Age 65 2007

[Bringupthebird]

If we have to, let's put it to a vote. You would lose....


Bye Bye--General Lee

You claim that Age 60 is a safety issue. Do you vote on all safety issues? NEXT!!

 

[Bringupthebird]

The only reason anybody would want to keep flying past 60 is because most of them have put their time in, and they're enjoying the benefits of seniority. That's it. Just remember, you are enjoying those benefits, thanks to this rule.........

Retire, you had your time at the saddle.

Retire? At 43? At the bottom of the list on reserve? That's gonna be a tough sell.

Won't everyone be able to enjoy those same benefits (except for the very old very junior F/O's)?

Oh, you mean you want it NOW and you'll use a discriminatory law to get it. Some of the "End Justifies the Means" stuff that used to be so popular.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Quack,

Exactly my point. So many people like to say it’s all about the money. A lot of it is, buts not all. Not everyone above age 60 will be flying in a nice comfortable 777 with breaks every 3 hours. Now imagine the poor out of shape 64 ¾ year old pilot flying some RJ or narrow-body five legs a day with the weather down to mins. Tell me how safe that operation is going to be. Age 65 will be needlessly putting the public safety at risk. We should not tolerate a greedy few putting our lively hoods in jeopardy. An accident at an airline changes everything especially those of the legacies who are on the financial edge.

Age 65 – good for a few, bad for many.

AA767AV8TOR

Wait a second, what about the perfectly healthy 64 year-old. Why should he be penalized? Are you concerned about him? Do you think he poses a safety risk? Why not focus the attention on medical qualification instead of age? And I'm certain that the bulk of the accidents in the futuer, as in the past will still be the result of pilot error, not pilot incapacitation, regardless of age.

 

[Falconjet]

Bird: Do you ever grow tired of listening to yourself?

FJ

 

[Falconjet]

To ME, it IS about Safety, PLUS it is about FAIRNESS. IF it is NOT about SAFETY, why the need to have a pilot younger than 60? To be fair, if there is a regulatory requirement to have a pilot under 60, than an over 60 pilot does not meet the requirement to be the PIC. Fine, over 60 guys go to the right seat. Oh, no, they don't like that idea.

Fairness: EVERY pilot in the last 50 years has benefited from the age 60 rule. Without retirements (or massive growth) there are no upgrades. The military is similar, except that it has an up or out pyramid as well as an age based pyramid. Even flag officers have to finally leave at a certain age. This is to allow those at the bottom of the pyramid the chance to eventually advance.

Since there is no performance based removal system from the top of the airline pyramid, the only way to make room for advancement for those at the bottom of the pyramid is to have an age based system to do so. Age 60 protects pilots and their passengers from the decline in mental and physical abilities that occur with age. Is 65 any better? No, it is still an arbitrary number that is there as a safety net. Will some folks retire before they have lost it? Yes. That is the price to protect the flying public from even one who makes a deadly mistake in a senior moment. The greater good is to protect the many.

In addition, there are still thousands of pilots on furlough who FINALLY stand the chance of getting recalled now that the economy and the industry are picking up. THESE are the guys who will get the dagger right in the middle of the back if the age changes. How about their lost pensions and furloughs? The old guys don't care about them, they just want to hang on as long as they can and screw the guys who have patiently waited for the industry to recover so that they could maybe get their chance at flying for their legacy again.

Of course there are economic issues on both sides. What the pro-change crowd refuses to acknowledge even slightly is the fact that a change to age 65 would be a windfall for them and a screw job for the junior and furloughed pilots. Their sheer arrogance and insistence that the industry will collapse if they are allowed to retire is appalling. They should be ashamed of themselves. Sure you are a better Captain now than you were 15 years ago, but the guy sitting next to you those 15 years is also better, and it is their turn to become the Captain now. It not like the 60 year old Captain is being replaced with a 23 year old Riddle grad. Give us a break.

Personally, all I want is a chance to upgrade based on the same criteria that they enjoyed for the past 50 years, and I am not a young guy. I might be able to hold a left seat in a widebody for 5 years. I don't want to have to fly to age 65 to get "MY" 5 years in the left seat. I'd prefer to be hitting the beach or a golf ball the day I turn 60, not trying to max my high 5.

More importantly, to ME, is that the fair and righteous thing for the most people involved is to keep the rule the way it is. Fair for the furloughees and to those at the bottom of the pyramid at every carrier.

I also realize that us wasting bandwidth here will not change anything to do with this legislation. The change will likely be forced upon us regardless of what the pilots want, and that is a shame. The pilots at ALPA at least, have stated loud and clear, however, that the majority of them are in favor of the rule remaining in place. That should give our union leaders clear and concise marching orders on how they should proceed on capitol hill.

FJ

 

[luckytohaveajob]

You state that you know the motivation of everyone that is pro change. It is obvious that you do not. There are intelligent arguments on both sides of this issue. When you go into the ditch with name-calling those who disagree with you, you lose most, if not all credibility on the issue.

Listen Chester Molester Rockwell,

The pro change crowd is not very complex. They are about selfishness plain and simple. If they had any ethical ground to stand on they would be the ones proposing viable compromise and considering their actions as they effect all. Instead this profession has been assaulted by tools like you that thinks working less is retirement.

So quit molesting this career with your crap Chester.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Bird: Do you ever grow tired of listening to yourself?

FJ

I get very tired of repeating myself, but the same misinformation seems to crop up over and over. If they would just change the rule already, then we could all move on to more interesting and less divisive topics.

 

[capt_zman]

Yeah, then you can turn your attention to the "retire the age 65 rule". Greedy liberal.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Listen Chester Molester Rockwell,

The pro change crowd is not very complex. They are about selfishness plain and simple. If they had any ethical ground to stand on they would be the ones proposing viable compromise and considering their actions as they effect all. Instead this profession has been assaulted by tools like you that thinks working less is retirement.

So quit molesting this career with your crap Chester.

You make me laugh and I pity you. It takes a big man to go name calling on an anonymous forum. I no longer expect you to understand as is obviously too complex.

Not everyone that is pro change worked for a legacy or SWA for the past 20 years. There are plenty of career regional guys that will benefit from this change as well as those that chose this career later in life.

It will slow advancement to the left seat and for some the opportunity to work additionally will outweigh the delay, and for some it will not.

The current proposal is a compromise: 65 rather than no limit, and the requirement to have an under 60 pilot in the cockpit (that should satisfy the it's all about safety anti-change folks). Nobody age 65 will fly for 5 years. As for the "you knew the rules" arguement, if you think any FAR is totally off limits for revision during your career, I can guarantee that you will be dissappointed sooner or later.

Is it unfair to change? Yes.

Is it unfair to keep the rule as is? Yes.

 

[BoilerUP]

The current proposal is a compromise: 65 rather than no limit, and the requirement to have an under 60 pilot in the cockpit (that should satisfy the it's all about safety anti-change folks). Nobody age 65 will fly for 5 years. As for the "you knew the rules" arguement, if you think any FAR is totally off limits for revision during your career, I can guarantee that you will be dissappointed sooner or later.

How about change the rule such that the PIC must be under 60 but that one could act as SIC until 65? That would be the most equal compromise; preserves career expectations of younger pilots yet keeps over 60 pilots flying and earning a paycheck for another 5 years.

Is it unfair to change? Yes.

Is it unfair to keep the rule as is? Yes.

That's kind of a quandry there, now isn't it?