Age 65

[waka]

Due respect to the 65+, 70+ crowd for whom this may be true;
GO BUY/RENT A PLANE AND LET THE NEXT GUYS TRY TO MAKE A LIVING-- you've had your shot.

No other profession involves what you suggest.

There is ZERO logic to age limits. As long as one can meet the checkride and medical standards, then they should be able to fly for a living.

Arguments that are in favor of age limits are purely based on emotion.

 

[flygirl556]

No other profession involves what you suggest.

There is ZERO logic to age limits. As long as one can meet the checkride and medical standards, then they should be able to fly for a living.

Arguments that are in favor of age limits are purely based on emotion.

I emotionally don't want to fly with someone who can't perform as well as a younger pilot.

 

[pilotyip]

nice one yip, but if you've flown with some of the 70+ yr wonders you would retract that

Me too I have flown with 40- that should not be in a cockpit, in fact, I sometimes give them their last flight at my airline.

I emotionally don't want to fly with someone who can't perform as well as a younger pilot.

I have the same issue, I get upset flying with pilots that can not perform, except I find it is the younger ones who fly the perfect ILS, but they don't have the big picture, they have not been there done that yet.

 

[GIVSP]

Netjets is coming out with a rule that two 60+ cant fly together? interesting

 

[Pervis]

Netjets is coming out with a rule that two 60+ cant fly together? interesting

Can't say I've heard this one. Anyone notice this new form of discrimination coincides with this new generation who not only wants it now, but wants it from someone else?

All I can say is I will retire when I am ready to. The sooner the young ones accept that, the more likely they won't stress themselves into a heart attack and may get to work till well after I'm long gone-if they choose to.

 

[Helmsalee]

This thread comes up about every 6 months. Nobody is going to change anyone's mind. To the young guys, be careful what you wish for. It may turn out to not be what you really want.
Helm

 

[GIVSP]

Pervis, Go back and read what RJ Bum wrote: " new rule coming of no 60+ pairings in a 2 man crew". No pissing contest here. Just wondering if this was fact. Fly until your 90, who cares.

 

[Semore Butts]

It ain't your seat, it's my seat.

Request denied;

re-submit in 6 months.

 

[Pervis]

Pervis, Go back and read what RJ Bum wrote: " new rule coming of no 60+ pairings in a 2 man crew". No pissing contest here. Just wondering if this was fact. Fly until your 90, who cares.

Not pissing at all. I just haven't heard of any rule making that will affect Fractionals-yet. It's a 121 thing. I would assume this would be all over company recurrent if there was anything that would. Then again...........

 

[OPECJet]

Can't say I've heard this one. Anyone notice this new form of discrimination coincides with this new generation who not only wants it now, but wants it from someone else?

All I can say is I will retire when I am ready to. The sooner the young ones accept that, the more likely they won't stress themselves into a heart attack and may get to work till well after I'm long gone-if they choose to.

You've gotta be kidding me.......... Those of us on the street could say that those of you "doing this job for fun" are taking from us. I know a couple of guys out there doing this for fun, good pensions, health care, etc. I respect their right to continue to do so, but it IS coming at my expense.

Frankly I don't care when you guys retire as long as you can still throw bags and see the screens without turning them up so bright that people on the ground can see them while we're at 410. The stories are good and the overall attitude is fun to be around. I just don't want to hear about you doing this job for "something to get you out of the house" because "you earned it". So did we...

The most recent of the NJA hires went through an intensive interview with a less tan 30% hire rate (judging from mine, and several friends interview classes). Anyone in this seniority range EARNED the job, just as those of you who were there pre - '05 EARNED a respectable place to work that wasn't the time builder many of you came to Netjets for (quick upgrade, get my 1000 PIC and go to Delta, United, etc).

I know this will rub lots of you the wrong way, but I guarantee I'm not the only one thinking it. This entire thread is a ridiculous can of worms that wouldn't have been touched without tone of furloughed guys out there.

