1261 days to go!

[Flopgut]

Yes, we noticed. And it's why I believe there should be a limit for ALL compensated flying or no limit at all (you can guess which I would prefer).

Why is it unsafe for a guy to fly a 737 for an airline the day after he turns 65 but it's perfectly safe for him to walk across the street the next day and fly a BBJ around the planet until he can't hold a medical, finally quits, or croaks?

Either it is safe at any age or it's unsafe beyond 65. Pick one....

Difference is the BBJ or any other "royal barge" can delay or adjust itneraries. Flying the line is the difference; The conveyor belt doesn't stop. It's the inherent margin for error that differentiates the two.

That being said, I think we are headed toward a mandatory maximum age for commercial flying. I think it will be underwriters and insurance companies that drive it. This Lear wreck with the old guy flying will pbly move things quicker. IMO it will be something like this: Turn 65 and you convert to Sport pilot privileges only (maybe 70 for non 121 scheduled). Or you just dont fly. May not be an official FAR, just limit for insurance. It will amount to far greater discrimination than ever existed with age 60. But, you can't do anything else when you toss out a decades old safety rule (with a perfect record) just to help out a small group of pilots,

 

[imacdog]

Difference is the BBJ or any other "royal barge" can delay or adjust itneraries. Flying the line is the difference; The conveyor belt doesn't stop. It's the inherent margin for error that differentiates the two.

Along with the possibility of delay comes the occurances of passengers/owners showing up early and demanding to go ASAP. Additionally, the pilots of corporate aircraft typically have many more responsibilities than walking through the door, turning left, and sitting down.

 

[vtech]

But, you can't do anything else when you toss out a decades old safety rule (with a perfect record) just to help out a small group of pilots,

Safety wasn't a consideration when the rule was implemented. The safety argument showed up later to justify the existence of the rule. Since you can't get over it, you might as well understand it. Study the history surrounding the implementation of the rule. It was all about economics at AA.

 

[Whataburger]

Any water flying today?

 

[DesertDuck]

Seems odd to not do something when the clock rolls over 0000 central.

Hmmm what to do.... +2

 

[Flyer1015]

See ya later, you craven, cowardly, greedy thieves.

How are they coward and thieves?



Suck it up. Age 65 was spreading internationally, and it was only a matter of time before it came to the US. What really sucked was the economy tanking in end of 2007, and the 2008-2010 recession. Otherwise, there would have been some hiring.


These people didn't steal from you. YOU people did not earn your seat at a legacy/major. You earn that seat when you are HIRED. Until then, they're not hogging your seat. And it wasn't greedy. Many of them watched their pensions get wiped in the post 9/11 world and then worked longer to get some money back in savings. In retrospect, I'm sure they wished they had saved more.


But regardless, Age 65 will help you one day if you decide you want to work longer than age 60. It's not like these guys upped it to Age 65, got their time and money, and then pulled a switcheroo and make it Age 60 again. Then I would understand it was cowardly and greedy. But the rule changed, and it changed for everybody.


Apply to the airlines, and hope for the best. But remember, no one stole anything from you. It's not yours until you earn it.

 

[flyboyike]

How are they coward and thieves?



Suck it up. Age 65 was spreading internationally, and it was only a matter of time before it came to the US. What really sucked was the economy tanking in end of 2007, and the 2008-2010 recession. Otherwise, there would have been some hiring.


These people didn't steal from you. YOU people did not earn your seat at a legacy/major. You earn that seat when you are HIRED. Until then, they're not hogging your seat. And it wasn't greedy. Many of them watched their pensions get wiped in the post 9/11 world and then worked longer to get some money back in savings. In retrospect, I'm sure they wished they had saved more.


But regardless, Age 65 will help you one day if you decide you want to work longer than age 60. It's not like these guys upped it to Age 65, got their time and money, and then pulled a switcheroo and make it Age 60 again. Then I would understand it was cowardly and greedy. But the rule changed, and it changed for everybody.


Apply to the airlines, and hope for the best. But remember, no one stole anything from you. It's not yours until you earn it.

None of the above makes it right.

 

[pilotyip]

None of the above makes it right.

but it does make it reality, so we all have to deal with it. Like death and taxes

 

[Flopgut]

Reality: It changed for pilots who were over 60 and under 65 as well. They were allowed to come back but specifically excluded from their previous seniority. So few pilots took advantage of this and returned it's obvious they didn't want the job really, they just wanted the seniority. 65 was an active campaign for someone elses job on the part of a bunch of old pilots.

 

[Flopgut]

Safety wasn't a consideration when the rule was implemented.

Everything in this business is a safety consideration.