Mica trying to fast-track Age 65 - 12/6/07

[Indy319FA]

Why are you against the Age 60 retirement law, but at the same time you are FOR increasing the retirement age to 65?

All you are doing is trading one arbitrary retirement age for another. Using the information you have provided Age 65 is just as much Age discrimination as Age 60 is.

Kinda hypocritical, don't ya think?

Personally I would like to see the age ban repealed entirely. However I am enough of a realist to understand things come in increments so for now I'll take age 65.

I don't think its smart to allow government, management, or unions to place any restrictions other than the skills and training requirements that are required for a position.

If these guys are sooo dangerous, then they should be banned from flying entirely. To say they can fly a corporate jet full of passengers, but not an airliner full of passengers is the ultimate hypocracy.

Just look at what happened to Bob Hoover. The whole thing blew up in the FAAs face when every neurologist (including the top neurologist in the Air Force) that tested him said he should be issued his medical, and he was in his mid 70s.

As long as you allow management, the FAA, or Unions to discriminate against anyone, you never know when they might decide its in their best interest to come after you.

As long as somebody is an adult, has met the required training requirements, and holds the appropriate medical they should be able to continue in the job they are qualified for. Period.

 

[Flopgut]

Indy:

If the age increases to 65 now, and then keeps increasing, it's going to make more pilots work longer than they want. There has to be an age we all feel is fair for retirement; and we need to maximize pay up to that age.

Forget about what mgts, unions, and the feds do and think about the profession. What you are saying is: your personal needs are more important than the profession. That's a slippery slope to a dark place.

Think about what Mica is saying at the start of this thread. He's panicked about the supply of pilots as much as anything. Remember back in 2000 when it was he and his contemporaies saying: "Have you seen those salaries?" in reference to UAL and DAL getting there big raises? Think back to that. Members of Congress complaining in open forum about how much pilots make?!

We're close to seeing some legitimate factors cause increase for ALL pilots, but guys like you want to undo it.

 

[Indy319FA]

Forget about what mgts, unions, and the feds do and think about the profession. What you are saying is: your personal needs are more important than the profession. That's a slippery slope to a dark place.

If I were worried about my personal needs right now I would be against changing age 60 as I am at the bottom looking up. To me it is a simple matter of right and wrong. I want government to have as little control over my ability to earn a living as possible. Whether you can hold a job should be based soley on merit and your ability to perform the job. Artificial constraints such as age, race, or sex should have no bearing on your ability to get or retain a job. When you support any artificial constraint on your ability to earn a living, then you are opening a pandora's box that may come back to bite you in the end.

 

[C-150ETOPS]

If you agree or not is irrelevant, the rest of the world has or will put age 65 into effect because of the impending pilot shortage in the next 10-15 years. Stop whining and get over it already, you can pull a thousand studies out of thin air and it will still be implemented because it makes economical sense and money has more power than your whining. Get a life

Screw your whining comment. Almost dying in a Learjet due to a 64 year old hack showing the effects aging gives one a clear view of the subject. Seeing many others near 60 fading after long duty days only provided further proof.

As for the "the rest of the world does has or will put 65 into effect", since when do we run around changing US law just because the UN does? The ICAO is just a regulatory United Nations.

The other fact is most reputable flag carriers around the world HAVE NOT gone to age 65. British Airways, Lufthansa, Air France, Alitalia, ect all are still age or less. Outside of some name brand Asian carriers, the rest of the world is a motley collection of nepotistic carriers only trying to keep their in-laws employed.

I made the comment about "age 65 outside the US" to a Lufthansa 747-400 Captain in a customs line last year. His repy was that the age 65 US crowd were complete idiots. He said the average LH guy retire at age 55, he was retiring at 52.

The 60+ crowd are complete fools.

 

[Flopgut]

If I were worried about my personal needs right now I would be against age 65. To me it is a simple matter of right and wrong. I want government to have as little control over my ability to earn a living as possible. Whether you can hold a job should be based soley on merit and your ability to perform the job. Artificial constraints such as age, race, or sex should have no bearing on your ability to get or retain a job. When you support any artificial constraint on your ability to earn a living, then you are opening a pandora's box that may come back to bite you in the end.

K. But what do you owe your coworkers? What do you owe the profession?

Cause what you're supporting will eventually put such an exclusivety based on agedness and seniority that you'll be longing for the aforementioned "artificial" constraints. It's not like the earnings in this profession aren't topheavy or anything??!!

 

[CaptSeth]

We should have redirected our efforts at protecting and enhancing a dignified retirement - INDUSTRY WIDE - for our career professionals, instead of the pathetic band-aid of raising the retirement age. That's an actuarial crapshoot for most pilots, anyway.

The various airline managers and their republican sycophants have won this battle.

 

[Flopgut]

The various airline managers and their republican sycophants have won this battle.

We'll have another chance to correct this possible change when our CBAs address it. Stated ALPA policy is to retain age 60 as normal retirement age.