 

[Pervis]

OPEC, how many in your hire range waited until there was a new contract with vastly improved wages, or IBB with many more basing options? I'll bet there are a bunch. For lots of reasons too, both selfish and legitimate. For example, over 120 pilots came to NJA in 2006, got their type rating with no training contract, and quit. That would fall into the selfish category, not to mention unethical.

You think the senior guys didn't earn this job? I don't know of any in my interview group who made he cut. What makes you so special? We ALL earned the job, regardless of when we got here. All of us came here when we did for lots of reasons and circmstances.

You seem to lump me with the young time builders and old guys doing this for fun. I'm in my 50s and have a few years left in spite of the age limits some would put on this industry. I simply believe no one should be forced to retire as long as they can perform. Maybe we should all be limited to 10 years in ANY career field. That way even more young guys can have the chance. After all, isn't it everyone's right to get what they want, immediately if not sooner?

 

[RJ Bum]

Not pissing at all. I just haven't heard of any rule making that will affect Fractionals-yet. It's a 121 thing. I would assume this would be all over company recurrent if there was anything that would. Then again...........

I should have specified, it is a 121 thing, I was just assuming that if the 65 rule applied for others than 121 so would the 60+ pairings. I'll try to dig up the proposal for the pairings in 121. I believe it was part of the new rest rules coming but not sure

 

[jtf]

Check your math, 330 over 65 at the time of my furlough. And with the new rule coming of no 60+ pairings in a 2 man crew, those numbers would come pretty close to the 482 on furlough. (actually I believe it's down to 460 something now with resignations)

I checked my math. I used the list of pilots by age and seat (no names on it) that was sent out to show how many took the early out. As of the fall of 2009, there were 412 NJA pilots who were on the seniority list and were either already 65 or would turn 65 within 5 years from the fall of 2010. 136 of them took the early out according to that list. In the fall of 2009 there were 121 pilots at NJA who were 65 or older and 59 of them took the early out. That list doesn't include NJI. About 50 pilots at NJA took the early out and another 29 at NJA who would not be 65 within 5 years of today took the early outs.

As far as the new rule about older pilot pairings making any difference for bringing pilots back, I just don't see it since it is so easy to just juggle the pairings to get only one pilot over 60 in the cockpit. I haven't even heard that rule was coming to the fracs anyway. I feel bad for all the furloughed guys and gals and I hope they are back here ASAP if that is what they want. As far as numbers go, these are what we have. Age 65 for the fracs really wouldn't matter much for bringing back the furloughed pilots. The airlines are much better for age 65 retirement to bring people back and start hiring again because they have a much larger percentage of pilots that are nearing 65. Good luck all.

 

[realityman]

Respectfully,

Although I can't guess if it's true, I sure hope it is. Some "retired" guys use the fracs as a "get-out-of-the-house" entertainment after their 30 year career flying 777 across the pond. So? They WANTED to work, for whatever reason, applied, and got the job before those who were hired after them. Doesn't really matter 'why' they're working. Really quite irrelevant as to 'why' they're working. What if you're young, but have money and only working because you enjoy flying? What if you're the older set but really do need the money? Do we force out an entire group of people because we don't agree with the motivations of some? And since when in this country do we tell someone they can/can't work based on motivation for working? So if I want to work to feed my family that's okay, but if I want to work to pay for a great vacation to Europe it's not okay? Who decides? It's quite annoying for the furloughed guys and FO's that will never upgrade when you have a "retired" guy that flys for fun and wont leave until they lose their medical or die....which has happened. Everyone is entitled to feel however they like. Quite frankly, I don't blame any of the furloughed or junior F/O's for feeling annoyed. However, feeling annoyed isn't a good reason to make a rule that essentially forces someone out of a position they're allowed to hold simply because others want them to 'get out of the way'.

I really hope when I hit 65 I can enjoy the fruits of my labor and relax in a country home. "hope" doesn't pay the bills. It'd be a real shame to reach 65, only to find out that even with a great investing strategy and a fiscally responsible lifestyle that things still didn't work out as planned, and due to a rule you supported when you were a lot younger, you can no longer ply your trade. Starting over in a new career at 65? Possible, but yeesh! Again, you want to have a rule that could really hose you later simply because you don't like the reasons some people have for still working at a more advanced age?

