The new airline thread

[AirGuardianC141747]

7 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I get the question all the time. I'm at about 15% in the right seat, and I think I'd be around 70 in the left. I easily make as much or a little more than a same seniority Captain stuck on reserve, and fly less. A line Captain will make more than me, but the difference in schedule is dramatic. I probably average 30 hours of flight time a month and get paid 90 to 120 hours. I regularly eat dinner at home, put my kids to sleep, then go fly 1 hour away and I'm back before my wife gets home from work. I'm rarely away from home more than one night in a row, and if I am it's because the trip pays a bunch and still doesn't have much flying to it (e.g. a 30 hour layover for premium pay). I fly only the days I want, no weekends or holidays unless I choose, as many vacations whenever I want. I do have the luxury of a wife who makes six figures as well, but even if she didn't it would be hard to give up on this schedule when I can just wait another five or so years to upgrade, then do it as a captain.

 

So true! If the right seat meets your priorities than why not. We both know we still do better than some line Captains regardless of the schedule attributes which you and I are both focused on. I dissect lines by when my better half can stand me home for a lengthy period, where I want to eat/chill and then fly less for more duckets in the hip pocket - Or, stay out minimally and pick up a an extra chunk or just stay home although I do get restless after a couple of weeks, definitely a month or more and I will say the last couple of days on an extended trip (normal trip for the majority) I am ready for the hacienda. I do appreciate the various lifestyles we are able to conjure up and make things happen - quite amazing.

Edited May 2 by AirGuardianC141747

[HuggyU2]

2 hours ago, Smokin said:

If an airline pilot cannot comfortably retire by age 65, then I question his decision making abilities enough that I don't think he should be responsible for the lives of hundreds of people.

I just love it when someone decides to pass judgement on the financial status of others.  

If you are financially sound, have invested smartly, and life has dealt you a great hand, then good on you!  You should count your blessings.  I'm happy for you!

Keep in mind that there are many others that may not be as fortunate as you, and various factors have impacted their "financial health". 

For example, those who lost their airline pension during the collapse of the airline industry after 9/11.  Or those who were furloughed for 10+ years.  The stories of how they adapted are varied, but in many cases not conducive to saving for retirment.  Not familiar with the PBGC?  You're fortunate.  https://www.pbgc.gov/search-trusteed-plans?key= united airlines

Many pilots deal with very costly things such as taking care of elderly parent(s) that are in assisted living or Alzheimer facilities.  

Or they have a dealt with a spouse or child that has significant medical needs.  In many cases, there are not only costs invovled, but the time spent on taking care of loved ones can mean less opportunites to work.  

I know plenty that have incurred the expense of a painful divorce, and others that have had legal issues that have wiped them out.  The list goes on.

So instead of preaching to us about how some pilots cannot be trusted to professionally fly an airplane if they don't meet your standards of financial success by the time they turn 65, maybe you should simply be thankful for what you have, and offer a modicum of support for those that have't landed on the gravy train that you are able to ride.  

[AC&W]

2 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

Many pilots deal with very costly things such as taking care of elderly parent(s) that are in assisted living or Alzheimer facilities.  

Or they have a dealt with a spouse or child that has significant medical needs.  In many cases, there are not only costs involved, but the time spent on taking care of loved ones can mean less opportunities to work.  

I know plenty that have incurred the expense of a painful divorce, and others that have had legal issues that have wiped them out.  The list goes on.

These problems are not unique to airline pilots. What is unique are unionized jobs that can earn six figures working part time.

[ViperMan]

15 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

If we have a test, a lot of the guys who really want to stay past 65 would have been kicked out by 55. No one wants to open that can of worms.

Precisely this. Which is also exactly why the age limit isn't really about the age limit. It's about getting people out of seats. If it was about cognitive ability, plenty would be shown the door early.

Of course most people know that...which is also why most people don't want it...easier to just draw an arbitrary line and get rid of them.

[AirGuardianC141747]

If I can be President I can fly to 70 at least. Well, 70 in the right seat or 70 in the right seat with another pilot as my seeing eye dog, oh wait 70 with a seeing eye rabid dog hypothetical doctor as my wife or sister the SS and of course Uncle Boise by my side - yeah, 70 I would be fine.

