Age 60 Rule is now Age 65 Rule

On Dec 14, 11:35 am, "F. Baum" wrote:

The "Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act" is now a law. Long
overdue IMHO - interestingly enough ALPA changed their stance on the
issue and only the APA still supported the Age 60 rule.

"Interestingly Enough"? I am not sure if you are trying to be
sarcastic here, but this is definitely a mixed bag for most of us. Id
hate to be a young kid starting out in the bussiness right now,
although I am sure the LCC crowd is lovin it.
FB

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. The ALPA has long objected to
overturning the Age 60 rule, and in the last year has reversed their
position, which I found interesting. Do you fly for an airline? Why
would this change affect legacy carriers more than LCCs?

On Dec 14, 2:13 pm, Kingfish wrote:

The "Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act" is now a law. Long
overdue IMHO -
I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. The ALPA has long objected to
overturning the Age 60 rule, and in the last year has reversed their
position, which I found interesting. Do you fly for an airline? Why
would this change affect legacy carriers more than LCCs?

The reason I ask about your sincerity is that you seem to have strong
opinions about this matter and yet your comments sugest that you dont
understand the situation. Many, if not most ALPA members have been
covered by DB plans, so the motivation to work longer was never there.
The situation has changed dramatically in recent years so the age 60
rule became one of simple economics for most ALPA members . ALPA
conducted a poll last year to see what the members wanted, and the
rest is history. Most the LCCs have never offered a retirement
package so those pilots will gain the most from the new law. An
example of this is Southwest, who has lobbied for changes to the age
60 rule for years. It is beyond me why they didnt just offer their
pilots a simple DC plan . In other countries the regulating agencies
made the medical requirements more stringent when they raised the
retirement age and I have heard from ALPA and the FAA that this has
caused more pilots to medical out than pilots who have been able to
stay on past 60. Its gonna be interesting.
FB

On Dec 14, 5:07 pm, "F. Baum" wrote:
On Dec 14, 2:13 pm, Kingfish wrote:

The "Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act" is now a law. Long
overdue IMHO -
I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. The ALPA has long objected to
overturning the Age 60 rule, and in the last year has reversed their
position, which I found interesting. Do you fly for an airline? Why
would this change affect legacy carriers more than LCCs?

The reason I ask about your sincerity is that you seem to have strong
opinions about this matter and yet your comments sugest that you dont
understand the situation. Many, if not most ALPA members have been
covered by DB plans, so the motivation to work longer was never there.
The situation has changed dramatically in recent years so the age 60
rule became one of simple economics for most ALPA members . ALPA
conducted a poll last year to see what the members wanted, and the
rest is history. Most the LCCs have never offered a retirement
package so those pilots will gain the most from the new law. An
example of this is Southwest, who has lobbied for changes to the age
60 rule for years. It is beyond me why they didnt just offer their
pilots a simple DC plan . In other countries the regulating agencies
made the medical requirements more stringent when they raised the
retirement age and I have heard from ALPA and the FAA that this has
caused more pilots to medical out than pilots who have been able to
stay on past 60. Its gonna be interesting.
FB

Did I sound as if I had a strong opinion on this? Hmmm, I didn't think
so (I really don't) but ALPA's reversing their position on the Age 60
rule is what I found curious, as they have always supported it. While
I admit I don't know all the ins & outs of the issue (didn't know
about them polling their members last year) I've felt for a long time
that a pilot shouldn't be forced to retire at 60 if they want to keep
flying, as long as they're fit to do so. I do understand the economics
that have been altered by the industry's downturn after 2001. I don't
understand why SWA was so interested in overturning the old rule...
how do they benefit? Unless they just want to keep turnover down(?) I
interviewed with a few regionals in '05 and decided that at 37 (then)
I was too old to start over making $23k/year and am looking into
corporate/charter gigs. Fortunately there is no mandatory retirement
age for Part 135 AFAIK.

"Kingfish" wrote in message
...

I don't understand why SWA was so interested in overturning the old rule...
how do they benefit?

I believe their retirement plan is profit sharing and/or SWA stock. They never had a DB
plan, so they also will appreciate the extra five years of drawing a paycheck.

