Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

DOT seeks age 60 opinion, young guys speak up

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

PVB BEACH

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2004
Posts
15
Here is the web address of two different steering commitees sponsered by the DOT. They are looking for opinions on the upcoming age 60 rule. Take the time to fill out both opinion surveys or don't complain if they change the rule.

Fly Safe


1st website:

http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=26139&searchType=docket

docket# faa-2006-26139

2nd website:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...tml&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov

Regulations.gov site info: keyword, anyword search- Age 60 Aviation Rulemaking Commitee
 
Thanks for the link. We will certainly speak up--not the way you want, however! And we assume your numerous spelling errors were not due to your young age and inability to spell! LOL!
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I'll be sure to respond as I am all for changing this out-dated, useless rule.

Great, enjoy your ERJ FO slot for ten more years. You probably think the rule about not marrying your sister is out-dated too. You want to date and "out" your sister, and then marry her. I am hillarious! I bet the majority disagree with you.

Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Last edited:
I sent them my note I will put it down below I know someone will be able to come up with something better but here is a start:

"Please keep the safety valve in place. The older you get the more deterioration you have in both mental and physical abilities. These pilots asking for an increase in the mandatory retirement age are jeopardizing our airlines and your lives. There is no reason to let anyone at the controls of a passenger jet that is over 60. The only thing increasing the age will do is increase the likelihood that an accident will happen. No one can say that a 65 year old pilot is safer than a 60 year old pilot so why take the chance. This rule has helped the U.S. to have the safest air carriers in the world so I see no reason to tempt fate and change a rule that is working."
 
Add me to the "in favor" of the age 65 increase.

I'm 35, does that make me an "old guy" looking to increase my longevity? WTFE...

Thanks for not making me have to go in search for it. I've already written all my congressmen and senators 2 or 3 times about it. Guess it's time to do it again.
 
Great, enjoy your ERJ FO slot for ten more years. You probably think the rule about not marrying your sister is out-dated too. You want to date and "out" your sister, and then marry her. I am hillarious! I bet the majority disagree with you.

Bye Bye--General Lee


I don't get it. Why would I want to end the career of an experienced pilot just to move up one seniority number.

Unity! (until it serves my purpose)
 
I sent them my note I will put it down below I know someone will be able to come up with something better but here is a start:

"Please keep the safety valve in place. The older you get the more deterioration you have in both mental and physical abilities. These pilots asking for an increase in the mandatory retirement age are jeopardizing our airlines and your lives. There is no reason to let anyone at the controls of a passenger jet that is over 60. The only thing increasing the age will do is increase the likelihood that an accident will happen. No one can say that a 65 year old pilot is safer than a 60 year old pilot so why take the chance. This rule has helped the U.S. to have the safest air carriers in the world so I see no reason to tempt fate and change a rule that is working."

I have no opinion on the rule as it does not affect me, but this "safety" argument is a waste of time. Pilots are among the most closely monitored and scrutinized professionals around. You have to constantly attend training, pass sim/flight checks and medical exams. If you can do that... have fun in your jet. If you can't go buy a rocking chair. The current age is in place because of money and politics, not safety. So please don't use safety as the argument because it was not the argument to set it at 60.
 
I sent them my note I will put it down below I know someone will be able to come up with something better but here is a start:

"Please keep the safety valve in place. The older you get the more deterioration you have in both mental and physical abilities. These pilots asking for an increase in the mandatory retirement age are jeopardizing our airlines and your lives. There is no reason to let anyone at the controls of a passenger jet that is over 60. The only thing increasing the age will do is increase the likelihood that an accident will happen. No one can say that a 65 year old pilot is safer than a 60 year old pilot so why take the chance. This rule has helped the U.S. to have the safest air carriers in the world so I see no reason to tempt fate and change a rule that is working."
What a crok of SH$T
 
Not for a while

So when (date) does the FAA make the decision either way?

The study group has 60 days to make a report, then the FAA mulls it over and (maybe) issues an NPRM for public comment, studies the responses, sounds out their political bosses, etc. etc. It could take several months.
 
I sent them my note I will put it down below I know someone will be able to come up with something better but here is a start:

"Please keep the safety valve in place. The older you get the more deterioration you have in both mental and physical abilities. These pilots asking for an increase in the mandatory retirement age are jeopardizing our airlines and your lives. There is no reason to let anyone at the controls of a passenger jet that is over 60. The only thing increasing the age will do is increase the likelihood that an accident will happen. No one can say that a 65 year old pilot is safer than a 60 year old pilot so why take the chance. This rule has helped the U.S. to have the safest air carriers in the world so I see no reason to tempt fate and change a rule that is working."

I'm all in favor of keeping the age 60, BUT NOT based on this knuckle heads comments.
 
