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

1261 days to go!

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
yeah I am stuck at a regional and on reserve for pretty much the last 5-6 years. But the RIGHT thing to do was to correct a law that was both wrong and unfair.

So how do you figure it was "wrong and unfair"? Because YOU EXPECTED to upgrade 5 years earlier? Because YOU EXPECTED to get a legacy job 5 years earlier?

So tell me this: Is it fair that U.S. pilots would not have been able to exercise their profession in U.S. AIRSPACE while foreign pilots were allowed to do so. Because that's what was happening. ICAO changed their retirement age and foreign pilots over Age 60 were flying revenue flights in U.S. airspace.

Is that fair?

As a signee to the ICAO convention, the U.S. had the choice of conforming to their rules or leaving. Would that be fair? U.S. airlines denied access to International flying. How would THAT have impacted your career, Skippy?

Perhaps you should review the Supremecy Clause to the U.S. Constitution BEFORE you moan and whine about the Age 65 rule. I guess you shouldn't have slept through 9th grade Civics class.
 
So how do you figure it was "wrong and unfair"? Because YOU EXPECTED to upgrade 5 years earlier? Because YOU EXPECTED to get a legacy job 5 years earlier?

So tell me this: Is it fair that U.S. pilots would not have been able to exercise their profession in U.S. AIRSPACE while foreign pilots were allowed to do so. Because that's what was happening. ICAO changed their retirement age and foreign pilots over Age 60 were flying revenue flights in U.S. airspace.

Is that fair?

As a signee to the ICAO convention, the U.S. had the choice of conforming to their rules or leaving. Would that be fair? U.S. airlines denied access to International flying. How would THAT have impacted your career, Skippy?

Perhaps you should review the Supremecy Clause to the U.S. Constitution BEFORE you moan and whine about the Age 65 rule. I guess you shouldn't have slept through 9th grade Civics class.

Blah, blah, blah...

The truth is starting to come to bear.
 
yeah I am stuck at a regional and on reserve for pretty much the last 5-6 years. But the RIGHT thing to do was to correct a law that was both wrong and unfair. I am an ALPA supporter but I do place the blame in them for fighting this in the first place, not correcting this years and years ago and wasting a lot of money in the process. Yes it sucks now but soon the retirements will start again and all you babies will be happy again.

I relate this to a guy who told me I should support the falsely bloated oil prices because our companies 401K at our company was highly invested in the companies who profited on the oil futures market. Guess what? I was for fixing that program as I am for fixing the manditory age 60 retirement rule which screwed everyone except those who have defined pensions! when the rules were changed for the oil futures market, oil prices dropped!

Old lame a$$. My bet is that describes you! Let me guess, you pick up open time on your 10 days off a month to make ends meet - just what every airline out there hopes people like you do. If I'm off base in my assumption, my apologies, sort of.
 
Last edited:
60 was the standard, and to have it changed overnight to 65 was flat out wrong. He!!, I was lucky enough to have a birthday 2 months prior to the Grandfather clause for legal drinking age in Florida changing from 18-21. Others weren't lucky. Point is, some kind of gradual implementation of the 65 rule should've happened.

ie. 59 at the time it changed, get to fly to 61; if you're 58, 62, etc!

Personally don't have a dog in the fight (sorry Vick), but the change, and the way they did it, screwed many, many people that would still be on property at their respective airlines.
 
As a signee to the ICAO convention, the U.S. had the choice of conforming to their rules or leaving.

That's simply not true. Every signatory to the ICAO conventions can file for exemptions. We have several exemptions on file, as does just about every other country that is an ICAO member. There was absolutely no requirement to change our rule if we wanted to stay in ICAO.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top