Good news for pilots - retirement age

In article . com,
says...

Why is this a good thing. So now the old *******s are going to keep
their butts in the left seat and no one else gets a chance? "Good
news"????

Good news for them!
Good news for the flying public, who benefit from their experience.
Good new for you when you get closer to that age and make a quick 180 on your
above post! :-)

Good news in general because it's just plain realistic.
Pilots have to watch their health all their lives, and most want nothing more
than to maintain their careers as long as possible. The 60 rule was
antiquated when it was instated 47 years ago - it has become more so with
every passing year.




-Robert

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
says...

Why is this a good thing. So now the old *******s are going to keep
their butts in the left seat and no one else gets a chance? "Good
news"????

Good news for them!
Good news for the flying public, who benefit from their experience.
Good new for you when you get closer to that age and make a quick 180 on
your
above post! :-)

Good news in general because it's just plain realistic.
Pilots have to watch their health all their lives, and most want nothing
more
than to maintain their careers as long as possible. The 60 rule was
antiquated when it was instated 47 years ago - it has become more so
with
every passing year.


-Robert


Robert is right. Some of the greatest "Saves" in aviation history have
been accomplished by a 59 year old captain, Al Haynes/Sioux City comes to
mind
as does a B737 convertible for Hawaiian airlines. Both of these crews had an
"ancient" captain, legally on his last legs age wise, and both exhibited
incredible skill and knowlege of the systems in the process of saving
hundreds of lives. This is no accident, literally.

Al G

Al G

Good news in general because it's just plain realistic.
Pilots have to watch their health all their lives, and most want nothing more
than to maintain their careers as long as possible. The 60 rule was
antiquated when it was instated 47 years ago - it has become more so with
every passing year.

It'll never change, because (after verifying that 60 is the new 50) the
bureaucrats would have to admit that most government pension programs
are absurdly generous and financially unsustainable over time.

Face it: If they admit that age 60 is "too young" to retire (and we
*all* know it is), they will be forced to reassess their own ridiculous
"30 years and out with full-benefits" policy that allows 52 year-old
gummint employees to retire with full pensions.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:


It'll never change, because (after verifying that 60 is the new 50) the
bureaucrats would have to admit that most government pension programs
are absurdly generous and financially unsustainable over time.

Keeping people working longer helps because they are still contributing.



Face it: If they admit that age 60 is "too young" to retire (and we
*all* know it is), they will be forced to reassess their own ridiculous
"30 years and out with full-benefits" policy that allows 52 year-old
gummint employees to retire with full pensions.

My mandatory retirement is age 56. I am eligible at 49 when I will have
25 years. There are no full pensions anymore in the government. Better
read up. The Government started a new retirement system in the mid
80's. There aren't many people left on the old system. The old system
was a pension only system, they did not pay into social security and did
not receive benefits unless they got their 40 quarters somewhere else.
They received 50% of their highest three years of salary as their
retirement. Now the retirement is much more employee financed. I also
pay into social security. I also put the IRS max of $14K this year into
my 401K. My pension will be less than the 50% the other workers got.

My mandatory retirement is age 56. I am eligible at 49 when I will have
25 years.

Case closed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:05:38 -0800, in
. com, Jay Honeck wrote:
Case closed.

When I was in the military, you could retire at 50% salary after 20 years
or 75% salary after 30 years... We didn't get paid much back then, so 50
or 75 percent of nothing was still nothing...

Traditionally, government employees have been paid considerably less than
their private sector counterparts... One way to compensate for that is to
give them better retirement options...

("Grumman-581" wrote)
Traditionally, government employees have been paid considerably less than
their private sector counterparts... One way to compensate for that is to
give them better retirement options...


Bunk.

Private sector employees operate in an environment of 'risk' ...as in, will
I have a job next month? State, County, and Federal employees often do not
face this reality. There is currency in this type of job protection.

On a side note - I love talk about raising the minimum wage. The first
benefactors of a higher minimum wage are State and County workers, who (many
times) have salaries pegged to that number.


Mont

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
news

Traditionally, government employees have been paid considerably less than
their private sector counterparts... One way to compensate for that is to
give them better retirement options...

....or less real (i.e., productive) work to do.

Newps wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
My mandatory retirement is age 56. I am eligible at 49 when I will have
25 years. There are no full pensions anymore in the government. Better
read up. The Government started a new retirement system in the mid
80's. There aren't many people left on the old system. The old system
was a pension only system, they did not pay into social security and did
not receive benefits unless they got their 40 quarters somewhere else.
They received 50% of their highest three years of salary as their
retirement. Now the retirement is much more employee financed. I also
pay into social security. I also put the IRS max of $14K this year into
my 401K. My pension will be less than the 50% the other workers got.

You are a gov't employee and can contribute to a 401K?

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
Newps wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:
My mandatory retirement is age 56. I am eligible at 49 when I will have
25 years. There are no full pensions anymore in the government. Better
read up. The Government started a new retirement system in the mid
80's. There aren't many people left on the old system. The old system
was a pension only system, they did not pay into social security and did
not receive benefits unless they got their 40 quarters somewhere else.
They received 50% of their highest three years of salary as their
retirement. Now the retirement is much more employee financed. I also
pay into social security. I also put the IRS max of $14K this year into
my 401K. My pension will be less than the 50% the other workers got.


You are a gov't employee and can contribute to a 401K?

We call it TSP, for Thrift Savings Plan, but it's essentially the same
as your 401k. I can contribute any amount up to the IRS max which I
believe is $14K this year, goes up about $500 a year, same as you. The
Government contributes another 5% of my base pay.