1261 days to go!

[Flopgut]

I've never been without a non-airline flying job at the ready. Never had to campaign for another's opportunities. And I don't plan on it.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

It is an ugly reality that some of the advancement in this business is driven by forced retirement. Moving that age from 60 to 65 allows many more to go when they choose or closer to an age they would choose. It is still an age determined retirement/term-limit, which doesn't really make much sense, but it is less intrusive on those who are fit and capable of flying longer. Yes, there is a cost (retirement driven advancement slowed for 5 years).

The "everyone knew the rules when you got into this business" rant doesn't hold water. This is aviation folks; the rules have been changing since day one, and will continue to do so. For that matter, one of us will enjoy the same social security benefits (if any) that our parents will.

If you think we need to bring age 60 back, make a good argument for it. Educate, organize, and get it changed.

 

[flyboyike]

I read this the other day and saved it. It's quite valid in this case, re principle,etc: You're going to become more tolerant with time, and not only because you have more to tolerate in yourself. Because life will batter you and you'll have a surer sense of what's important and has meaning and is good.

For me time has (so far) had the exact opposite effect. I'm becoming progressively more and more intolerant, including militantly intolerant of some things.

 

[flyboyike]

Yes, there is a cost (retirement driven advancement slowed for 5 years).

It didn't just slow for 5 years, for some it now won't happen at all. But hey, it's worth it, as long as Grandpa got that extra Corvette and another ex-wife. I'm sure he earned it.

 

[flyboyike]

The only thing that has been exposed is the clear fact that old guys only wanted to stay for the chance to be super senior.

I think that's a key point, the gummers only wanted the seniority, not the job itself.

 

[Flopgut]

It is an ugly reality that some of the advancement in this business is driven by forced retirement. Moving that age from 60 to 65 allows many more to go when they choose or closer to an age they would choose. It is still an age determined retirement/term-limit, which doesn't really make much sense, but it is less intrusive on those who are fit and capable of flying longer. Yes, there is a cost (retirement driven advancement slowed for 5 years).

It's an ugly reality? Really? The reality is the age got changed. Guys like you got the exact increase you wanted, in a drastic overnight way that put a lot of pilots out of work. (far more ugly reality than what you mention above) Safety and discrimination issues (life-and-death sort of stakes) surrounded the effort to increase the retirement age. The question is now (and I submit to you it's NOW even more important than safety or discrimination): Can guys like you acknowledge that 65 is enough, and embrace the exodus of old pilots that this age will occasion? How is it you can be so desiring of 65, and then when you get it, you support it no more than you did 60?

And BTW: The truth is your "ugly reality" does not exist. We can all fly much longer than 65 and that there will be opportunities to do so.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Flop, your "we can all fly past much longer..." doesn't hold water. Yes, you are qualified to fly part 91, but there are nowhere near enough of those types of opportunities for a significant number of retiring airline guys. No one is really forced to retire, you can always get a job doing something. Firing a pilot simply because of a birthday doesnt make sense

Is 65 discriminatory? Yes (academically), but with far less impact simply because more guys are "ready" somewhere between 60 and 65. I don't think there is enough angst to support moving that number or eliminating it altogether with medical testing. Personally, I think 65 is probably enough; at least it is much closer to how our government and society regard retirement. Allowing pilots to fly longer based upon ability makes sense, but I don't really trust our government to come up with something that does more harm than good. I have supported changing the age 60 thing since I was 28. Firing someone because of their 60th birthday made no sense, period. I think 65 is good enough, but who knows what will happen in the next 15-20 years.

 

[Flopgut]

Flop, your "we can all fly past much longer..." doesn't hold water. Yes, you are qualified to fly part 91, but there are nowhere near enough of those types of opportunities for a significant number of retiring airline guys.

Huh? Seriously? Guys like you didn't seem to care one damn bit that there were nowhere near enough opportunities for others when you got your retirement age increase! You put a bunch of pilots out of work pal. But you suggest we should be concerned for old, retiring guys' opportunities?! Hey, if you're that healthy and that capable, you can find a new gig.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Flop,

Blame me if it makes you sleep better, but you have no clue as to what I care about and making such statements will not further your argument. To say that I put anyone out of work is nonesense. Who got fired the day after the rule change? Stagnation of advancement is caused by many things.

If you have any reasonable argument to justify lowering the mandatory retirement age back to 60, organize and get it done. Attacking what you believe to be my motivation certainly won't get it done. I would be glad to listen. Age 60 was a bad deal and just because it was endured for many years is no reason to keep it in place. Is 65 fair to everyone? Absolutely not and I never preached that everyone will catch up with the extra five years. Some will, but many won't. It depends on where one is when the music stops. Of all of the things that can negatively affect one's airline carrier, I believe that there are many that will rank ahead of age 60/65.

 

[Flopgut]

Of all of the things that can negatively affect one's airline carrier, I believe that there are many that will rank ahead of age 60/65.

I believe the same thing. In fact, I think I've said the same words to you. So we agree on that. But then why, when it became obvious the career had vulnerabilities, was retirement age increase the first thing pilots like you went after? Shouldn't this profession maybe have tried to reform BK? Or something like that? Why just go after the windfall, and then why just quit with that?

To my earlier point, and I believe this completely, there will be more flying jobs outside of airline flying in the coming years. Lot's of factors will make it so, and it will be a good thing. However it's going to be just like it was at 60. The retired pilots who will get the jobs are the ones who will earn them. And the guys who spent their careers being a-holes and marginal pilots won't have an opportunity. Those are the whiners that say " there is nowhere near enough of those kinds of opportunities for retired guys'. Don't be that guy Chest. Support your fellow pilots who want to move up and pass the word that 65 is enough. They've earned it.

 

[flyboyike]

Who got fired the day after the rule change?

Specifically on the day after probably nobody (which apparently is your whole argument), but in the ensuing months - plenty of people, as in thousands. That's not counting people whose career prospects got decimated.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

FBM,

Which airline furloughed due to age 65? I know of none. Plenty of career advancement was stagnated, and age 65 was a contributor. Recession, poor management, poorly concieved contracts were probably greater contributors.

Flop,

I think 65 is enough, but who knows what the future holds? Those that were most adversely affected may rise up and push something higher in 10 or 20 years to gain back some of what they lost. I totally agree that those with abilities will have opportunitiess beyond their 121 career. The only flaw there is that historically, 121 flying has been the the best job for a pilot. Part 91 and 91K flying has become a bit better and often does not force the starting over that a seniority system imposes.

 

[flyboyike]

FBM,

Which airline furloughed due to age 65? I know of none.

Continental is one, United is another. The latter probably would have furloughed either way, but age 65 certainly didn't help there.

 

[flyboyike]

Those that were most adversely affected may rise up and push something higher in 10 or 20 years to gain back some of what they lost.

If they do, it will only be out of spite, as you can't gain back time. I, for one, would want no part of such an effort.

 

[Andy]

FBM,

Which airline furloughed due to age 65? I know of none. Plenty of career advancement was stagnated, and age 65 was a contributor. Recession, poor management, poorly concieved contracts were probably greater contributors.

DEFINITELY United.
For American, it stopped recalls - I'd call that the same as furloughing due to 65.
Age 65 caused Northwest to furlough.

Seriously, how can you write this stuff? It's like you have no clue as to how an airline's training pipeline functions.

Personally, I'm insulted by your comments. Blame it on everything BUT age 65. The whole thing could have been implemented in stages to minimize furloughs but that didn't happen. Instead, there were huge winners and huge losers.