Edited May 2 by AirGuardianC141747

[SocialD]

 

8 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Precisely this. Which is also exactly why the age limit isn't really about the age limit. It's about getting people out of seats. If it was about cognitive ability, plenty would be shown the door early.

Of course most people know that...which is also why most people don't want it...easier to just draw an arbitrary line and get rid of them.

 

 

The ones wanting status quo are not the ones drawing an arbitrary line.  But ya, it's fun watching guys who got where they are by pilots retiring in front of them. Yet now that they're on top, they want to stay and suddenly it's unfair and discriminatory, but only because they didn't get their pension back.  

Edited May 2 by SocialD

[Lord Ratner]

5 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Precisely this. Which is also exactly why the age limit isn't really about the age limit. It's about getting people out of seats. If it was about cognitive ability, plenty would be shown the door early.

Of course most people know that...which is also why most people don't want it...easier to just draw an arbitrary line and get rid of them.

No, it's not at all what I said. You have two options dealing with this type of thing. An individual test, or a group-based average. Both can work, and both can allow certain cases to slip through the cracks.
 

But let's get rid of the outrage. You have no god-given right to continue doing a specific job until you croak, even if we did want to have an individualized test. The military does it too. You (whoever) entered the career knowing there was a time limit, just as everybody did, so you were not misinformed or ill-advised. You joined anyways. And you benefited greatly from the limit, so the system wasn't so odious when it was to your benefit that you felt the need to pursue a different career in protest.

 

Even if we had a test to capture when cognition declines to a point of concern, unless we're going to take it before every flight, you're still going to have a window where someone is unsafe. The vast, vast majority of pilots are still safe at 65, which is what makes it a good number. Pushing it up to the point where there's a reasonable expectation of cognitive failure is just setting yourself up to have cognitive failure-induced accidents.

 

But to be crystal clear, I am 100% okay with it being age discrimination. Because that's a b.s. category of discrimination. Banning black pilots would be abhorrent because not all pilots are black and the ones who are have it as an immutable characteristic with no fundamental effect on flying. Same for female pilots, or gay pilots. But we are all going to turn 65 if we make it that long, so it's not discrimination in the racist or sexist sense. Just like not letting kids drink or vote isn't age discrimination in the moral sense.

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

No, it's not at all what I said. You have two options dealing with this type of thing. An individual test, or a group-based average. Both can work, and both can allow certain cases to slip through the cracks.

But let's get rid of the outrage. You have no god-given right to continue doing a specific job until you croak, even if we did want to have an individualized test. The military does it too. You (whoever) entered the career knowing there was a time limit, just as everybody did, so you were not misinformed or ill-advised. You joined anyways. And you benefited greatly from the limit, so the system wasn't so odious when it was to your benefit that you felt the need to pursue a different career in protest.

Even if we had a test to capture when cognition declines to a point of concern, unless we're going to take it before every flight, you're still going to have a window where someone is unsafe. The vast, vast majority of pilots are still safe at 65, which is what makes it a good number. Pushing it up to the point where there's a reasonable expectation of cognitive failure is just setting yourself up to have cognitive failure-induced accidents.

But to be crystal clear, I am 100% okay with it being age discrimination. Because that's a b.s. category of discrimination. Banning black pilots would be abhorrent because not all pilots are black and the ones who are have it as an immutable characteristic with no fundamental effect on flying. Same for female pilots, or gay pilots. But we are all going to turn 65 if we make it that long, so it's not discrimination in the racist or sexist sense. Just like not letting kids drink or vote isn't age discrimination in the moral sense.

The fundamental premise though is that it is cognitive decline and "safety" to push this through. Which is motherhood and longhouse BS. There just isn't any data. Plenty of anecdote and logic twisting / justification, but no fact, reason, or real logic.

It's fine if you're ok with age discrimination. Just own it. It doesn't have anything to do with cognitive decline, because we could effectively test for that. It doesn't have anything to do with "well you knew the rules at the get go, so tough" - a past discrimination doesn't make a present right. And I think you need to re-write your sentence about banning blacks and just sub-in "65+". The distinction falls apart. These things are one and the same even though they don't have the same level of social "ick".

The appeal to it being ok because "it could work" being a "group-based" average is a unique idea too. Do we take group-based tests for literally anything else? A group-based vision test for 10 pilots at once? No. Group-based hearing test? No. Group-based PT test? No. How about a group-based SAT for blacks? Ok, but it's somehow cool to peanut-butter spread WRT age? Anytime you have a unique, one-off carve-out which completely stands apart from everything else we're doing in society, I think you need to look at it pretty closely.