Unless they just want to keep turnover down(?) I
interviewed with a few regionals in '05 and decided that at 37 (then)
I was too old to start over making $23k/year and am looking into
corporate/charter gigs. Fortunately there is no mandatory retirement
age for Part 135 AFAIK.

Right. Part 135 always was far less stringent than 121 ops. That's why FAA redefined it
down to a/c with less than 10 seats and moved the bigger Part 135 a/c to 121 under their
"One Level of Safety" initiative.

"Kingfish" wrote in message
...
I'm not a huge fan of Dubya, but I gotta give him credit... Today he
signed the bill raising the mandatory retirement age to 65 for pilots.

I wouldn't confer any kudos whatsoever for that. The bill passed unanimously in House and
Senate so a veto would be pointless, plus he's in a major showdown with Congress over
spending bills (where the Age 65 language originally resided) and doesn't care squat about
the age limit anyway, so why would he needlessly antagonize his opponents when he has
bigger fish to fry?

The "Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act" is now a law. Long
overdue IMHO - interestingly enough ALPA changed their stance on the
issue and only the APA still supported the Age 60 rule.

IIRC a few in-house pilot unions also still opposed change, but between the new ICAO
policy, an about-face in FAA's thinking, and growing Congressional intolerance for any
form of age discrimination, the notion that a rule change could be blocked was DOA last
January.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
F. Baum writes:

"Interestingly Enough"? I am not sure if you are trying to be
sarcastic here, but this is definitely a mixed bag for most of us. Id
hate to be a young kid starting out in the bussiness right now,
although I am sure the LCC crowd is lovin it.

But doesn't this mean that he'll ultimately fly longer? He may not be
thrilled over the short term, but it means five extra years at the peak of his
career.

Wrong again. All other things being equal, the last five years are going to be your
career peak regardless of whether it happens from 55-60 or 60-65. But since you're not a
pilot we don't expect you to know that, either.

John Mazor writes:

Wrong again. All other things being equal, the last five years are going to be your
career peak regardless of whether it happens from 55-60 or 60-65.

The longer the career lasts, the higher the potential peak.

But since you're not a pilot we don't expect you to know that, either.

It's a business and career issue, not an aviation issue.

So says a man with neither a business or a career. Of course, this is
the same expert who offers advice on the sex or flying thread, two
areas in which he has become expert by the use of google.

He is, however, an outstanding example of ego.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

John Mazor writes:

Wrong again. All other things being equal, the last five years are
going to be your career peak regardless of whether it happens from
55-60 or 60-65.

The longer the career lasts, the higher the potential peak.


idiot.



But since you're not a pilot we don't expect you to know that,
either.

It's a business and career issue, not an aviation issue.


Wrong again.


Bertie

On Dec 14, 6:03 pm, Kingfish wrote:

Hmmm, I didn't think
so (I really don't) but ALPA's reversing their position on the Age 60
rule is what I found curious, as they have always supported it. While
I admit I don't know all the ins & outs of the issue (didn't know
about them polling their members last year) I've felt for a long time
that a pilot shouldn't be forced to retire at 60 if they want to keep
flying, as long as they're fit to do so. I do understand the economics
that have been altered by the industry's downturn after 2001. I don't
understand why SWA was so interested in overturning the old rule...
how do they benefit? Unless they just want to keep turnover down(?) I
interviewed with a few regionals in '05 and decided that at 37 (then)
I was too old to start over making $23k/year and am looking into
corporate/charter gigs. - Show quoted text -

The reason why SWA, Jetblue, Airtran, etc, wanted a change to the rule
is because they do not offer their pilots any kind of benifits
package. By lobbying congress and the FAA to alow them to work longer,
it took some of the pressure off of management at contract time.
Imagine going to work for an LCC knowing full well you will retire
broke. After ALPA polled its membership they went to the FAA and this
was the main motivation for the most recent (and sucsessful) hearing.I
would say that most ALPA members would rather not work past 60 but
with the loss of their DB plans many have no choice.
Best of luck with the career goals. Stay far away from charter if you
can help it.
FB