Age 65 will be in place within two months

[Minnesota_Flyer]

Originally Posted by stuckingfk

I feel the same way, but the old guys/gals should have a more thorough 1st class exam. I also think the States should implement reviews or rexaminations for older drivers. There are several on the road who shouldn't be driving.

Oh, I agree completely. There really should be cognitive and more sophisticated vision checks for older (probably 60+) drivers and pilots. Standard eye exams, for example, do not generally pick up proliferating blind spots which are common in older people.

[Velocipede]

Originally Posted by LoadMasterC141

Did they ever decide if this new limit was going to be grandfathered? That would hurt a bit more.

The legislation specifically state that those who have already retired cannot sue to regain their seniority. That means, essentially, they can get their jobs back...as new hire copilots.

Now, I can think of a couple retired Captains I'd LOVE to have in the right seat.

[Airdale]

Originally Posted by Seggy

Who the **** knows what this is going to do long term, but it will slow things down short term.

Majors could offer early retirements because they don't want to pay those top salaries for five more years.

The other thing that it can do is guys that are sitting left seat at regionals that are in their mid thirties MIGHT be more reluctant to go to a major when the mass retirement boom happens in the years down the road.

This sucks no doubt about it. We shall see what happens.

Mark, I wouldn't sweat it pal. You're in a very good position right now, building TPIC. Which we both know you'll more then likely need more then 1000 of it anyway. You've got pretty good seniority and it keeps going up. I think when the hiring boom does start, you'll be in a prime position. Same for us guys that are new to the industry. I've got awhile left in the right seat, so the timing just might be very good.

[surreal1221]

Ah this is great news. . .

Where's the rope?

[jtrain609]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

Ah this is great news. . .

Where's the rope?

There's that negative tone I was talkin' about

You don't have ton to worry about bro, you've got a bit of time before you get picked up by somebody. We've got a handful of folks that are on the forums that are now gonna be plugs at ExpressJet unless the retirements keep coming.

[ready2fly]

Here's my $0.02 from my simplistic way of thinking:

1. How will it affect me immediately? How does it affect the (already non-existant) upgrade time at my regional and that of other regionals?

2. How will it affect me in the future?

Certainly I don't have a clue - and, I might wager - neither does anyone else because it hasn't happened before.

Sure, there's going to be a LOT of folks forcasting their beliefs, but no-one actually has the slightest idea unless they have the ability to see into the future.

As I said - I have no idea, so I guess I'll have to wait and see..... like the rest of you.

[kellwolf]

Originally Posted by Mr_Creepy

No one is stopping you. If your 401k is ready at 60 then retire.

Not that I'm in the business anymore, but I, sir, would want the OPTION and not be FORCED to go home at 65.

Unless of course your REAL objection is "oh but it's going to take me time to get SENIOR!"

(That is the definition of seniority ha ha)

Easy John, that's not what I was saying at all. I'm actually for the age limit increase b/c of the guys that got screwed out of their retirement. My point was to inform the nay-sayers that just b/c you CAN wait until you're 65 to retire doesn't mean everyone is going to. I'd honestly be surprised if the guys that were planning on retiring at 60 stick around much more than 2 more years after already being beat to hell and back at places like CAL, US Air and United.

[flyover]

Originally Posted by Minnesota_Flyer

There really should be cognitive....checks

Funny. I was just thinking the other day: "They need to do some better cognitive tests on these new guys!"

proliferating blind spots which are common in older people.

That's what they made co-pilots for.

[Champcar]

Pilots cry foul at non-union airlines or "scabs" because it is not in the best interest for the industry as a whole and those people are only looking out for themselves.

Yet when something comes up that affects them now they cry foul....Which is it, best for the industry or you?

Age 65 is great long term. Don't want to fly till your 65 then don't. Who cares if this may mean hiring will slow down, big deal. I have 42 years to get to the airlines, not big rush.

[surreal1221]

Originally Posted by jtrain609

There's that negative tone I was talkin' about

You don't have ton to worry about bro, you've got a bit of time before you get picked up by somebody. We've got a handful of folks that are on the forums that are now gonna be plugs at ExpressJet unless the retirements keep coming.

No doubt man. I wrote what I wrote in jest.

But still, nothing to be too cheery about.

ALPA has posted something on their website that I'd like to bring some attention to.

Originally Posted by ALPA's frontpage

Senate Adopts ‘Oberstar Language’ on Mandatory Pilot Retirement Age
September 12 - By an 88-7 vote, the Senate today passed its FY'08 Transportation Appropriations bill with one important modification: At the urging of ALPA, it added the “Oberstar language” that ALPA has supported for any legislative directives to change the mandatory pilot retirement age rule.

The amendment replicates the ALPA-endorsed language that Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) included in the House FAA reauthorization bill that passed the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee on June 29, 2007. Additionally, it would clarify non-retroactivity, provide sufficient liability protection, prohibit unilateral changes to labor agreements and benefit plans, eliminate the over/under split for domestic operations, and make the rule change effective upon enactment of the 2008 Transportation Appropriations bill.

The Senate version of this bill now must be reconciled with the House-passed Transportation Appropriations bill, which does not address changing the rule. (The Oberstar language is contained in the House FAA reauthorization bill.) ALPA will provide a more detailed status update on this legislation in a future FastRead.