Framing this as a god-given right is totally backwards. An external entity has no god-given right to have you summarily fired if you are part of a certain class. An external entity has no right to stop you from becoming employed in a certain industry. That's the appropriate framing. The government has an interest in regulating industries appropriately, but also lawfully.

As I think about it and my thoughts become more clear, the only "cognitive" test you need is being able to pass a check ride. If you're good there, and you can pass the FAA's health check, then you're good to go...i.e. the current system works.

Note: I'm not an old guy. I just think fairness is the most fundamental part of a healthy society. And I think self-interested groups and individuals who use "safety" (or any other justification) to take an extra scoop for themselves is one of the main ills we have in this country. Apparently it's everywhere.

[ViperMan]

3 hours ago, SocialD said:

The ones wanting status quo are the ones drawing an arbitrary line.  But ya, it's fun watching guys who got where they are by pilots retiring in front of them. Yet now that they're on top, they want to stay and suddenly it's unfair and discriminatory, but only because they didn't get their pension back.  

I have no illusion that there is self-interest on both sides of this thing. None. I'm just trying to pull-back and say what I think is actually fair from an objective standpoint. Strip away the concern about getting yours (on both sides) and I think it becomes pretty clear what the right answer is.

[Lord Ratner]

35 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

The fundamental premise though is that it is cognitive decline and "safety" to push this through. Which is motherhood and longhouse BS. There just isn't any data. Plenty of anecdote and logic twisting / justification, but no fact, reason, or real logic.

Push what through? You mean keep things the same.

 

I'm also unclear about "no data." Are you suggesting that the entire body of cognitive research in regards to age is somehow false? Even if you are completely unfamiliar with the research, surely you have existed, right? You've actually met old people? The suggestion that there's no "fact, reason, or real logic" to say that cognitive ability declines with age is completely absurd.

38 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

It's fine if you're ok with age discrimination. Just own it. It doesn't have anything to do with cognitive decline, because we could effectively test for that. It doesn't have anything to do with "well you knew the rules at the get go, so tough" - a past discrimination doesn't make a present right. And I think you need to re-write your sentence about banning blacks and just sub-in "65+". The distinction falls apart. These things are one and the same even though they don't have the same level of social "ick".

The distinction doesn't fall apart at all. Everyone turns 65, unless they happened to die earlier. Everyone. And every single one of those people had the exact same amount of time on Earth up until the point they turned 65.

That you would think there is a comparison between racial discrimination and age discrimination shows a complete lack of moral nuance. It's not about social ick. Again, if you somehow believe that there is no cognitive effect to aging, then I suppose you can get a little closer to a discriminatory argument. But there is, factually. There is not, however, any evidence that having darker skin makes you a shittier pilot. These two are so different that I'm shocked I have to write this much about it.

41 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

The appeal to it being ok because "it could work" being a "group-based" average is a unique idea too. Do we take group-based tests for literally anything else?

The age at which you can drink, vote, own a gun, serve in the military. The age in which you can be in the House of Representatives. The age which you can be a Senator. The age that you can be President. The age that you are allowed to draw social security. The age that you get a better rate on car insurance. The age that you get discounts at movies. The age that allows you to move into certain communities (55+).

I think you fundamentally fail to understand what group-based means. Rather than screening millions of people, you find a statistical point where it will apply to the majority of the demographic. I don't know what this "10 people taking a vision test at a time" nonsense is, but it doesn't apply to anything that we are talking about.

45 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Framing this as a god-given right is totally backwards. An external entity has no god-given right to have you summarily fired if you are part of a certain class. An external entity has no right to stop you from becoming employed in a certain industry. That's the appropriate framing. The government has an interest in regulating industries appropriately, but also lawfully.

It's the "appropriate framing" because it supports your point 🤣. The definition of lawful is that it is done by the government in accordance with that government's rules. That's what "law" is. That's exactly what's happening here, so this isn't a legal issue. You can argue it's a constitutional issue, But that argument has failed under the system and as such is definitionally not a constitutional issue. That only leaves the moral issue, which brings it back to my framing, not yours. You believe you have a moral right to work in a certain job until you die. I do not.

