeder

Cargo Bob, I am real curious as to what you feel I have overlooked but this thread is about the age 60 rule.

I think what the bill should do is slowly raise the retirement age to a reasonable age maybe 63 or something but what it should also change is the problems that people have when they retire at age 60. If you are being forced to retire before the standerd age then the retirement rules should change for that group to the age they are being forced to retire.

For example an airline pilot who is forced to retire at age 60 should be able to collect minium wage or better known as social security at age 60, and the tax breaks that retired people get should take effect at the earlier age. What is the problem with this kind of change, take away the penalty for being forced out of your job early.