And before anyone throws in the statement that "the retirees lost their pension or 401k and have to work until they die"; I will tell you that I have flown with enough of them to know that the bulk of them have summer homes, and winter homes, and luxury cars, and toys and more. I get to hear all about it at 41,000 feet. Again, doesn't matter what the reason is for still working. Doesn't matter how many toys you have, how many homes you have, or what kind of lifestyle you live. If that's the case, why should we apply those standards only to older folks? What about the younger ones that enjoy the same thing? They may be fewer, but I've flown with some who are young (below 50) who could easily retire now but don't. So why are we just focusing on the 65 and older set? And who will set the standard as to when we have 'enough' and are forced to retire?

Sorry, but your reasons are simply justification for age discrimination. I've never applied for ANY job in my lifetime where I was asked if could afford to pass on the job because of my lifestyle.

 

[X-rated]

You've gotta be kidding me.......... Those of us on the street could say that those of you "doing this job for fun" are taking from us. I know a couple of guys out there doing this for fun, good pensions, health care, etc. I respect their right to continue to do so, but it IS coming at my expense.

OPEC,

You say those older pilots doing the job for fun are "taking from you". How did you come up with that? Everyone senior to you had a position before you arrived. Why would anyone need to "take from you" when they already had everything you had to offer before you got there. No my friend, it is you that now finds yourself without a position, so you suggest forcing someone else out so you can take from them. Period.

The harsh reality is you should never have been hired in the first place. Despite good intensions the company overstaffed. Some of the younger guys at the bottom of the seniority list feel it would be better if the company axed the older guys instead of them. Unfortunately for you and the other 494, that's not how seniority works. So, while everyone feels for you and hopes you are recalled soon, have some respect for yourself and stop this nonsense about anyone taking something from you. It's a ridiculous premiss.

 

[pilotyip]

A couple of good posts that realy gets to the reality of the age 65 thing, nice job X-x-rated and realityman

 

[realityman]

so i take it no one has any good info on legislation regarding this?

As to all the back and forth going on here, I fly with a lot of 65+ even 70+ now. These folks were fortunate to fly for a living during what I think was the best time this industry will ever know. So true. Somehow they weren't able to sufficiently save up for retirement. The word "somehow" is very telling. That could mean ANYTHING. Seems you're making a lot of assumptions about how those folks managed their finances over the years. How do you KNOW they can't retire because of bad choices? Life throws an awful lot of curveballs at us, some of them very expensive. Ever had your home flooded, only to find out your insurance didn't cover that specific kind of flooding? Ever had to deal with a major medical problem that wasn't covered by insurance, or that maybe you didn't have insurance for at the time the event happened? Ever had to support family members who maybe had similar things happen but needed your help because they didn't have insurance or the means to cover it themselves? Ever heard of a divorce that wasn't the pilot's fault? (Yeah, maybe a bit rare on this one, but it DOES happen. LOL!) Would you really call any of that 'poor choices in life'? Isn't there something about not judging others lest you walk a mile in their shoes?.........Hell most of them can't even answer a basic question about a 401k so what? Reference my previous reply. plan or remember what freq center just gave us. I'm only 41, but when fatigue starts setting in, I notice one of the first things that happens is keeping track of numbers gets a bit more difficult. Not necessarily an age-related thing. I hope no one judges you because you miss an occasional freq. They are where they are because of the lousy choices they made all their lives. Again, major assumption here. Go back and think about it for a while. Of course there are always a few that work hard, have a great attitude and do well. More than a few! I've flown with many over age 65 who I thought were great. yeah, they might be a bit slower with the bags, but i'm willing to compensate a bit for that to have their experience in the cockpit with me. Every one of them beats me to the lobby, even for those o'dark thirty shows. If the only thing you're good at is cashing the check, its time to GO! Agreed. But why should this apply only to 'older' pilots? I've flown with a few young ones who fit that description. While i'm young yet, i will (can I borrow your crystal ball?)retire before 65, most likely 60. I hope you do. For me too. Must be nice to have your life so set in stone. I have diversified in my retirement strategy and will always have the same wife. Again, I hope that holds true. But seriously, how can you be so SURE that nothing bad will happen to your finances or marriage (or anything else in your life)?I have always lived within my means, even as a regional FO. That's great! Honestly. Still doesn't mean things will necessarily work out like you think they will. Sure would be a shame to close doors you may need in the future, no? Not bragging here, but there seems to be a scarcity of common sense. Maybe. But I'm also noticing a scarcity of younger pilots with foresight. Considering we work in a profession with a motto (among many) "Always leave yourself an out.", seems counter-productive to want a rule that would close doors you may need later.
Fire away