 

48 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

As I think about it and my thoughts become more clear, the only "cognitive" test you need is being able to pass a check ride. If you're good there, and you can pass the FAA's health check, then you're good to go...i.e. the current system works.

Also an incomplete analysis. Because the check ride system does not screen for all issues. For example, it does not screen for heart issues. We have another test for that. Just like with a cognitive test, the more responsibility you put on the check ride, the more complicated it needs to be. And at least at my airline, check rides are not even remotely complicated. They are cookie cutter, scripted, rehearsed, and unbelievably babied. But you can do that because we have a whole bunch of other processes in place that act as filters. One of those being the age filter. You can get rid of the age filter and make the check ride filter more robust, but just like with having cognitive testing, a lot of people aren't going to like the results of that. It is also simply more complicated.

50 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Note: I'm not an old guy. I just think fairness is the most fundamental part of a healthy society. And I think self-interested groups and individuals who use "safety" (or any other justification) to take an extra scoop for themselves is one of the main ills we have in this country. Apparently it's everywhere

Again it is one thing to argue that 65 is not the correct age. But calling it "bad" discrimination is disingenuous. It's denying the reality that old people lose their marbles. Discrimination in the literal sense is not bad. We do it for all sorts of things. What you discriminate, and how you discriminate is what determines if it is right or wrong. This rule does not exist because people don't like old people. Even if you accept at face value that it has nothing to do with safety, which I do not, and it is purely about job progression, even that is being fairly applied to all participants, and as such is not immoral.

Another factor that determines morality is the presence of choice. You absolutely have a choice to participate in a unionized flying job that has equally applied age restrictions, or you could work elsewhere that does not.

 

[Smokin]

22 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

I just love it when someone decides to pass judgement on the financial status of others....

I get that people have different lives than me and I don't expect everyone to make similar decisions that I have made.  Divorce sucks.  Taking care of sick family members can take a toll.  Losing what you thought was a golden parachute is rough, especially for the dudes that were near retirement or had just retired.  If the 67 argument were being made on financial reasons shortly after 9/11, I'd buy it.

But the guys turning 65 now were 42 at 9/11.  Off the top of my head, most majors had offered recall from furlough to everyone in the 2010 time-frame.  That's almost 14 years of 401K contributions and high year airline pay to catch up from losing the pension.  Someone that needs the money and is turning 65 is likely senior enough to be a wide-body captain and is capable of pulling in $350,000 by just flying the line and $60K of 401K on top of that.  It doesn't take many years of that to be able to retire comfortably if you're not living like a redneck that just won the powerball.  Obviously this is just for the majors, but that's all the dude in Congress that is pushing the bill is talking about. 

I know there are some serious heart string cases of guys that just can't catch a break, have a sick kid, wife that went crazy, etc.  But I have zero sympathy for the dude that bids captain at 100% for the money, then still lives beyond his means, and talks about his third vacation home in front of the dude driving the hotel shuttle.  There are guys in both camps, but the second group looks like a party on the Titanic (both numbers and lifestyle) while the first group could fit in a few of the lifeboats.  On the whole, I question the decision making ability of guys that live beyond their means then freak out when they see the end of the gravy train approaching and they realize their savings account is non-existent.

[ViperMan]

10 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I'm also unclear about "no data." Are you suggesting that the entire body of cognitive research in regards to age is somehow false? Even if you are completely unfamiliar with the research, surely you have existed, right? You've actually met old people? The suggestion that there's no "fact, reason, or real logic" to say that cognitive ability declines with age is completely absurd.

You are conflating a general argument that old people slow down (which nobody disputes) and using it to generalize to a something specific: namely that people over age 65 are unsafe to fly. There is no data that shows that, so please don't misrepresent what I argued here. If people over age 65 are unsafe to fly, there should be data that backs up that specific claim. No one has presented that or produced it. So far it's all anecdote and narrative-weaving. "This one time, at band camp..."

10 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

The age at which you can drink, vote, own a gun, serve in the military. The age in which you can be in the House of Representatives. The age which you can be a Senator. The age that you can be President. The age that you are allowed to draw social security. The age that you get a better rate on car insurance. The age that you get discounts at movies. The age that allows you to move into certain communities (55+).

