Southwest Pilots Aggressively Push Age 65

[Klako]

Incredible – talk about twisted logic. I just hope you guys fly better than you debate. Yeah, it's all the junior's guys fault.

AA767AV8TOR

You are right, I am absolutely the world’s worst debater compared to my flying ability. The facts speak loud enough though.

The Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) at first fought hard to repeal the age 60 rule. Click here to see: See the Chronology of the "Age 60 Rule":

http://www.ppf.org/chrono.htm

In 1968 this was ALPA’s official stance on the Age 60 Rule:

“ALPA CONTINUES OPPOSITION TO AGE 60 RETIREMENT RULE . The Air Line Pilots Association strongly advocates that the Federal Air Regulation in its arbitrary age 60 retirement provision is unreasonably discriminating against all of the air line pilots. Shortening a pilots career with no realistic justification is cheating the public as well as the industry. ALPA has expended and continues to expend its utmost efforts in attempting to overcome this highly dissatisfying and unfair federal regulation.”

Sadly, ALPA turned traitor to it’s senior members after supporting a change in the rule for over twenty years. ALPA has now institutionalized age discrimination as an accelerated job advancement scheme for its junior pilots.

ALPA President Henry Duffy’s made this statement in the 1990 Baker v FAA “It has never been my belief that professional expertise diminishes at age 60, on the contrary, our senior members possess a wealth of knowledge, aviation history, and insight that have been developed through their years of experience, which are irreplaceable”. He also stated during this testimony “Pilots over 55 comprise 5-6% of the total membership. The other 95% selfishly view the forced retirement of older pilots as their guaranteed path and a God given right to their promotions!”

Safety is the lie that ALPA and APA have been spouting to mask blatant ageism directed against its most senior pilots. In reality, they are promoting institutionalized age discrimination against senior pilots, insuring an accelerated job advancement scheme for junior pilots.
In July 1979 Captain J. J. O’Donnell, then president of ALPA, testifies before the House Public Works and Transportation Committee: Congressman Anderson: “I gather from your testimony before the Select Committee on Aging that some of your members do not want to see the Age 60 Rule ended. Do those who oppose ending the age 60 rule do so on the grounds of safety or economics?” Captain O’Donnell; “ I would be misleading [to say that] they do it on the basis of safety. ... t is economics to those who object to the change in the regulation.”

 

[Klako]

Klako,
You can't have it both ways.

My personal situation has nothing to do with the overall merits of changing the "age 60 Rule".

The main issue is that our Constitution is supposed to protect those in the minority from the mal intensions of the majority. When the State deprives a person of their liberty to work in a profession that they are qualified, this violates that person’s equal protection guarantied by our Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment. It is a disturbing situation when a labor union such as ALPA and APA would dictate to the rest of the United States airline industry when all airline pilots must retire.

 

[Sluggo_63]

My personal situation has nothing to do with the overall merits of changing the "age 60 Rule".

The main issue is that our Constitution is supposed to protect those in the minority from the mal intensions of the majority. When the State deprives a person of their liberty to work in a profession that they are qualified, this violates that person’s equal protection guarantied by our Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment. It is a disturbing situation when a labor union such as ALPA and APA would dictate to the rest of the United States airline industry when all airline pilots must retire.

Actually, it's been upheld numerous times by the Supreme Court (the decider of what's Constitutional) that a mandatory retirement age is Constitutional when the issue is public safety.

You can throw out as many studies as you like that infer that flying at age 65 is as safe as 60, but there are just as many that show the opposite. Either way, your argument has been the pilots need to fly to 65 to recoup their losses financially. That is not sufficient reason to endanger the general population.

 

[chairmano]

Sluggo,

When were you in Lightning at CBM?

 

[Sluggo_63]

Sluggo,

When were you in Lightning at CBM?

From 1996-2000 (actually to 99, then I moved to Sabre)

Who's this?

 

[BVT94]

Actually, it's been upheld numerous times by the Supreme Court (the decider of what's Constitutional) that a mandatory retirement age is Constitutional when the issue is public safety.

You can throw out as many studies as you like that infer that flying at age 65 is as safe as 60, but there are just as many that show the opposite. Either way, your argument has been the pilots need to fly to 65 to recoup their losses financially. That is not sufficient reason to endanger the general population.

I bet if this age 60 thing changes, we see Boeings plowing thru terminals like Buicks plowing thru farmer's markets.

 

[miles otoole]

I bet if this age 60 thing changes, we see Boeings plowing thru terminals like Buicks plowing thru farmer's markets.

Yeah, but you won't see RJs plowing farms in KY.

 

[Andy]

I bet if this age 60 thing changes, we see Boeings plowing thru terminals like Buicks plowing thru farmer's markets.