Let's plan to use our majority voting horsepower in a way that keeps the dollars going to those of us who want out a 60.

 

[Matrix]

If I ever have to fly with an over 60 pilot I'll just have to spit in his coffee I get him!

 

[Chest Rockwell]

If I ever have to fly with an over 60 pilot I'll just have to spit in his coffee I get him!

And you wonder why you will lose this argument.

 

[Indy319FA]

K. But what do you owe your coworkers? What do you owe the profession?

If I were to put what is best for the profession first, I would forget about age 60 and be working to create brand wide and nationwide seniority lists to prevent the whipsaws and give pilots the ability to move between carriers and retain their seniority. I would be so willing to get these things that I would be prepared to shut down the company in order to get it. It would be nice if pilots had the same ability to shop themselves to other airlines that the executives do. That way executives in bankruptcy will be worried about retaining their talented pilots as well as their talented management. Then most of these pilots will happily retire as soon as possible, because given the choice, I guarantee most of them would love to retire as soon as possible and lounge by the beach.

Preventing whipsaws and making seniority portable would do more for the profession than anything to do with age 60. But right now all of these pilots groups are primarily interested in what is best for themselves, and not the profession.

 

[Dumb Pilot]

Screw your whining comment. Almost dying in a Learjet due to a 64 year old hack showing the effects aging gives one a clear view of the subject. Seeing many others near 60 fading after long duty days only provided further proof.

I personally don't agree that there should be an age limit to be able to fly commercially, but ratter a medical standard. Having taken medicals in other countries I have to say that the medical standards in our country are a joke, if you can fog a mirror you can have a first class medical. How many 20 something year olds you know that are currently flying but that you would have your wife and kids wait for the next flight while nonreving because they are mentally unstable? and at the same time, you get individuals like my old man that at 73 is sharp as a whip and still works 12-14 hour days.

I really don't care what the rest of the world does. They can have gramps fly their 777s until he drops dead at 94 for all I care, but I'll fight to the very end to keep the age limit here.

It is the MEDICAL standards we should be fighting to improve, not throwing tantrums if you don't get your way because this will mean that your upgrade will be pushed a couple of years. everyone has an agenda in this matter, lets not pretend that we are doing all this arguing and chest thumping for the sake of the profession or the safety of the flying public.
The "I'm holier than Thu" BS that gets spilled here in FI is making me nautious

What pilot shortage? You mean the one where guys/gals won't work for peanuts.

WOW, the dude gets it.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

If I ever have to fly with an over 60 pilot I'll just have to spit in his coffee I get him!

Plan to see a lot of juvenile and cruel behavior towards those that are over 60 and those that support flying over 60.

If this law change goes down, expect the frustration to reach a boiling point.

Because those effected by this change are going to be pissed off.

 

[Dumb Pilot]

If this law change goes down, expect the frustration to reach a boiling point.

We permitted our pensions and salaries to be raped and took it crying like a little school girls. Talking out your arse didn't work then. If you think that your upgrade being pushed a couple of years is going to create a revolution:laugh:

 

[luckytohaveajob]

I happen to know for a fact that SWA FO's are pissed about this issue. And I have first hand knowledge of boiling points that have already gotten ugly.

You really are a dumb pilot.

 

[PCL_128]

It is the MEDICAL standards we should be fighting to improve,

To the best of my knowledge, there is no simple, quick, and effective means of regularly testing cognitive abilities. That's the only medical standard that this is about. Several in-depth studies, one of which was referenced earlier in this thread, have demonstrated that cognitive abilities start to rapidly decline in the 55-65 age frame. That makes 60 a reasonable age to set a cutoff rather than trying to come up with some new method of testing cognitive abilities.

not throwing tantrums if you don't get your way because this will mean that your upgrade will be pushed a couple of years.

There are a grand total of 71 retirements at my airline in the next 5 years, so a change in this rule would only delay my upgrade by a few months. That's not the issue to me. This is a matter of principal and safety.

 

[Dumb Pilot]

I happen to know for a fact that SWA FO's are pissed about this issue. And I have first hand knowledge of boiling points that have already gotten ugly.

You really are a dumb pilot.

If the SWA F/O's are getting pissed and arguing in OPS with one another? Maybe the congressmen should take a closer look because if this is creating problems in the LUV? Perhaps this is the revolution you are talking (out your arse) about. :laugh:

Listen all you airline managers, you better upgrade all these bad boys before you institute age 65, or the SWA F/O's will release their anger upon you

 

[iwannabeatmidex]

Just wrote Congressman Micah in support of our CURRENT regulations...

 

[Caveman]

Indy:

If the age increases to 65 now, and then keeps increasing, it's going to make more pilots work longer than they want. There has to be an age we all feel is fair for retirement; and we need to maximize pay up to that age.