This is a circular argument. Innumerable laws throughout history have been unjust / immoral. I know you know that because we've agreed on what some of them are. I don't think age-based discrimination is proper, ethical, or moral, so pointing to the fact that it's happens to be legal in some circumstances begs the question. Questions about when you can drink or smoke have more to do with consent and not being an adult yet.

10 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Also an incomplete analysis. Because the check ride system does not screen for all issues. For example, it does not screen for heart issues. We have another test for that. Just like with a cognitive test, the more responsibility you put on the check ride, the more complicated it needs to be. And at least at my airline, check rides are not even remotely complicated. They are cookie cutter, scripted, rehearsed, and unbelievably babied. But you can do that because we have a whole bunch of other processes in place that act as filters. One of those being the age filter. You can get rid of the age filter and make the check ride filter more robust, but just like with having cognitive testing, a lot of people aren't going to like the results of that. It is also simply more complicated.

You're so close to connecting the last dot here. In all the relevant ways, the checkride system already does screen for this. If a dude doesn't have the cognitive ability to fly, how's he gonna have the cognitive ability to pass a sim check? Or a line check? See, you're pointing at a problem you see with the checkride system - not a problem with older pilots, who you scapegoated to justify having a crappy checkride system.

Instead of fixing the problem you identified (or alternatively adding a different check - which everyone seems to be clutching their pearls over), you retreat to an arbitrary age cut-off as a proxy (which also happens to serve the personal interests of a lot of people). Not to mention, you literally justified having an easier checkride for dudes because there's no old guys around??? What??? Why would the checkride have to become more robust if 65+ were around? I guess it's because you'd need a harder checkride to prove that the old guys don't have the cognitive ability to pass the easier checkride the younger guys do because they clearly have the mental capacity which they obviously posses because they're young, but which you don't need to screen for because they clearly already have it since they're young and not old and they're smarter than old people and therefore we don't have to test them for that because they're younger than 65 and not older than 65 amirite???

Your fade-away about it being more complicated is pure chaff / ECM. The airlines give reaction-time, focus, coordination, and mental tests to their applicants. Ask me how I know. Do you remember the one you had to take? It doesn't matter how complicated something is if it's the right thing to do. Airlines already screen for cognitive ability as part of the hiring process. The FAA could do the same thing. Your retort on this point, alone, underscores the disingenuous nature of your argument.

The bottom line is this: the appeal to safety makes for nice syllogisms on paper and it sounds good, but it's also totally unsubstantiated. Further, there are other ways we could actually just test to see if someone has the cognitive ability to continue flying commercially. Why it's anathema that an alternative means to determine if an aged pilot can continue in his career is clear: naked self interest.

[Lord Ratner]

45 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

It doesn't matter how complicated something is if it's the right thing to do.

We're repeating ourselves at this point, but this specifically shows why there's no point here in continuing the loop. You fundamentally believe that this is somehow immoral, and I fundamentally believe you are wrong.

 

Further, being practical is just a part of life. The best answer would be to cognitively test every pilot before every flight. That's obviously too much. The worst answer would be to pick the age at which cognitive ability is at its highest on average, probably somewhere in the '30s, and then fire all pilots older than that. That is obviously extreme on the other end. Picking somewhere in the middle is what it means to work in a functional system with limited resources.

 

Besides all of that, I have already said multiple times that if you remove all of the safety issues I still have no issue with the restriction. You do not have a moral, legal, fundamental right to work wherever you want, whenever you want, for however long you want. That exists in no religious or philosophical text.

This is the same argument that hyperlibertarians make against homeowners associations. But the second word is the giveaway. It is just one of many associations that we enter into voluntarily, because groups have aligned interests and values. And just because one person doesn't like what the group has determined as a group, does not make it immoral, because the individual does not have moral superiority over a group when that group is a voluntary association created by many individuals.

 

We have a bunch of people in our Union whining that the union isn't representing their interests because they want to work past 65. And they keep throwing DFR around because the union isn't advocating for their specific individual interest. Yet when the union does polling, the membership overwhelmingly supports age 65 as a restriction. The union has no obligation to advocate for your specific interests beyond its duty to represent you in disciplinary proceedings.

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Besides all of that, I have already said multiple times that if you remove all of the safety issues I still have no issue with the restriction. You do not have a moral, legal, fundamental right to work wherever you want, whenever you want, for however long you want. That exists in no religious or philosophical text.