Nah. That's the reason why there will always be a pilot under age 60 able to reach the brakes.
I can remember telling a Captain multiple times the altitude cleared to, with him insisting on me calling ATC again so that he could hear it. I obliged. I still chuckle at what the controller was thinking - probably 'can't this greenhorn remember his clearance?' Yes, I could. However, I had a crusty old Captain on the train to Alzheimersville unable to remember the cleared altitude until he heard it seven times.

 

[miles otoole]

Nah. That's the reason why there will always be a pilot under age 60 able to reach the brakes.
I can remember telling a Captain multiple times the altitude cleared to, with him insisting on me calling ATC again so that he could hear it. I obliged. I still chuckle at what the controller was thinking - probably 'can't this greenhorn remember his clearance?' Yes, I could. However, I had a crusty old Captain on the train to Alzheimersville unable to remember the cleared altitude until he heard it seven times.

Maybe if there had been more experience behind the controls of the Legacy accident last week, they wouldn't have been flying at the wrong altitude.

 

[Klako]

I bet if this age 60 thing changes, we see Boeings plowing thru terminals like Buicks plowing thru farmer's markets.

That isn't the most immature statement that I have read on this thread, shame on you!

 

[Klako]

Nah. That's the reason why there will always be a pilot under age 60 able to reach the brakes.
I can remember telling a Captain multiple times the altitude cleared to, with him insisting on me calling ATC again so that he could hear it. I obliged. I still chuckle at what the controller was thinking - probably 'can't this greenhorn remember his clearance?' Yes, I could. However, I had a crusty old Captain on the train to Alzheimersville unable to remember the cleared altitude until he heard it seven times.

Andy,

I could.......On second thought, I'm just not going to waist my time.

 

[Flybynite]

Nah. That's the reason why there will always be a pilot under age 60 able to reach the brakes.
I can remember telling a Captain multiple times the altitude cleared to, with him insisting on me calling ATC again so that he could hear it. I obliged. I still chuckle at what the controller was thinking - probably 'can't this greenhorn remember his clearance?' Yes, I could. However, I had a crusty old Captain on the train to Alzheimersville unable to remember the cleared altitude until he heard it seven times.

The aviation world sure is lucky to have an individual of your talents. Maybe you could volunteer your services to fly with everyone and keep all us losers out of trouble. When I'm not sure of a clearance I just guess and hope for the best. Better that than to let my gifted F/O to think poorly of me. It was really big of you to stoop so low as to actually clarify a clearance. Get over yourself, you have proven to be a moron.

 

[BVT94]

That isn't the most immature statement that I have read on this thread, shame on you!

Of course its immature, i'm one of those "Junior pilots milking the age 60 rule"

 

[Sluggo_63]

My personal situation has nothing to do with the overall merits of changing the "age 60 Rule".

Sure it does.

YOU always maintained that YOU took the job YOU did because they had an 135 operation that would allow YOU to fly until YOU'RE 65. The FAA took that away from YOU and now YOU have to find a way to make ends meet. It is about YOUR personal situation.

I know, you stuffed envelopes about this age 60 rule back when you were in short pants, but if the FAA hadn't changed that rule on you, and you were allowed to fly part 135 until 65, would you be this adamant about the rule change for the part 121 folks? Be honest.

 

[ivauir]

Because the law is wrong, ageism and age discrimination simply must not be institutionalized by a federal law such as we now have in Section 121.383(c) of the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations, commonly referred to as the FAA’s “Age 60 Rule”.

So why aren't you fighting to lower the "age 23" rule?

 

[hoover]

The decision on age 60 should be made on the basis of whether or not it is safe to have pilots over age 60 flying transport aircraft. It should not be made on the balances of pilots' retirement plans.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

You guys might want to add the US Airways pilots to this list. I heard that today they voted to have their MEC adopt an official stance for the repeal of the Age 60 rule.

 

[Deadbug]

US Airways too? not so fast...

Yeah, the so-called vote was a 1-vote margin:

With 64 percent of the eligible voting:
756 pilots voted yes.
755 pilots voted no. A one vote difference

No mandate there...

 

[Sluggo_63]

Yeah, the so-called vote was a 1-vote margin:

With 64 percent of the eligible voting:
756 pilots voted yes.
755 pilots voted no. A one vote difference

No mandate there...

Exactly. When was the junior guy at US Air hired? 1990? I wonder if any of the 1400+ pilots on furlough had a chance to voice their opinion. I'm guessing the vote would have gone 756 to 2155. Sure, it's all about safety...

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Yeah, the so-called vote was a 1-vote margin:

With 64 percent of the eligible voting:
756 pilots voted yes.
755 pilots voted no. A one vote difference

No mandate there...

You telling me that only 64% of those eligible voted !?!?!?!?! Wow, you ALPA guys just won't get involved, will you?....I believe that on this one, all they were looking for is a majority...one way or the other...

You are right, it's not a mandate....but they asked the membership to vote so the MEC could take a position on this issue....They got a majority.

Tejas