Doesn't look like they are too pissed about this. . .yet(?)

[Boom Boom]

How many guys bid back at FedEx?

The entire DC-10 Panel is over 60 (will be as the excess bid folks goes thru training) and about a third of the 727 which is just guessing around 200-230 folks total, maybe more but probably not less, considering we are suppose to have something around 200 retire this year... Itching to return to/keep the left seat!

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

Doesn't look like they are too pissed about this. . .yet(?)

That's because Prater was in favor of the change. ALPA's decades-old policy of opposing the change was eliminated at the last Executive Board meeting.

I miss Duane.

[surreal1221]

Aw shucks. . .

[777forever]

2 months? Where did you get this news from? Can you post a source? Last time I read Blakely said it would take at least 2 years to implement the age 65 change. I don't see it happening this fast.

[Chris_Ford]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

That's because Prater was in favor of the change. ALPA's decades-old policy of opposing the change was eliminated at the last Executive Board meeting.

I miss Duane.

The worst leader in ALPA history and you miss him???

Fair enough, doesn't make sense, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

[BobDDuck]

Originally Posted by 777forever

2 months? Where did you get this news from? Can you post a source? Last time I read Blakely said it would take at least 2 years to implement the age 65 change. I don't see it happening this fast.

Well, your first mistake is believing anything Blakely says.

[PCL_128]

If this bill gets through the House and is signed by the President, then the FAA's normal NPRM process wouldn't apply. The latest word is that the President intends to veto the bill as some sort of show that he's tough on spending (yeah, right), so it might be irrelevant in this session of congress anyway. If he vetoes the bill, then a continuing resolution will keep the FAA and the rest of DOT and HUD at current spending levels until the next session of congress can deal with it. Unfortunately, however, it looks like this amendment will make it into the final bill, whenever that bill happens to get passed.

[kellwolf]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

If this bill gets through the House and is signed by the President, then the FAA's normal NPRM process wouldn't apply. The latest word is that the President intends to veto the bill as some sort of show that he's tough on spending (yeah, right), so it might be irrelevant in this session of congress anyway. If he vetoes the bill, then a continuing resolution will keep the FAA and the rest of DOT and HUD at current spending levels until the next session of congress can deal with it. Unfortunately, however, it looks like this amendment will make it into the final bill, whenever that bill happens to get passed.

He'll veto it b/c it was mostly written by Democrats. Wasn't until the new Congress that the words "Bush" and "veto" were used in the same sentence.

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by kellwolf

He'll veto it b/c it was mostly written by Democrats. Wasn't until the new Congress that the words "Bush" and "veto" were used in the same sentence.

Amazing how he's suddenly worried about spending, isn't it?

[Seggy]

Ahhh, I think the veto would be a mute point because didn't it pass like 88 to 12?

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by Seggy

Ahhh, I think the veto would be a mute point because didn't it pass like 88 to 12?

That's just the Senate vote. In the House, the original bill (before all of the Senate amendments were added) passed by a smaller than 2/3rds majority, so there probably won't be a big enough majority in the House to override the veto. A veto override requires a 2/3rds majority in both the House and the Senate.

[Seggy]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

That's just the Senate vote. In the House, the original bill (before all of the Senate amendments were added) passed by a smaller than 2/3rds majority, so there probably won't be a big enough majority in the House to override the veto. A veto override requires a 2/3rds majority in both the House and the Senate.

Awesome, wasn't sure about that.

You coming to Vegas?

Call me back or a beat down is in order!

[FlyChicaga]

When I first heard about Age 65, I knew it would pass. I couldn't see it not passing. So ever since then, I've just accepted it. It has made life so much easier that way.

Besides career progression for us younger pilots, what is the disadvantage of changing the rule to Age 65? I honestly don't see it affecting us that much, even with the change. Maybe it will slow hiring at the majors, but it will certainly not stop it.

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by FlyChicaga

Besides career progression for us younger pilots, what is the disadvantage of changing the rule to Age 65?

There are still 2400 furloughed pilots from AMR that are waiting for the geezers to retire so they can get their jobs back. Now they'll be waiting 5 years longer. Many of them aren't "younger guys." They've been in this business for many years and are in their forties or even fifties.

I honestly don't see it affecting us that much, even with the change. Maybe it will slow hiring at the majors, but it will certainly not stop it.

Some majors, such as NWA and UAL, have no planned growth and are only hiring for attrition. With retirements drastically cut down with a change in the retirement age, hiring could slow to a trickle at these carriers. Those carriers that continue to hire for growth like DAL and CAL won't be too bad, but seniority progression will be slowed down quite a bit.

[Boom Boom]

Part of the problem w/ age 65 for us Trash Haulers, flying back side of the clock is hard on the body now do it for 5 more years and walla, retire at 65 then die at 66... I would rather retire at 60 and die from liver desease drinking Margaritas at some carribian location then 1 year out of the cockpit!

Also look at wages.. Not only have they not gone up but gone down.. So if it takes 5 more years as an F/O; 5 more years will never make up for the $$$ lost due to compounding interest (assuming some investment), the amount of your retirement fund, inflation, etc.. Your money loses its purchasing power over time...