DOT seeks age 60 opinion, young guys speak up

[Falconjet]

FJ:

Foxhunter is not a scab. As much as I pretty well disagree with everything he says you should not paint him with that brush. A scab is a creature that crosses a picket line to preform struck work. To my knowledge FH has never done that, nor would he, I think. He quit ALPA (more than once, I think) but he has rejoined ( I can't imagine why since he finds fault with everything they do) and has paid all of his dues obligations.

FR8: Thanks for the history, however I am well aware of George's past. I disagreed with his opinion on the other website and instead of rationally debating the issue he called me a scabbie, and then tried to pan it off like it was a joke.

It was just one of many egotistical, sanctimonious and condescending posts that he made, referring to everyone else as sonny and infering that his is the only opinion that matters because of his vast experience and knowledge.

The way he posts and his childish insults are indicative of his character, as is his newfound religion (joining the union).

That is why him calling someone out for their lack of character is especially hypocritical if you ask me, and thus my post.

My apologies to anybody else (but not him) who thought that I was referring to him as a scab. He knew what I was referring to, thus his lame attempt at a comeback later in the thread.

FJ

 

[bluesideup1]

bump:

Posted on the UAL board by a pilot - easy instructions on how to comment:

Easy way to comment on Age 60
https://dms.dot.gov/submit/

Page one
click continue

Page two
enter docket no 26139
enter operating administration FAA
enter docket existence does exist
enter submitter information
click continue

Page 3
enter your comments
enter submit


If you read the comments, it looks like the pro-change crowd has been able to rally the troops and 'get out the vote.' They are much more organized with APAAD and PPF. It looks like they've been able to send the message to their members, trying to keep it off of the radar screen for us younger pups. Great work, PVB BEACH.

 

[fr8doggie]

FR8: Thanks for the history, however I am well aware of George's past. I disagreed with his opinion on the other website and instead of rationally debating the issue he called me a scabbie, and then tried to pan it off like it was a joke.

It was just one of many egotistical, sanctimonious and condescending posts that he made, referring to everyone else as sonny and infering that his is the only opinion that matters because of his vast experience and knowledge.

The way he posts and his childish insults are indicative of his character, as is his newfound religion (joining the union).

That is why him calling someone out for their lack of character is especially hypocritical if you ask me, and thus my post.

My apologies to anybody else (but not him) who thought that I was referring to him as a scab. He knew what I was referring to, thus his lame attempt at a comeback later in the thread.

FJ

Yeah, he is total jerk. That's for sure.

 

[atafan]

I vote Jim Smyth's last post as the most well thought out and clearly stated on this thread.

 

[Traderd]

bump:

If you read the comments, it looks like the pro-change crowd has been able to rally the troops and 'get out the vote.' They are much more organized with APAAD and PPF. It looks like they've been able to send the message to their members, trying to keep it off of the radar screen for us younger pups. Great work, PVB BEACH.

Don't forget AARP.

 

[Cyclone]

less safe = less fun

OK less safe = less fun is an oversimplification, but I stand by what I said. There are guys of all ages who are difficult to fly with and guys in both seats, but when you get some cranky old dude who expects his f.o. to show him "due deference" because "he's the captain" and he "has paid his dues and been there" and "I've seen a few things you probably haven't seen there junior" You know what? That guy gets less respect...because he is assuming that his FO isn't on his level...he's below him...and that translates to bad CRM, bad teamwork and a long trip. That trip is less fun and less safe than with a trip flown with a captain who maybe says "hey, the only difference between you and me is I got here first...please tell me if you think I'm screwing up because I probably don't realize it." You know...that guy...the second guy is more fun to fly with, more highly respected by his FO and yes...safer.

Do Something
If you have a strong opinion and you want to see it your way...whatever way that is…write or call your lawmakers. Make sure they understand that the lobby for change is a minority. And that it is an organized and vocal one. Tell them why you think changing the rule is bad.

That is exactly what precipitated this whole debate. The old farts got organized and started a grass roots effort on the hill, at the FAA, etc. Do something constructive instead of crying about your delayed upgrade on a silly internet blog. Write a thoughtful letter to the people in DC who represent you or write to the FAA and tell them this change will make the skies less safe. That's about all you can do. If enough of you do it maybe the old curmudgeons in congress won't want to let the old cranky pilots association fly past 60.