Please keep the safety valve in place. The older you get the more deterioration you have in both mental and physical abilities. These pilots asking for an increase in the mandatory retirement age are jeopardizing our airlines and your lives.

You sound hysterical. In fact, pilots up to age 65 from all over the world will be flying into this country soon as the ICAO is adopting the new standard next month.

Indeed, Duane Woerth signed ALPA's Jazz contract that permits Canadian pilots to fly up to 65.

It's not about safety and it's never been about safety.
 
why dont you old farts pop some viagra and go enjoy some time away from flying. I dont get why someone would want to do this job a single day past 60. If you are nearing that age, you made it through the golden years of aviation/pay, and if you didnt save up enough to make it through your own golden years...THATS NOT MY PROBLEM. Quit pulling up the ladder behind you. You reaped the benifits of the age 60 rule, now get outta my seat. If safety is not a factor as many of you are saying, then why cant the flight go unless a young buck is in the next seat. I personaly dont care about the safety factor, nor do I think most of the protests to the rule REALLY care about it either. Its the fact that your still lingering around stinkin of moth balls when you should be home huggin the wife and grandkids.
 
I don't see why more companies aren't in favor of the age 65 rule. The actuarial tables are pretty clear. For the average pilot that works to 65, the average age of death is 66.5 yrs. At age 60, it's about 75 years old. If I were management, why pay a guy retirement to sit at home for 10-15 years when you could pay him for 5 more years of productive work and then only pay 1-2 years of retirement.

As more companies get rid of A plans, I'm sure that they will be pushing age 60 only since it is in their economic interstest to hire younger (cheaper) pilots, especially if they don't have to pay any retirement benefits.

Live reasonably, keep the first wife (or at least the second), retire at 60, and get a hobby or something. Nothing more pathetic than some of these geezers who have nothing else to do but fly until they die (hopefully not with me on board).
 
I don't see why more companies aren't in favor of the age 65 rule. The actuarial tables are pretty clear. For the average pilot that works to 65, the average age of death is 66.5 yrs. At age 60, it's about 75 years old.
If I were management, why pay a guy retirement to sit at home for 10-15 years when you could pay him for 5 more years of productive work and then only pay 1-2 years of retirement.
As more companies get rid of A plans, I'm sure that they will be pushing age 60 only since it is in their economic interstest to hire younger (cheaper) pilots, especially if they don't have to pay any retirement benefits.

Live reasonably, keep the first wife (or at least the second), retire at 60, and get a hobby or something. Nothing more pathetic than some of these geezers who have nothing else to do but fly until they die (hopefully not with me on board).

Cause it's a lot cheaper to pay his retirement than to pay him widebody/20 year captain pay for those 5 years. Sure you lose his productivity, but you solve that problem by promoting the 40 year old / 10 year FO to captain and hire a 30 year old first year FO. It's a lot cheaper than paying the old timer his captain pay until he is 65. And that is what its all about. Money and politics... safety has nothing to do with it.
 
Cause it's a lot cheaper to pay his retirement than to pay him widebody/20 year captain pay for those 5 years. Sure you lose his productivity, but you solve that problem by promoting the 40 year old / 10 year FO to captain and hire a 30 year old first year FO. It's a lot cheaper than paying the old timer his captain pay until he is 65. And that is what its all about. Money and politics... safety has nothing to do with it.

More senior pilots have more vacation, and use more sick time. (they are old and need more time off--they are tired) It also has to do with pay scales. Longevity, or years of service, max's out at 12 years at DL. IF they could get a 10 year guy to do the Captain seat instead of the guys at the top of the scale, then they save money. Jetblue started with all guys at year 1. But now it is getting more expensive for them because people are climbing the pay ladder. Most Captains at DL have hit the top scale for a while now.


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
why dont you old farts pop some viagra and go enjoy some time away from flying. I dont get why someone would want to do this job a single day past 60.
Ummm... MAYBE for the same reason YOU want to... they LOVE to fly? MAYBE they have all the money the need but still enjoy their profession?

Just a thought,,, not that you'll even attempt to understand (or could grasp the concept).

If you are nearing that age, you made it through the golden years of aviation/pay, and if you didnt save up enough to make it through your own golden years...THATS NOT MY PROBLEM. Quit pulling up the ladder behind you. You reaped the benifits of the age 60 rule, now get outta my seat. If safety is not a factor as many of you are saying, then why cant the flight go unless a young buck is in the next seat. I personaly dont care about the safety factor, nor do I think most of the protests to the rule REALLY care about it either. Its the fact that your still lingering around stinkin of moth balls when you should be home huggin the wife and grandkids.
Again, who said it's all about the money?

And, incidentally, who died and made YOU king?

Get out of your seat? Typical "ME-ME-ME" mentality of Gen X or Y or whatever the hell you are. Lazy, PFT, work for sh*t Regional F/O wage, "I just wanna get to a major at any cost" so-called "professional" pilot. Guys like you should be ashamed of yourself.

