Mid-Air Collision in DC

[nunya]

59 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

I think airline Management is suspiciously quiet on age 65 because they know, especially with the new contracts and generous LTD plans

Kirby publicly voiced that concern.

Quote

But United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby has said lifting the retirement age would not solve the pilot shortage. Last year, he said 36% of the company's pilots aged 64 were out on sick, long-term, or short-term medical leave.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-airline-pilots-fight-their-unions-increase-retirement-age-2023-08-22/

 

[SocialD]

22 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

They really all want to be on LTD, that’s the real deal


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

I used to think that, but I don't think that's the case for many of them.  They want to be able to keep working their cush gig now that they're on top.  Sadly, what will probably happen is our generous LTD will likely be targeted in future negotiations and we'll lose some of it as it becomes to expensive (in negotiating capital) to keep.  Of course, by then, many of the pro-67 crowd will be gone, so it's not their problem. 

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, SocialD said:

 

 

I used to think that, but I don't think that's the case for many of them.  They want to be able to keep working their cush gig now that they're on top.  Sadly, what will probably happen is our generous LTD will likely be targeted in future negotiations and we'll lose some of it as it becomes to expensive (in negotiating capital) to keep.  Of course, by then, many of the pro-67 crowd will be gone, so it's not their problem. 

Simple solution. Ltd ends at 65 no matter what.

[SocialD]

6 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Simple solution. Ltd ends at 65 no matter what.

 

Ours is worded that it continue to "mandatory retirement age."  While I agree with the sentiment, I don't think that would be legal, though I'm certainly no lawyer.  

[Clark Griswold]

8 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

They may end up on LTD, but this is not the case. I don't know if you're an airline guy or not, but the number of guys I hear raging against age 65 because it is a direct attack on their perception of their own status and money making ability.

I think airline Management is suspiciously quiet on age 65 because they know, especially with the new contracts and generous LTD plans, that they are going to pay a fortune to 65, 66, and 67-year-olds who did not realize how weak their bodies had become. It'll be the widebody captains who don't have a real job anyways who stick around until they look like the crypt keeper 🤣😂

Yup at a 121, you might be right but I suspect there’s more than a few with no concern or shame for that who will suddenly develop problems 

Their potential LTD payments are a threat to my potential XX percent raise in a new contract, Lord willing, take it to the house gramps.

1 hour ago, SocialD said:

I used to think that, but I don't think that's the case for many of them.  They want to be able to keep working their cush gig now that they're on top.  Sadly, what will probably happen is our generous LTD will likely be targeted in future negotiations and we'll lose some of it as it becomes to expensive (in negotiating capital) to keep.  Of course, by then, many of the pro-67 crowd will be gone, so it's not their problem. 

Might be, all the more reason to hell no

[Vetter]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Simple solution. Ltd ends at 65 no matter what.

Absolutely not.  LTD pays until the statutorily mandated retirement age if they push this shit on us.

Of course, most airline pilots don’t realize the benefits of a good LTD program until they are on it.  And when it’s your time, it’s your time.

[SocialD]

1 hour ago, Vetter said:

Absolutely not.  LTD pays until the statutorily mandated retirement age if they push this shit on us.

Of course, most airline pilots don’t realize the benefits of a good LTD program until they are on it.  And when it’s your time, it’s your time.

 

 

Therein lies the issue.  It will likely become very hard to maintain that good LTD program if the age increases.  Here's hoping it never becomes an issue.  

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, Vetter said:

Absolutely not.  LTD pays until the statutorily mandated retirement age if they push this shit on us.

Of course, most airline pilots don’t realize the benefits of a good LTD program until they are on it.  And when it’s your time, it’s your time.

Keeping the retirement age at 65 would be more beneficial to my career than extending it and keeping the LTD in play forever. It's an insurance policy. The older the people on it, the more expensive it is. 

 

Furthermore, long-term disability is to protect your earning capacity till retirement. I do not concur with the notion that retirement needs to extend beyond 65, therefore neither does the insurance for it.

 

Airline pilots are obsessed with making LTD some sort of moral imperative. It's just actuarial. You can have a more generous system the lower the maximum age is. I have no sympathy for people who want to work past 65, and so I see no need to create a disability system for them. Are the extra earning years not enough?

 

I am one vote, and like the old guys begging for an extension to the retirement age, voting directly against my interests, I am happy to vote against theirs. 

[Springer]

On 2/3/2025 at 8:49 PM, Smokin said:

The only CAs I've considered putting on my no fly list have all been 64.  Coincidence?

Interesting comment about no fly list.  It is an important tool to use.  This is going way back in time but do any of you know who Lyle Prouse is?  Although I never flew with him, word was out and several of us were proactive by adding his name.  May have saved our careers.

BTW, I retired at 59.  Enjoyed it but never looked back.

Edited 1 hour ago by Springer