Talking points for your call:
Hello, my name is ____ from _______ calling on behalf of the young pilots who want to make sure commercial air traffic here in the US is as safe as possible. I would like to speak to the person on your staff who is responsible for aviation issues, specifically the House H.R. 65 or Senate S. 65.
Please help us keep the status quo for age 60. Please don’t allow the FAA to make a mistake and force me to fly with pilots over age 60. Please don't allow a double standard that will force pilots under age 60 in the right seat to fly with pilots over age 60 in the left seat. I know age 60 is an arbitrary age but it has served us well. If safety wasn't an issue then why does the current proposal include language that specifies if one pilot is over 60 that the other pilot must be less than age 60? It is ironic that the proposed new law gives credence to maintaining status quo. This new law actually acknowledges that there is a need to discriminate based on age because it is a safety concern and that is why we should keep the current law. It is in the interest of safety.

Pilot physicals don't really test for mental fitness to do the job. The assumption is that most 60 year olds are mentally fit enough to do the job. The truth is that probably not 100% of them are fit. Changing the law to 65 greatly increases the potential for age-related problems. As a group 65 year olds are not as mentally agile as 60 year olds. This is exactly why Age 60 is a good rule.

We have a fail-safe system with at least two pilots in a cockpit. Usually this is a Captain and a first officer. If we allow these old-timers to stay in the Captain seat the burden is now on the first officer to make sure the small mistakes made in the course of every flight are recognized and corrected. In effect, changing the rule to 65 will make the first officer's job more hazardous. However, don't look to the airlines or the Captain-dominated unions to offer up hazard pay for those first officers. This is because these same people who want the law to change are doing it purely because of greed. This is the predominant reason they are arguing for change to this rule--they have talked to their financial planners. That is a bad reason for change.

The FAA and the airlines testing and training regime does not screen for fatigue and mental alertness that is "on-the-line" at an airline. A checkride may last several hours. This is a poor replication of what happens in day-to-day operations as an airline pilot. This is where the old timers have a really tough time because they simply don't have enough energy to do the job. This is when they make mistakes...not in the simulator during training.

Please don't change the rule. If you do our skies will be less safe for our children and grandchildren.

http://www.senate.gov

http://www.house.gov

Write to the FAA address on the other age 60 thread.
DO SOMETHING...it's almost too late.

 

[Freight Dog]

Nothing I can do to change the injustice to those forced to retire prior to their desires.

Flybynite, forget your desires. How about my kids' safety? Majority of you old folks don't even recognize that you're falling behind the power curve. That's the scariest part of this whole thing - YOU DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE AGING!

I've flown with some great captains who have aged significantly over the last couple of years and they are starting to be behind the power curve IN THE LATE 50's! Tell them that.. and their response? No way man! I'm in the best shape of my life! DENIAL! One of the worst things in the cockpit!

I tell you what... why is it that ICAO requires the other pilot in the cockpit to be under 60? Isn't that discrimination too? What, is it too dangerous to have two 64 year olds up front? Or could it be that they realize that it is a medical (read safety) risk but due to their own shortage of pilots have to do this to keep their economy moving?

Guess what buddy? No pilot shortage here despite of Kit Darby's spouting. You have thousands of furloughed qualified YOUNG pilots in this country. There is no need to jeopardize safety for you or others who have been making mid to high 100's for decades only because of their poor financial decisions.

 

[Freight Dog]

Nothing I can do to change the injustice to those forced to retire prior to their desires. But you seem intent on trying to ensure that the injustice continues. Please write your elected representatives to voice your concern. Please point out how these SOB's knew the rules when they signed on and are just being greedy trying to work past 60. Hope your elected representatives are under 60.

One thing I forgot to mention Flybynite...

Can you tell me why is it that FAA requires their air traffic controllers to retire at 55?

Is that discriminatory too? Do you want a 63 year old working NY Approach during a Nor'easter with your grandkids on an airliner flown by a 64 and 59 year old pilots?

 

[skiandsurf]

I have not read all of the replies to this issue, but how about this....

Upon turning 60, if you are a Captain, you can conitnue flying as an FO.

If you are an FO, you can continue flying without any chance of upgrading to Captain.

This way, the movement continues, and there will always be someone under 60 in the cockpit.

 

[freeflyer14]

I will attempt to address the various points to this argument... but then again I am young, so my opinion doesn't count anyway.

