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

Age 65 and the "F" word.

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
I must ask this again because no one will answer. How about an answer from the "Get out of my seat crowd."

I must ask this: Would the industry be better off with a retirement age of age-55, or how about age-50 or age-45? What is the ideal age for mandatory age?

Many have answered your question, however, you just don't like the answer you're getting.

In case you missed it........since most active/furloughed airline pilots were hired under the age 60 rule there was no need to change it. We all knew what we were getting in to when hired on.
 
How about 56 like the controllers. Seems retarded to me that people are allowed to fly the planes past 56 but somebody sitting in a dim lit room looking at a screen needs to retire at 56. No disrespect to controllers but if they have a cardiac all that needs to be done is a 911 call.


Well how about age-40 for mandatory retirement?

That would certainly create lots of jobs.

Is that what everyone wants?
 
Many have answered your question, however, you just don't like the answer you're getting.

In case you missed it........since most active/furloughed airline pilots were hired under the age 60 rule there was no need to change it. We all knew what we were getting in to when hired on.


Do your homework.

Management at AA, the same people that created the "B Scale, " in an
effort to screw the pilots, proposed the "Age 60 rule. " There was no
age rule until your buddies at AA came up with it.

Only a management clown, or some young guy without a clue, would
want to bring back the "B Scale" or the "Age 60 rule."
 
Well how about age-40 for mandatory retirement?

That would certainly create lots of jobs.

Is that what everyone wants?


The actual age is not the problem. The problem is knowing when to hang it up. Lets face it. The blue hair, good ol' boy club ensures that you old farts will pass checkrides with safety being the last consideration. It's just like taking the keys from grandpa. Will he stop driving on his own or kill 5 people at the farmers market.
When I see that I'm pared with a geezer I know it's time to work double time, so that my ticket doesn't get pulled, or god forbid he drives us off the runway in a nasty crosswind. I do my best to maintain a professional attitude. All while listening to stories about flying the 72, racing his Porsche, and traveling to Europe, while I am about to lose my house.

Maybe you can understand why some of us are a little pissed.
 
Age 65 did not cause furloughs - it just changed WHO was furloughed.

Think about this...

Hypothetical major airline:

1,000 pilots - 200 are over age 60.

Management cut back and decided to furlough 200 pilots leaving 800 active pilots on property. Certainly if age 65 had not happened, the bottom 200 would not have been furloughed.

Now if age 65 did not happen:

1,000 pilots - none over age 60.

The 200 pilot over 60 in the first example retired and caused the company to hire 200 new-hires to maintain 1,000 pilots.

Again management cut back and decided to furlough 200 pilots leaving 800 active pilots. However this time the 200 pilots furloughed in the first example are not furloughed, it is the 200 pilots hired below them due to the retirements.

So basically, age 65 did not cause furloughs. The junior pilots now furloughed or about to be furloughed would not have been furloughed if age 65 did not pass, but those junior to them would have...
 
UndauntedFlyer said:
Is that what everyone wants?

No.

What everyone wants is for pilots to be bound by the retirement rule that was in place when we all were hired.

Instead, senior (old) pilots successfully lobbied in a post-9/11 environment to change the rule, providing them with a career windfall (enjoying a career of seniority advancement as pilots older than them hit 60 and retired, then post-change gaining up to 5 years more years at the top) at the expense of their juniors.
 
No, that's what YOU want. The rules changed. Everyone's career expectations got pushed back 5 years. Grow up, get over it.
 
Never mind.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top