New Hire Captains within 5 years
08-20-2019, 10:21 PM
#122
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,939
08-20-2019, 10:30 PM
#123
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
I'am not an expert on it, but a friend of mine is an actuary. He tells me it's all about risk and probabilities. He says costs have to go up. very similar to insuring a new driver at age 16.
08-21-2019, 06:32 AM
#124
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: Airbus 320 Right Seat
Posts: 1,442
Over my years I have heard from a couple dozen guys claiming they are giving it up at 62/63 some 60 .... I wana know if any of these guys actually quit early ... I call BS ...
Much that have claimed that to me haven’t retired yet or hit that age where they claimed to do so .
Anyone else here this magical talk
Much that have claimed that to me haven’t retired yet or hit that age where they claimed to do so .
Anyone else here this magical talk
08-21-2019, 06:44 AM
#125
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,358
Some guys can’t wait to get out of here, some would fly until they drop dead, but most have a hard time walking away from a very lucrative part time job with benefits. Most of the over 60 guys that I fly with are flying full lines and not wanting to drop trips and give up pay. I would be interested in the actual number in the industry who leave early by choice. I bet it’s low.
08-21-2019, 07:01 AM
#126
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Captain
Posts: 1,561
I think it would cut the legs out from under aspiring pilots looking to move into the profession and move up the ladder.
2 years is a big deal. Our profession is just now starting to come back. I would have to see it stagnate for 2 full years just so guys can cash more pay checks. Really, no justification to allow it, and most certainly none to justify it.
LTD premiums would skyrocket. The young pilots would have to subsidize the older ones.
Does any of the ALPA carriers have any standing MEC or LC resolutions prohibiting ALPA from allowing or considering it? I would love to know where the full ALPA membership stands on this.
2 years is a big deal. Our profession is just now starting to come back. I would have to see it stagnate for 2 full years just so guys can cash more pay checks. Really, no justification to allow it, and most certainly none to justify it.
LTD premiums would skyrocket. The young pilots would have to subsidize the older ones.
Does any of the ALPA carriers have any standing MEC or LC resolutions prohibiting ALPA from allowing or considering it? I would love to know where the full ALPA membership stands on this.
Go to your next LEC meeting and request it to be an agenda item
Vote on it
Pass it and put it through your LEC membership to take action via a vote.
But I am sure you will not do that
ALPA is the evil I guess for you
Check your paycheck next time and say thank you ALPA for once
BTW I am against age 67 as I was giants age 65
08-21-2019, 08:17 AM
#127
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,726
08-21-2019, 04:14 PM
#128
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
Been there and done that.
Like 4 times. starting back at 9-11 time frame.
What we need is a ground-swell of public (pilot opinion). Not just one LEC, but all of them.
Lots of junior guys at all local councils now. So, depending upon the statesmanship all the FO councils and all of the regional councils (CA and FO) would be opposed to any increase.
Just depends on how open and transparent it is.
It would be nice to submit a FOIA request for all correspondence between organized labor, labor coalitions, lobbyistdouble entendre
s, and federal government senators and congressman to see what really happened with age 65. All of those records are preserved. It would be in the best interest of the dues paying members in good standing to see how, why, where, and to what end their dues moneys were spent.
I recall the polling data back then. I also recall Prater saying "we need a seat at the table so when the rules are written we aren't on the outside looking in." ALPA clearly decided it wanted to participate in the rule change.
My biggest question is this: How many pilots do we lose each year after age 60 that don't make it to 65. I don't have current info on that.
I do know this. In a short period of time I will be over 60. I already have my insurance and supplemental insurance lined up. If the goal posts keep moving, we've gotta be prepared for new field dimensions.
I think the real collective goal should be this: "How can we insure that our member pilots can actively participate in and realize full financial benefit from a career that ends at 65 as opposed to any higher age?" I would like the career to monetarily provide full benefit by 65 so we aren't forced to chase the money.
Management (no matter what airline) doesn't want to hire more pilots. You can assume that management backs age 67, and beyond.
08-21-2019, 04:32 PM
#129
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,939
I got you beat there dude.
Been there and done that.
Like 4 times. starting back at 9-11 time frame.
What we need is a ground-swell of public (pilot opinion). Not just one LEC, but all of them.
Lots of junior guys at all local councils now. So, depending upon the statesmanship all the FO councils and all of the regional councils (CA and FO) would be opposed to any increase.
Just depends on how open and transparent it is.
It would be nice to submit a FOIA request for all correspondence between organized labor, labor coalitions, lobbyistdouble entendre
s, and federal government senators and congressman to see what really happened with age 65. All of those records are preserved. It would be in the best interest of the dues paying members in good standing to see how, why, where, and to what end their dues moneys were spent.
I recall the polling data back then. I also recall Prater saying "we need a seat at the table so when the rules are written we aren't on the outside looking in." ALPA clearly decided it wanted to participate in the rule change.
My biggest question is this: How many pilots do we lose each year after age 60 that don't make it to 65. I don't have current info on that.
I do know this. In a short period of time I will be over 60. I already have my insurance and supplemental insurance lined up. If the goal posts keep moving, we've gotta be prepared for new field dimensions.
I think the real collective goal should be this: "How can we insure that our member pilots can actively participate in and realize full financial benefit from a career that ends at 65 as opposed to any higher age?" I would like the career to monetarily provide full benefit by 65 so we aren't forced to chase the money.
Management (no matter what airline) doesn't want to hire more pilots. You can assume that management backs age 67, and beyond.
Been there and done that.
Like 4 times. starting back at 9-11 time frame.
What we need is a ground-swell of public (pilot opinion). Not just one LEC, but all of them.
Lots of junior guys at all local councils now. So, depending upon the statesmanship all the FO councils and all of the regional councils (CA and FO) would be opposed to any increase.
Just depends on how open and transparent it is.
It would be nice to submit a FOIA request for all correspondence between organized labor, labor coalitions, lobbyistdouble entendre
s, and federal government senators and congressman to see what really happened with age 65. All of those records are preserved. It would be in the best interest of the dues paying members in good standing to see how, why, where, and to what end their dues moneys were spent.
I recall the polling data back then. I also recall Prater saying "we need a seat at the table so when the rules are written we aren't on the outside looking in." ALPA clearly decided it wanted to participate in the rule change.
My biggest question is this: How many pilots do we lose each year after age 60 that don't make it to 65. I don't have current info on that.
I do know this. In a short period of time I will be over 60. I already have my insurance and supplemental insurance lined up. If the goal posts keep moving, we've gotta be prepared for new field dimensions.
I think the real collective goal should be this: "How can we insure that our member pilots can actively participate in and realize full financial benefit from a career that ends at 65 as opposed to any higher age?" I would like the career to monetarily provide full benefit by 65 so we aren't forced to chase the money.
Management (no matter what airline) doesn't want to hire more pilots. You can assume that management backs age 67, and beyond.
Social Security at 67 now. You can get partial bennies at 62 but full benefits for those born after 1960 will be 67. Just watch that number go to 70 down the road. For us young guys at/below 35, we won't have social security to look forward to.
08-21-2019, 04:41 PM
#130
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
My mother tells me after my father passed away that they not wanting to give her the survivors benefits for social security. She is a retired VA nurse.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