You don't believe this. If you believed this, you wouldn't have spent all that time and effort referring to safety, known "facts" about cognitive decline, how it'd be too complicated to test for it, that group-based metrics are an effective measure, how it's a can of worms no one wants to open, etc. Or, if you do believe it, you were arguing disingenuously the whole time. I, for one, always enlist irrelevant facts having nothing to do with the core of my argument 🤔. If your argument is that you don't have a "right" to work in an industry, so therefore you get to be subject to whatever arbitrary regulation that other people put on you, that's a pretty lack-luster argument, and I don't think many other people would be convinced by it. That said, you're welcome to make it.

I knew what we disagreed on at the outset. It's that age discrimination is wrong and you think it's right. Again, that's a fair opinion to have. The main component here, though, is self-interest wearing the mask of safety. The safety refrain is a Mott and Bailey. That's all I was trying to flesh out.

[SocialD]

3 hours ago, ViperMan said:

You are conflating a general argument that old people slow down (which nobody disputes) and using it to generalize to a something specific: namely that people over age 65 are unsafe to fly. There is no data that shows that, so please don't misrepresent what I argued here. If people over age 65 are unsafe to fly, there should be data that backs up that specific claim. No one has presented that or produced it. So far it's all anecdote and narrative-weaving. "This one time, at band camp..."

 

The status quo is 65, so the onus on data for such a change is on the pro change crowd.  I was talking with my aircraft insurance broker yesterday and they said insurance premiums skyrocket in your mid to late 60s.  Not sure what data they're using.  

 

Either way, I've never been a backer of the safety thing.  Some are capable, some are not, same with those under 65.  I'm with Ratner, I don't see anything wrong with the age limitation that everyone has known about, worked under, and benefited from their entire careers.  We're all impacted by the same restriction.  Nothing says we can no longer practice our craft, we just can't do it to haul the general public in the U.S.  

[slc]

10 hours ago, Smokin said:

then still lives beyond his means, and talks about his third vacation home in front of the dude driving the hotel shuttle. 

Had to laugh at this one.....this about covers over 50% of the "captains" I fly with.  Exhausting to hear about their 2nd vaca home, GA acft, putting Susie thru some $50K per year institution, etc etc.  These are the same guys that will plod on till 65-67 as a result of that lifestyle

[Lord Ratner]

8 hours ago, ViperMan said:

You don't believe this. If you believed this, you wouldn't have spent all that time and effort referring to safety, known "facts" about cognitive decline, how it'd be too complicated to test for it, that group-based metrics are an effective measure, how it's a can of worms no one wants to open, etc. Or, if you do believe it, you were arguing disingenuously the whole time. I, for one, always enlist irrelevant facts having nothing to do with the core of my argument 🤔. If your argument is that you don't have a "right" to work in an industry, so therefore you get to be subject to whatever arbitrary regulation that other people put on you, that's a pretty lack-luster argument, and I don't think many other people would be convinced by it. That said, you're welcome to make it.

I knew what we disagreed on at the outset. It's that age discrimination is wrong and you think it's right. Again, that's a fair opinion to have. The main component here, though, is self-interest wearing the mask of safety. The safety refrain is a Mott and Bailey. That's all I was trying to flesh out.

I think you are intelligent enough to have the conversation you want to have, but you are simply too self-righteous to listen. In either case, until you are capable of holding two thoughts at the same time, I don't need to write another manifesto just repeating myself.

There is a safety justification that is backed up by decades of cognitive research, as well as insurance actuarial tables as pointed out above. 65 might or might not be the correct number.

There is also a concept of group-based norms and expectations, which can be equally or unequally applied. In this case, the forced retirement is equally applied, which plays a huge part in determining whether or not the group norm is moral.

Finally there is the concept of averaging and thresholding, which again, insurance companies (and the government, and schools, and churches, and people in general) have been doing for centuries because it is simply not practical to test all of the variables that one might want to consider individually for every restriction.

If you can't get to there, we just aren't going to get anywhere.

[ViperMan]

7 hours ago, SocialD said:

Either way, I've never been a backer of the safety thing.  Some are capable, some are not, same with those under 65.  I'm with Ratner, I don't see anything wrong with the age limitation that everyone has known about, worked under, and benefited from their entire careers.  We're all impacted by the same restriction.  Nothing says we can no longer practice our craft, we just can't do it to haul the general public in the U.S.