No wonder this country has gone to hell in a handbasket. Guys like you take all the honor and ethics out of the profession, and management LOVES you for it. Well done.

p.s. I'm not an "old fart", although I am a child of the 80's, and I REALLY WISH this wasn't an anonymous board... it would be really nice to know who some of you people are for future reference (like when you come to interview). I don't think we need any guys lacking moral fiber like yourself over here...

I hope they raise the retirement age to 65 and guys like you lose your medical to diabetes or a heart problem at age 60 when you're still wanting to fly. THAT would be poetic justice for you undercutting little bastards.

I feel better now...
 
HOUSTON, Oct. 21 - Early retirement may translate into early mortality, at least for those 60 or younger, say researchers here. Action Points
  • <LI class=APP>Explain to patients contemplating early retirement that this big company study found that retiring at age 55 was associated with an almost two-fold greater risk of dying compared with employees who postponed retirement until their 60s.
  • Explain that although poor health was considered a possibility for the higher mortality rate among younger retirees, the authors did not have the data to determine if there was a direct and significant association. However, retiring at age 60 did not have a mortality benefit when compared with retirement at age 65.

In a prospective cohort study of thousands of employees who worked at Shell Oil, the investigators found that embarking on the Golden Years at age 55 doubled the risk for death before reaching age 65, compared with those who toiled beyond age 60,

Failing health might have played a role in the younger retirees' higher mortality, said Shan P. Tsai, Ph.D., an epidemiologist at Shell Health Services, according to the report in the British Medical Journal.

However, data were not available to assess directly whether poor health was a significant factor, and it is not clear why continued employment led to longer life, the researchers wrote.

Gender made a difference. The risk of dying early was 80% greater for men than for women, the researchers said.

Interestingly, the researchers discovered that during the first five years of retirement, the mortality rate for employees who retired at age 60 was similar to that of those who retired at age 65 (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.22).

The notion that early retirement means less stress and a more relaxed lifestyle has fueled the belief that retiring young boosts longevity, Dr Tsai and colleagues wrote. However, these results indicate the opposite: Mortality rates improved with an older retirement age.

The study included men and women who retired at ages 55, 60, and 65 or who were actively working at ages 55 or 60 between January 1, 1973, and December 31, 2003.

In the main analysis, the researchers reviewed the survival outcomes of 839 employees who retired at age 55 and 1,929 employees who worked until age 60 and were still alive at age 65. These outcomes were compared with 900 employees who retired at 65. Women made up only about 11% of the total study population.

Overall, 137 workers who retired by age 55 died by age 65, while 98 workers who retired at age 60 died by age 65, the researchers reported. After adjusting for sex, the year the participant entered the study, and socioeconomic status, the researchers concluded that employees who retired at age 55 had almost double the mortality risk of those who continued working into their 60s (hazard ratio 1.89, 95% confidence interval 1.58 to 2.27).

Workers were divided into either high or low socioeconomic groups. Higher socioeconomic status appeared to permit earlier retirement. However, low socioeconomic status turned out to be a risk factor for workers who retired at 55. Employees in the high socioeconomic status category who retired at 55 had a 20% greater risk of dying (hazard ratio 1.21, 95% CI, 0.88-1.67), whereas poorer employees had nearly a 60% increased mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.58, 95% CI, 1.15-2.18).

Waiting until age 60 or older to retire appeared to make little difference in the risk of death. "Mortality did not differ for the first five years after retirement at 60 compared with continuing to work at 60," the researchers reported (hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI, 0.82-1.31). And in comparing retirement at ages 60 and 65, death rates were similar, Dr. Tsai's team wrote.
 
Ummm... MAYBE for the same reason YOU want to... they LOVE to fly? MAYBE they have all the money the need but still enjoy their profession?

Just a thought,,, not that you'll even attempt to understand (or could grasp the concept).


Again, who said it's all about the money?

And, incidentally, who died and made YOU king?

Get out of your seat? Typical "ME-ME-ME" mentality of Gen X or Y or whatever the hell you are. Lazy, PFT, work for sh*t Regional F/O wage, "I just wanna get to a major at any cost" so-called "professional" pilot. Guys like you should be ashamed of yourself.

No wonder this country has gone to hell in a handbasket. Guys like you take all the honor and ethics out of the profession, and management LOVES you for it. Well done.

p.s. I'm not an "old fart", although I am a child of the 80's, and I REALLY WISH this wasn't an anonymous board... it would be really nice to know who some of you people are for future reference (like when you come to interview). I don't think we need any guys lacking moral fiber like yourself over here...

I hope they raise the retirement age to 65 and guys like you lose your medical to diabetes or a heart problem at age 60 when you're still wanting to fly. THAT would be poetic justice for you undercutting little bastards.