Respectfully,
RM

 

[OPECJet]

OPEC, how many in your hire range waited until there was a new contract with vastly improved wages, or IBB with many more basing options? I'll bet there are a bunch. For lots of reasons too, both selfish and legitimate. For example, over 120 pilots came to NJA in 2006, got their type rating with no training contract, and quit. That would fall into the selfish category, not to mention unethical.

You think the senior guys didn't earn this job? I don't know of any in my interview group who made he cut. What makes you so special? We ALL earned the job, regardless of when we got here. All of us came here when we did for lots of reasons and circmstances.

You seem to lump me with the young time builders and old guys doing this for fun. I'm in my 50s and have a few years left in spite of the age limits some would put on this industry. I simply believe no one should be forced to retire as long as they can perform. Maybe we should all be limited to 10 years in ANY career field. That way even more young guys can have the chance. After all, isn't it everyone's right to get what they want, immediately if not sooner?

Anyone in my DOH range applied before the IBB was thought about. It was taking several months from application to interview at the time.

My intent isn't to lump anyone into any particular group. I tend to agree with you on a retirement age as long as you can do the job safely. Apparently that point was lost in my previous post.

As far as the rest, you know as well as I do that Netjets at one point was a time builder job. The point I raise is that it is no longer the case. As you point out in your post, and I point out in mine, everyone paid their dues in some form or fashion to get their position at NJA. There is a group on the property now who seems to forget that, and has referred to this furlough as "paying our dues". OK, I'll pay my dues.... Again.....

OPEC,

You say those older pilots doing the job for fun are "taking from you". How did you come up with that? Everyone senior to you had a position before you arrived. Why would anyone need to "take from you" when they already had everything you had to offer before you got there. No my friend, it is you that now finds yourself without a position, so you suggest forcing someone else out so you can take from them. Period.

The harsh reality is you should never have been hired in the first place. Despite good intensions the company overstaffed. Some of the younger guys at the bottom of the seniority list feel it would be better if the company axed the older guys instead of them. Unfortunately for you and the other 494, that's not how seniority works. So, while everyone feels for you and hopes you are recalled soon, have some respect for yourself and stop this nonsense about anyone taking something from you. It's a ridiculous premiss.

Thank you for the lesson in the seniority system......

I am not suggesting anyone be "forced" out of their position. Re-read my post.

If you're in the "doing this for a hobby" category, and I'm in the "doing this to feed my family category", do what you feel is right.

 

[X-rated]

If you're in the "doing this for a hobby" category, and I'm in the "doing this to feed my family category", do what you feel is right.

OPEC,

Regrettably, I'm not in the "doing this for a hobby" group. Wish I was. My hope is to retire well before age 60, but who knows what little surprises life has in store. Also, I reserve the right to change my mind and keep flying when the time comes even if I don't need to. I sincerely hope no one tries to lay a guilt trip on me if I do.

I apologize for lumping you in with some of the other posters who are calling for a mandatory retirement age so they can move up. However, while I fully understand the pressure you are under trying to take care of your family, you cannot transfer that responsibility to others regardless of whether you feel they need to work or not. It shouldn't be up to someone else to step aside to give you an opportunity to provide for you family. I do hope something turns up for you soon.

Good luck to you and your family,

X

 

[airjackson]

If you can pass the physical, the flying public deserves the most
experienced, safest pilots available.

AND pass the checkrides. Remember a story from an FO at one of the fracs about a Capt who crashed the plane three times during his recurrent check-ride and still passed the ride. $hit like that needs to stop.