Fair enough. I just think these are separate arguments. My point is that we're wringing our hands over this being a safety issue, when really it's about something else. Fine to make an argument that it's not fair for them to be parked at the top of the list for that long. Just make that argument. And regardless of the status quo being what it was, there is precedent for having recently changed it without having provided such data.

53 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

There is a safety justification that is backed up by decades of cognitive research, as well as insurance actuarial tables as pointed out above. 65 might or might not be the correct number.

There is also a concept of group-based norms and expectations, which can be equally or unequally applied. In this case, the forced retirement is equally applied, which plays a huge part in determining whether or not the group norm is moral.

Which I acknowledge. It just seemed to me like you were making two arguments and tossing in any justification you could come up with. You eventually threw one of them out when your core argument appeared. I understand there is the justification you have that is backed up by safety concerns - I don't think the data is there. I also understand there's your other separate argument that really amounts to "it's always been this way so I think it's fair." Those are separate. Congress doesn't give a shit if it's always been this way. Congress does give a shit about "safety" - which is why the substrata of this discussion is what it is and why any argument that's going to have legs must enlist "safety." All the other arguments are interesting but academic.

[Lord Ratner]

5 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Fair enough. I just think these are separate arguments. My point is that we're wringing our hands over this being a safety issue, when really it's about something else. Fine to make an argument that it's not fair for them to be parked at the top of the list for that long. Just make that argument. And regardless of the status quo being what it was, there is precedent for having recently changed it without having provided such data.

Which I acknowledge. It just seemed to me like you were making two arguments and tossing in any justification you could come up with. You eventually threw one of them out when your core argument appeared. I understand there is the justification you have that is backed up by safety concerns - I don't think the data is there. I also understand there's your other separate argument that really amounts to "it's always been this way so I think it's fair." Those are separate. Congress doesn't give a shit if it's always been this way. Congress does give a shit about "safety" - which is why the substrata of this discussion is what it is and why any argument that's going to have legs must enlist "safety." All the other arguments are interesting but academic.

 

Lol, I don't know what you think my core argument is, but I've said multiple times that multiple things can be true at once.

I have no idea what your second paragraph is supposed to convey. You think Congress cares about safety? Now who's naive?

I also never said something is right because it's always been that way. I said that groups can create norms and rules as long as they are consistently applied. You joining that system indicates a moral endorsement of the act. Otherwise you are participating in an immoral system for profit, which makes you immoral.

Of course you can disagree with the system you are a part of, but there is a big difference between disagreeing with something and believing it to be immoral. You have made the claim that it is immoral:

 

12 hours ago, ViperMan said:

I don't think age-based discrimination is proper, ethical, or moral

 

Again, your arguments border on hyperlibertarianism. The reason libertarians have never and will never have any real power in any real society is because absolute adherence to individual freedom falls apart immediately upon contact with reality. The same group of people that will complain about the government setting an age limitation will complain at the amount of money the government would be required to spend to do cognitive testing on every pilot of every age.

I used to consider myself libertarian until I realized it is the political manifestation of backseat driving. This whole conversation reeks of it.

[SocialD]

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

Fair enough. I just think these are separate arguments. My point is that we're wringing our hands over this being a safety issue, when really it's about something else. Fine to make an argument that it's not fair for them to be parked at the top of the list for that long. Just make that argument. And regardless of the status quo being what it was, there is precedent for having recently changed it without having provided such data.

 

 

If you're talking about age 60 to 65, that isn't true.  We only changed to 65 AFTER ICAO raised it to 65.  They changed their age limit, circa 2006, based on data.  

 

Since you bring up the age increase, it's a good point to include.  Those at the top knew about an upper the limit when they chose this career.  They've already benefited from those leaving ahead of them AND they got 5 more years than they had planned.  They also can continue to practice their craft, just not hauling the general public. 

 

I had to sit and listen to a senior WB FO lecture me about why I should support 67 because he "needs" it. Nothing to do with discrimination, he just said he was unable to save any money in his 401k because he "had to pay for college for 4 kids."  My counter is you did not NEED to fully fund your kids college, you chose to do that.  It's admirable, but a poor decision if you're choosing that over funding your own retirement.  All he did was increase the likelihood that his kids will have to support him later in life.  He could have funded part of college, while still saving...they'll make their own money.  I told him I enlisted in the Guard to pay for college and offered contact information for my base recruiters.  Others told me they didn't contribute to their 401k because they didn't think they should have to fund their own retirement.  ...uhh wut?!  

