SocialD Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 FAA against Age-67. Interesting development since they've been mostly silent on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brabus Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 If it takes 20 years to get a MOA, then it should take the FAA 20 years to conduct this age increase safety assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuggyU2 Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Well... if Pete Buttigieg is behind this, I have no doubt the data has been well researched. Seriously though... The "safety" data is there. Read it how you want. This is a political issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirGuardianC141747 Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 (edited) Jealous Much? Top end/senior folks earning top pay for an additional two years turns quite a few others within our industry green… Hug is correct, the data has been around for many years with other countries. Personally could care less, but I’d be lying if having that option wouldn’t help possibly when turning 65 for some reason or another. Closer look medicals sure, a few additional hurdles whatever - just stay as fit as possible as being able to do the job to 67 isn’t an absolute given. Plenty of folks in their fifties looking pretty rode hard and put up wet and should hang it up… Wish to retire at 60, 62 seems more like it. Feeling pretty dang good now, but life has a way of shutting sh*t down without your consent so the the best positive for the limit for myself is being medically disqualified and on long term disability for the additional timeframe. *Understand the upward mobility implications, but this is nothing new since the previous 60 to 65 move as many were delayed for quite awhile. 10yrs to the left or more was a thing, but not right now. Don’t count on anything until your there and even then be cautious. Edited February 6 by AirGuardianC141747 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SocialD Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 6 hours ago, HuggyU2 said: This is a political issue. Definitely a political issue, like everything else going on out there. In something that's near/dear to many of us, just look at BRAC and where they choose to base things. 4 hours ago, AirGuardianC141747 said: Jealous Much? Top end/senior folks earning top pay for an additional two years turns quite a few others within our industry green… Hug is correct, the data has been around for many years with other countries. Personally could care less, but I’d be lying if having that option wouldn’t help possibly when turning 65 for some reason or another. Closer look medicals sure, a few additional hurdles whatever - just stay as fit as possible as being able to do the job to 67 isn’t an absolute given. Plenty of folks in their fifties looking pretty rode hard and put up wet and should hang it up… Wish to retire at 60, 62 seems more like it. Feeling pretty dang good now, but life has a way of shutting sh*t down without your consent so the the best positive for the limit for myself is being medically disqualified and on long term disability for the additional timeframe. *Understand the upward mobility implications, but this is nothing new since the previous 60 to 65 move as many were delayed for quite awhile. 10yrs to the left or more was a thing, but not right now. Don’t count on anything until your there and even then be cautious. If you could care less, the go ahead and do so. They jealousy seems to be more of the pro-67 crowd toward those against. Some of the loudest proponents of this thing got to where they are today because everyone ahead of them retiring at 60 and 65. Now that they're at the top, they just want an additional 2 years at the top. Some of the loudest supporters accuse "junior" of just wanting "25 years in the left seat of a WB." Many of these guys have already been at this airline longer than the entire career of the average newhire from when I was hired. I think all they look at is the kids getting hired today in their early 20s. Never mind that a vast majority of this generation was hired in their mid-late 30s. They also seem to think that none of these guy had it bad because what they experienced happened before Delta. They also seem to think that there will be no more black swans...it's all rainbows and unicorns from here on out! There is nothing hypocritical/jealous about being for maintaining the status quo. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ratner Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 I will support age 60-whatever when there is meaningful testing that filters out pilots. Too fat? Bye. Can't handle *complex* surprise EPs in the sim? Bye. Can't pass a real medical exam from a random AME? Bye. Comparative cognitive testing from your previous attempts shows a decline? Bye. And not just for 65+, all pilots. But right now this is about guys who aren't ready for retirement, many of whom are convinced their particular struggles make them uniquely deserving, wanting more. My ability to retire early is affected by how soon others retire. So if the 65+ crowd can make a financial-based argument, so can I. But mostly I'm just tired of the Baby Boomers upending every system for their financial advantage then acting shocked that other generations don't appreciate being left the tattered ruins of a once functional societal pact. 10 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
08Dawg Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 48 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said: But mostly I'm just tired of the Baby Boomers upending every system for their financial advantage then acting shocked that other generations don't appreciate being left the tattered ruins of a once functional societal pact. Damn…writing this one down for future use! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tac airlifter Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said: But mostly I'm just tired of the Baby Boomers upending every system for their financial advantage then acting shocked that other generations don't appreciate being left the tattered ruins of a once functional societal pact. Well put, quoted for truth. There are good and bad individuals within every group, and I'll note Huggy is a good one. That said, has there been a generation more greedy or who wrecked things more for their kids than boomers? The phenomenon seems unique to the US by the way, Latin America is full of older generations working to leave things better for their kids. I get it older CAs, you want an extra million bucks before retirement regardless of the impact on others and it makes you feel better to pretend we're all as shallow. Whatever. But don't expect me to endorse it or support it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindsight2020 Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Numerically the egalitarian thing (especially for the much larger age 60 to 65 jump kerfuffle) would have been for the age extension to be enforceable on DOHs AFTER the govts' ratification date aka grandfathering. Alternatively, the other fair alternative, if they were arguing in good faith, would have been to implement without fencing, but support the extension of immediate recall rights (with full seniority restoration of course) to those previously mando-retired who were still younger than 65 (minus reasonable training footprint) by the govt's implementation date [December 13 2007]. ...And maddafacking crickets is what you hear when you proffer the latter. Tells me all I need to know about people's so called "sincerely held beliefs" on the age discrimination crusade front. In the end I don't think it's a generationally unique reflex, which is why I prefer a more all-inclusive terminology. I call them Twixers: Because no matter what you ask them, the answer is always Two for me None for you... 😄 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger41 Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 During a recent trip to the shitter, I looked into this and was surprised to see ALPA thinks this is bad. Why would they do that? Isn't their motivation to get their members more money/better QOL/better work rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ratner Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Danger41 said: During a recent trip to the shitter, I looked into this and was surprised to see ALPA thinks this is bad. Why would they do that? Isn't their motivation to get their members more money/better QOL/better work rules? Yes. And there are far more members under 63-64 who are against this than those in favor. Many remember the stagnation caused by the previous increase. And it removes leverage. Edited February 6 by Lord Ratner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SocialD Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 2 hours ago, Danger41 said: During a recent trip to the shitter, I looked into this and was surprised to see ALPA thinks this is bad. Why would they do that? Isn't their motivation to get their members more money/better QOL/better work rules? Aside from the few at the top, this gets a vast majority of the group delayed pay/QOL, which I guess is great if you want to work until you die. I certainly wouldn't call having to wait two more years for all QOL/Pay increases a good deal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tac airlifter Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 2 hours ago, Danger41 said: During a recent trip to the shitter, I looked into this and was surprised to see ALPA thinks this is bad. Why would they do that? Isn't their motivation to get their members more money/better QOL/better work rules? APA also against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFM this Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 39 minutes ago, tac airlifter said: APA also against it. Something about a broken clock… 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire4effect Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 17 hours ago, brabus said: If it takes 20 years to get a MOA, then it should take the FAA 20 years to conduct this age increase safety assessment. If ever. I'm not sure if this is a true stance for the FAA in general or of the FAA Administrator Michael Whitaker in particular. His bio indicates 15 years with United in admin and he's an attorney. I'd be less skeptical had the FAA taken a stance last year when the discussion started. Why now? I must say from the FAA perspective I can see no upside to getting behind 67 and a potential downside no matter how remote. I think the FAA fought age 65 as well. What is it Netjets has age 70 now? I guess looking at part 135 NTSB accident reports might shed light on potential age related causes. Or other countries with increased limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunya Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 5 minutes ago, fire4effect said: I guess looking at part 135 NTSB accident reports might shed light on potential age related causes. Or other countries with increased limits. I don't think an honest comparison is possible. If someone does try to study it, I think you'll just find deductive reasoning supporting a preconceived conclusion. There are way too many variables with Part 91/135 vs 121 operational risk, maintenance schedules, rest, recency, multi-model qualifications, single pilot vs crew, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ratner Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) Bottom line, the airlines made being a pilot absolute dog shit for anybody who had to go through the regionals before making it to a legacy carrier. They took advantage of deregulation, mergers, and bankruptcies to rape and pillage the pilot pipeline for years. They did such a good job taking advantage of the regional pilots that everybody told their friends and family to pursue other careers. I remember when I was a FAIP having the regional pilots show up and talk about how they had to join the guard because they couldn't live off of $15,000 a year anymore. Absolutely insane that someone flying dozens/hundreds of people around the country everyday would be making that type of wage. So now we get the crocodile tears from the airlines about how there aren't enough pilots in the pipeline, and how unfortunate it is they have to pay the regionals so much money now to keep them from jumping ship. Fuck these guys. They took on billions of dollars of debt so they could buy back shares and bump their share-based compensation a few pennies each quarter, and they have the audacity to cry to us about manning and compensation. The 1500 hour requirement was put into place because of aviation mishaps and a reassessment of what is required to operate in the modern airspace. Absolutely nothing in that regard has changed, so neither should the experience requirements. If we keep rewarding these shitty executives by letting them run to the government to solve their self-induced problems, we're