Changing the rule to age 65 won't require anybody to work any longer than they want to. The proposed change doesn't say you have to work to age 65 it says you may work to age 65. It's your choice. Every CBA currently in effect is based on age 60. Permitting someone to work past that won't invalidate any of them as they are now written. You can still retire at age 60 or earlier if you want to. Look at the comments above made by Lufthansa pilot. They still retire at 55 or 52 or whatever because they choose to or because their CBA is set up based on age 55. The new legislation doesn't require your CBA to be based on age 65 and if your pilot group allows your CBA to be changed because of age 65, that's your fault, not mine.

I agree that changing the age will cause some pilots to have their upgrade delayed, including mine. Some of you are forgetting that we work in a seniority based system. The guy in front of me got here first. His wants and needs supercede mine. That's the way it is. If he wants to keep his seat a bit longer I have no say in the matter. It's his seat until he is done with it. What I want is irrelevant. It's called seniority.

I also think that any arbitrary age is wrong. I'm in favor of age 65 only because it is less discriminatory than what we have now. In my world I'd get rid of any mandatory retirement age and base it solely on demonstrated ability and demonstrated good health.

I've been against age 60 since I first heard about it. I have not benefitted from it and I'm not a 'geezer'. I'm in my late 40's (very late...). I'm just opposed to an arbitrary rule that forces me or anyone else to quit working before I choose to. As long as I can still make good decisions and still pass a physical it should be my choice, not yours or the governments.

Flopgut, I'm not directing this post at you specifically. I've heard and read your point made by a lot of others. I'm commenting on what I believe is a false premise. When I use the words 'you' and 'yours' I'm speaking generally not to you personally.

 

[Full of LUV]

End of pilot unity.....

We permitted our pensions and salaries to be raped and took it crying like a little school girls. Talking out your arse didn't work then. If you think that your upgrade being pushed a couple of years is going to create a revolution:laugh:

I think that this will be the end of an opportuntiy for ALPA to show it's significance by developing ways to mitigate the damage to the careers of the WHOLE COMMERCIAL PILOT PROFESSION. We always hear, rightfully so, that any individual MEC negotiates and signs a local contract, well here is a HUGE windfall to a few that happen to turn 60 the week after the legislation is signed, and the National union has done NOTHING to mitigate that. Isn't the purpose of the national union to steer the profession and intervene with the FAA and Congress..... Junior pilots standby, this is a monumental power/money grab from the senior leadership. Granted SWAPA has been pushing this for decades, but ALPA represents a majority of pilots nationwide.
Leadership from national ALPA is nonexistent. You see it in the AWA/US merger, you see it on the age 65 issue. All we get from national is, "oh well, out of our control, junior guys, were looking out for your interests too" yeah right, greed is a powerful emotion that needs to be kept in check, even for ALPA national.
USPA or whatever is just the beginning, why should all of the ALPA carriers bother with National if your less than the top 10% of your seniority list?????
Rant over, but the day that age 65 is rammed down my throat, I will send nothing again to ALPA PAC (used to believe they were using my donations to help the profession) and instead start my own search for politicians who are against the "age 70" issue that will address the discrimination of the age 65 rule.
OK now rant over!

 

[skydash]

Changing the rule to age 65 won't require anybody to work any longer than they want to. The proposed change doesn't say you have to work to age 65 it says you may work to age 65. It's your choice. Every CBA currently in effect is based on age 60. Permitting someone to work past that won't invalidate any of them as they are now written. You can still retire at age 60 or earlier if you want to. Look at the comments above made by Lufthansa pilot. They still retire at 55 or 52 or whatever because they choose to or because their CBA is set up based on age 55. The new legislation doesn't require your CBA to be based on age 65 and if your pilot group allows your CBA to be changed because of age 65, that's your fault, not mine.

I agree that changing the age will cause some pilots to have their upgrade delayed, including mine. Some of you are forgetting that we work in a seniority based system. The guy in front of me got here first. His wants and needs supercede mine. That's the way it is. If he wants to keep his seat a bit longer I have no say in the matter. It's his seat until he is done with it. What I want is irrelevant. It's called seniority.

I also think that any arbitrary age is wrong. I'm in favor of age 65 only because it is less discriminatory than what we have now. In my world I'd get rid of any mandatory retirement age and base it solely on demonstrated ability and demonstrated good health.

I've been against age 60 since I first heard about it. I have not benefitted from it and I'm not a 'geezer'. I'm in my late 40's (very late...). I'm just opposed to an arbitrary rule that forces me or anyone else to quit working before I choose to. As long as I can still make good decisions and still pass a physical it should be my choice, not yours or the governments.

Flopgut, I'm not directing this post at you specifically. I've heard and read your point made by a lot of others. I'm commenting on what I believe is a false premise. When I use the words 'you' and 'yours' I'm speaking generally not to you personally.

AHHHH...finally a voice of reason...no name calling...no insults... no disingenuous logic...just common sense. Well stated!