 

If you don't think it's moral to have an age limit, then I can respect that.  I disagree with it because we have all sorts of age limits for various reasons, of which most are value.  But it's OK to disagree.  

[Lord Ratner]

41 minutes ago, SocialD said:

Others told me they didn't contribute to their 401k because they didn't think they should have to fund their own retirement.  ...uhh wut?!  

I have always wanted to get the statistics on how many airline pilots make zero contributions, and just rely on what the company puts in. Seems crazy to me, but at this point I bet it's at it's at least half.

[nunya]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I have always wanted to get the statistics on how many airline pilots make zero contributions, and just rely on what the company puts in. Seems crazy to me, but at this point I bet it's at it's at least half.

An average CA or a hustling FO at a major with ~16-19% company contributions doesn't have to contribute a dime to reach IRS maximums by Thanksgiving, so I think you'll find plenty that don't contribute from their paycheck to a 401k.

The question would be how many are not socking way with IRAs, HSAs, 529s, brokerage, crypto, Cubans (the cigars, not the bipeds), or gunpowder and lead. I suspect that number is near 0.

[Lord Ratner]

38 minutes ago, nunya said:

An average CA or a hustling FO at a major with ~16-19% company contributions doesn't have to contribute a dime to reach IRS maximums by Thanksgiving, so I think you'll find plenty that don't contribute from their paycheck to a 401k.

The question would be how many are not socking way with IRAs, HSAs, 529s, brokerage, crypto, Cubans (the cigars, not the bipeds), or gunpowder and lead. I suspect that number is near 0.

I haven't redone it for the new contracts, but you would hit the 401K income cap before you would max out your 401k. If you don't contribute, it was literally impossible to hit the max.

 

But this does nicely demonstrate just how financially weak a lot of the pilots are. I've had to correct many people on that misconception.

Edit: I looked it up, and the annual compensation limit for 2024 is $345,000.

At 17% that limits the company contribution to $58,650. Well below the $69,000 cap ($76,500 if over 50).

Edited May 3 by Lord Ratner

[nunya]

4 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Edit: I looked it up, and the annual compensation limit for 2024 is $345,000.

At 17% that limits the company contribution to $58,650. Well below the $69,000 cap ($76,500 if over 50).

Except... Compensation in a Safe Harbor plan does not include bonuses, like profit sharing, which has been good for us post-COVID and pays the same 17% into your 401k.

A healthy, pensionable profit sharing check can make up for the under 50 crowd, and even for the over 50 crowd if they're playing the game well. I'm not saying everyone can reach these levels, but it's certainly not unheard of and will be more common when co contributions go to 18%.

Quote

But this does nicely demonstrate just how financially weak a lot of the pilots are. I've had to correct many people on that misconception.

BTW, nice attempted flex. You were so, so close to the knock out.

Edited May 4 by nunya

[Lord Ratner]

15 minutes ago, nunya said:

Except... Compensation in a Safe Harbor plan does not include bonuses, like profit sharing, which has been good for us post-COVID and pays the same 17% into your 401k.

A healthy, pensionable profit sharing check can make up for the under 50 crowd, and even for the over 50 crowd if they're playing the game well. I'm not saying everyone can reach these levels, but it's certainly not unheard of and will be more common when co contributions go to 18%.

BTW, nice attempted flex. You were so, so close to the knock out.

Sorry, but this is the dumbest thing I've read today, and Biff has been posting (love ya, biff 🤣)

 

So now you're argument is that profit sharing at 17%, ignoring that profit sharing is *wildly* unstable, is enough to rely on to max the 401k? I think Delta got 16% last time (which AA and United were not remotely close to), which is the highest in the industry. For an FO making 300k that's $8,160 more in the 401k, which still doesn't max it out.

 

I may have missed the knock out, but you just handed me the TKO. Thanks.

 

5 hours ago, nunya said:

An average CA or a hustling FO at a major with ~16-19% company contributions doesn't have to contribute a dime to reach IRS maximums by Thanksgiving

You were simply wrong. That's fine, but don't give anyone advice.

Edited May 4 by Lord Ratner