just going to get the same behavior over and over again. Edited February 7 by Lord Ratner 1 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirGuardianC141747 Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 20 hours ago, SocialD said: If you could care less, the go ahead and do so. They jealousy…. Oooops, I myself missed my specific point of those within our industry which I need to correct. To make it whole, it’s the folks within the FAA specifically or any other non-up front metal manipulator. Basically non-pilots as they have the schtick on this pass or no pass at this time. We have little power or zero in this as you know. Could care less statement was initially backed by retirement by 60 wishful thinking and the 62 more probable. The only real dog in the fight for myself was having the option and really having a medical issue extended timeframe so I will change a bit and say - now I care for it, but it’s not an entitlement. If it happens then OK, but I myself am not entitled to it and less than 10 years from the current max at this time. If it does put the squeeze on the correct parts of the industry and move thing up to be against it, okie dokie. Yup, everything is politics, power, pure greed, jealousy, etc. Terrible stuff. Edited February 7 by AirGuardianC141747 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SocialD Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 16 hours ago, Lord Ratner said: I remember when I was a FAIP having the regional pilots show up and talk about how they had to join the guard because they couldn't live off of $15,000 a year anymore. Absolutely insane that someone flying dozens/hundreds of people around the country everyday would be making that type of wage. Not sure what year that was, but I was a Capt, 4-ship flight lead in 2012 when orders dried up for a bit. I went to a regional to pickup some hours because, even with my 700 hours prior to UPT, I was still shy of legacy requirements (not that they were really hiring). Starting pay was $19/hr with a 72 hour guarantee. With the staffing levels we had at the time, there was no way to make extra cash. Second year pay was something like $30/hr...$25k/yr. I think Captains we're lucky to get in teh $60s...really living large lol. But none of those dudes seem care about those years, because you're making good money right now and it didn't happen when you were at Delta. Never gonna be another down turn or black swan event! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ratner Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 1 hour ago, SocialD said: Not sure what year that was, but I was a Capt, 4-ship flight lead in 2012 when orders dried up for a bit. I went to a regional to pickup some hours because, even with my 700 hours prior to UPT, I was still shy of legacy requirements (not that they were really hiring). Starting pay was $19/hr with a 72 hour guarantee. With the staffing levels we had at the time, there was no way to make extra cash. Second year pay was something like $30/hr...$25k/yr. I think Captains we're lucky to get in teh $60s...really living large lol. But none of those dudes seem care about those years, because you're making good money right now and it didn't happen when you were at Delta. Never gonna be another down turn or black swan event! This was 2010 and 2012. Same. I fly with a lot of captains who spent 10-20 years making those crap wages. Seems like they all thought they'd be at the regionals for a year or two, so they didn't care what the pay was, but then everything went to hell and suddenly it mattered. Personally I think the regionals are going to get swallowed into the legacy airlines if we don't get a slowdown soon. The huge benefit to the corporations of lower pay is dead, and if you get your regional pilots on to the mainline seniority list sooner, it makes it much less likely they will jump ship. The aircraft are also getting bigger and bigger, and in many cases are operating with fewer installed seats due to contractual limitations with the mainline pilot contracts. Suck the regionals into mainline and those limitations go away. But whatever makes the least sense is what will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brabus Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) @Lord Ratner As long as they’re stapled, I’m all for it! Kill the regional model, pay legacy rates, and yeah the new guys will probably get RJs/717/220 only at indoc with the lowest pay rate, but they’ll be at a large carrier on the list and will bid over to larger NB soon enough (or fly one trip with CA @SocialD involving hookers and blow on a berg layover and they’ll never leave the fleet!) Edited February 7 by brabus 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirGuardianC141747 Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 (edited) Doh, that’s good “hookers and blow”… ya’ll need to get to Europe, AMS specifically or some crazy areas in Asia where a few of our hounds are relentless - yowza. I still find myself cleaning the deck with our huge wipes after these past few years due to the pandemic. Tell you the truth, it never really was for the pandemic. *Definitely not saying overseas is the best ticket as it seems Hunter has proven to be very happy within his own backyard. 🤣 Edited February 8 by AirGuardianC141747 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brabus Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 3 minutes ago, AirGuardianC141747 said: Definitely not saying overseas is the best ticket One of the best times I had in the JS was the CA and I taking about our days gone by SEA stories…unbeatable memories. I think the FOs (pure civ track guy) jaw was on the floor the whole time. Probably made him question his life decision to not go mil…or he now thinks mil guys are animals. One of the two! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springer Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 8 hours ago, brabus said: @Lord Ratner As long as they’re stapled, I’m all for it! Kill the regional model..... For my own selfish retired nonreving reasons of 20 consecutive round trips in FC to Europe, I'm not! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuggyU2 Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 No one is happy after a merger... if it goes well. I can't speak for everyone... but I took it in the shorts with our seniority list integration. Oh well... move on and don't dwell on what you cannot control. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now