Safety:

This way, the movement continues, and there will always be someone under 60 in the cockpit.

Interesting point, but IF there is no safety issue, then why does there need to be an under 60 pilot in the cockpit? Could it be perhaps that ICAO acknowledges that there IS a safety issue.

Age discrimination: Is an Age 65 rule not also age discrimination?

Greed: Are the current positions of the "change the rule crowd" not a direct result of the rule benefitting them (and the senority movment they have enjoyed) for their entire careers? Aren't the younger pilots justified when they want the same treatment?

 

[skiandsurf]

Something else to think about. The pilots salaries where all negotiated with thought of the pilot making "big bucks" there last few years, and then going out with the big retirement ( at age 60). The airlines and the pilots were OK with the starting "low pay", as long as they had this big fat carrott dangling in front of their nose. Well, now that big fat carrott is nothing but a dried out piece of s***. In the next round of negotiations, the unions need to bring up the starting pay to offset the falling top pay.

Now here is my point....These pilots that are negotiating these salaries, might try harder to raise the FO pay, if they new they would be an FO all over again in a few years. ( this under my theory of turning 60 and going back as an FO).

Where is UndauntedFlyer on this?

 

[munson]

You want to get to the left seat so you can make more money faster and you want it no matter who you trample on the way.quote]

I see....and you didnt want that opportunity. When it presented itself to you, you turned it away and fought for the right of that pilots seat that you were now occupying to come back and keep you where you were.

 

[bubbers44]

Notice how if you are under 5000 hours there is the don't change the rule mentality but otherwise it is about time? It is about time. ICAO said it and it is about time. Watch what happens very soon. click click click

 

[Cyclone]

huh

Bubbers...go back to your drool cup and reruns of Golden Girls...don't get too excited...easy there old timer...slow down with the Cialis already...you think Bea Arthur is a hot handsome woman? OH...wow...that is really sick...yea I want my kid on an airplane with you in charge.

By the way it doesn't take more hours in an airplane to be able to make a more logical argument. Yours is not. Your post says nothing pertinent about the law or a change to the law...if you have something constructive to say that is related to the issue then spit it out. Otherwise just go back to sleep in front of your TV.

 

[Freight Dog]

..... Still waiting for a logical argument of why we should change the rule....

tick-tock-tick-tock.

 

[john cocktosen]

Forget this age 60 crap. I say we propose an age 30 rule for FAs.

 

[DougCorp-9]

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 why have an age at all? Any age is arbitrary. Lets make it 80 and see what happens to the accident rate.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Hot Air

All this debate is meaningless if it is not on the DOT comment board where it belongs.

 

[Lear70]

..... Still waiting for a logical argument of why we should change the rule....

Still waiting for a logical argument of why we SHOULDN'T change the rule.

No medical experts have yet to speak up citing research evidence that points to accident risk increase or even performance degradation between age 60 and 65.

If the "that's the way things always have been, let's leave it alone" argument were valid, we'd still be a British colony...

Both arguments have no validity. So... do you have a LOGICAL argument against change? Or just "get out of my seat you old crusty bastard!" ???

 

[Freight Dog]

Still waiting for a logical argument of why we SHOULDN'T change the rule.

No medical experts have yet to speak up citing research evidence that points to accident risk increase or even performance degradation between age 60 and 65.

If the "that's the way things always have been, let's leave it alone" argument were valid, we'd still be a British colony...

Both arguments have no validity. So... do you have a LOGICAL argument for change? Or just "get out of my seat you old crusty bastard!" ???

Perhaps nothing related to flying as we booted these "old crusty bastards" out at 60. The study will happen if this thing passes.

My experience, and my position on the whole thing is that we should be out at 55, just like the ATC. I've mentioned several examples on another thread.

As I mentioned on that thread, while the ICAO rule allows pilots up to 65 in the airliners, they acknowledge it's a risk by the same rule requiring the other pilot to be under 60. The reason that's in place is because the pilot shortage is real overseas. Not Kit Darby pilot shortage, but true genuine pilot shortage. As such, it is in their economic interests to keep their economy moving. In the U.S. that's not the case. We have plenty of pilots to keep us staffed even if we dropped the retirement age to 55, and then some to export as well. Allowing guys over 60 to stay in is taking an unnecessary risk... just because ICAO does it, it doesn't mean we should.