I feel better now...

well i wish i knew how to do individual quotes so as to not repost ALL of the garbage that you spewed. But here goes...

I have to agree with you on one point. I REALLY WISH this was not an anonymous board either, because there are so many people that sit comfortably behind a computer and spit out garbage that they know nothing off. Lacking moral character...do you know me? I think it shows less character making a personal attack on someone you dont know simply because you disagree with their opinion. I really dont care what you think of me, my goal in life is not to make you happy. The typical ME-ME-ME attitude you speak of is not something that I invented, nor is it something that I endorsed. I would agree the opposite, that your attitude is ME-ME-ME. As I explained, YOU benifited from the progression of age 60, and now that you have your coveted seat, you do not want to give it up. Now you tell me, is it being ME-ME-ME because I want to simply enjoy the same rights that you did? OR is it more selfish to get the benifit, THEN also change the rules. So if you can explain that I would be glad to listen. Also, if you noticed, there are no personal attacks in here to you. I thought the point of this was a discussion about flying topics. You need to cool your jets buddy. As for your wish that I would get diabetes or heart failure, to steal another quote from you, "Guys like you should be ashamed of yourself".
 
The typical ME-ME-ME attitude you speak of is not something that I invented, nor is it something that I endorsed. I would agree the opposite, that your attitude is ME-ME-ME. As I explained, YOU benifited from the progression of age 60, and now that you have your coveted seat, you do not want to give it up. Now you tell me, is it being ME-ME-ME because I want to simply enjoy the same rights that you did? OR is it more selfish to get the benifit, THEN also change the rules. So if you can explain that I would be glad to listen.


Excellent post!

As for your wish that I would get diabetes or heart failure, to steal another quote from you, "Guys like you should be ashamed of yourself".
That was a pretty sh!tty thing to wish on somebody, Lear...
 
It amuses me to see these LCC pilots and those whose pensions were raped (sorry) suddenly screaming age discrimination. Have some cajones and call it what it is, for pete's sake. A money issue! You would get a little more respect. Not one of you would have played the age discrimination card on 9/10/2001.

narcolepsy is dangerous in the cockpit.
 
It amuses me to see these LCC pilots and those whose pensions were raped (sorry) suddenly screaming age discrimination. Have some cajones and call it what it is, for pete's sake. A money issue! You would get a little more respect. Not one of you would have played the age discrimination card on 9/10/2001.

narcolepsy is dangerous in the cockpit.

You must be talking about the UAL pilots, fellow ALPA members.:(
 
I have to agree with you on one point. I REALLY WISH this was not an anonymous board either, because there are so many people that sit comfortably behind a computer and spit out garbage that they know nothing off.
Everyone that's been on this board for a while knows exactly who I am, I've posted my name publically several times (do a search). PM me again and I'll be glad to give you the same information...

Lacking moral character...do you know me? I think it shows less character making a personal attack on someone you dont know simply because you disagree with their opinion.
It wasn't your opinion I had a problem with, it was your "get out of my seat" mentality combined with your dispariagement of them based on age alone. Hint: that's age discrimination and is just as crappy as any other race or gender discrimination and your post is a good example of why that kind of behavior is discouraged in most cases, and illegal in many others.

The typical ME-ME-ME attitude you speak of is not something that I invented, nor is it something that I endorsed.
Then why are you telling people to get out of YOUR seat? Isn't that something that is all for you and screw them?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

I would agree the opposite, that your attitude is ME-ME-ME. As I explained, YOU benifited from the progression of age 60, and now that you have your coveted seat, you do not want to give it up.
You might want to look a little more at someone's background before you open mouth and insert foot.

I'm 35 and a first officer on a small narrow-body aircraft. What seat? I'd be stuck in the right seat for another year or two if the age 65 rule is implemented. I'd be one of the people who DIDN'T benefit from it.

I support it because it's age discrimination and I believe people should have the right to continue to fly if they are physically and mentally able. I support it because it's the RIGHT thing to do.

So where in all that is a "me-me-me" attitude? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Now you tell me, is it being ME-ME-ME because I want to simply enjoy the same rights that you did? OR is it more selfish to get the benifit, THEN also change the rules. So if you can explain that I would be glad to listen.
Hope you listened up. Just because I have a lot of experience on different aircraft doesn't mean I'm old.

Also, if you noticed, there are no personal attacks in here to you. I thought the point of this was a discussion about flying topics. You need to cool your jets buddy.
No, just personal attacks to every pilot nearing age 65 that I took offense to (along with several other people on here).

As for your wish that I would get diabetes or heart failure, to steal another quote from you, "Guys like you should be ashamed of yourself".
Yeah, I got hot-headed and was trying to make a point and it was a little strongly-worded, I apologize. Seriously.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom