1261 days to go!

[flyboyike]

I literally have not heard a single feel good story come out of this rule change. Not one. I have not heard anything like a sick family member was cared for, a child was adopted, or ANYTHING good.

Oh, I have. Wonderful, heartwarming stories about more Harleys, Corvettes and pontoon boats being bought. Log cabins, too. Pictures and all. Heck, one geezer even married a girl, who hadn't been alive as long as he'd been with the airline. No joke.

 

[pilotyip]

I literally have not heard a single feel good story come out of this rule change. Not one. I have not heard anything like a sick family member was cared for, a child was adopted, or ANYTHING good. I've heard plenty from the furloughed guys who lost homes, marriages, and who's finances were destroyed.

We have just come through the safest 5 year period in the history of the airlines. That is good news. Now what made this safe? experience in the cockpit? stability in seat movement? or giving the upcoming pilots more time to mature? We know that this is good news

 

[75 Driver]

We have just come through the safest 5 year period in the history of the airlines. That is good news. Now what made this safe? experience in the cockpit? stability in seat movement? or giving the upcoming pilots more time to mature? We know that this is good news

Reduction in total flying hours helped.....

 

[pilotyip]

Reduction in total flying hours helped.....

doesn't effect the accident rate

 

[laker4284]

It appears clear to me that it is no more than a group of pilots who patiently waited for their chance are happy/relieved that things will now get moving again. You see it the way you do because you still feel you're a victim and want to lash out at others...

happy/relieved - and here a few posts from them: greedy, cowardly, craven old man; crazy old dolt; he is a scumbag; don't let the door...; GTFO; Goodbye bitches.

Ah, yes. No reason for anyone to take offense to that lofty rhetoric. Had this thread simply done it's count down, it would be great. I enjoyed it. However, when the crude insults began coming, well, some guys pushed back. Surprised? You shouldn't be. It's not, after all, your personal sandbox.

I'm not so concerned about the insult, but the about of misinformation has been and continues to be astounding. I find that harder to ignore.

 

[laker4284]

Other than a complete lack of character, I can't see how you're able assert this {recession as a cause of stagnation} as any kind of rational that would excuse changing the age the way it was, at the time it was. If anything, retirements should have been restarted as soon as the economy really went South. Those with the least took it the worst.

Ah, the inevitable persona insult. You do know that you lose a debate the second you result to personal attacks, right?

In making the above statement you ignore (or don't know) history and/or rationale behind the rule change.

The old history is well known, that ALPA fought the change from 1960 to 1980. There was a relatively brief hiatus until 1992 or so but the desire to change the totally arbitrary age of 60 never really went away. SWAPA was, for example, testifying on Capitol Hill in '94. It almost was changed in '95, but ALPA cut a deal with the Clinton Administration and it remained at 60.

The efforts to change it went on. In 2001 it missed passing in the Senate by two votes. Two!

The point being that the TIMING of the change was totally arbitrary, depending simply when (or if) enough support was gathered to make it happen. It happened in 2007. But the guys fighting to dump 60 got closer and closer every year.

Did it suck that the recession hit at the same time? Absolutely. No one saw that coming. Did you? If so, you should have warned the rest of the country. But the recession hit. Considering that it was now law, considering that it was at least partly based on discrimination, etc, etc. the idea that the change would be somehow temporarily suspended in not sound.

Besides, some airlines thrived in spite of the recession. Others did not. Laws and regulations are not amended, adjusted, suspended based on economic coniditions which would change again.

Yes. Those with the least got hurt the most. That is absolutely undeniable. It happened to me more than once in my career. And that is the way it is in this industry, as well as every other industry and the country as a whole.

That's life.

It sucks. But no one person or group of persons is to blame.

 

[laker4284]

Being familiar with Christmas myself, I have to ask: Do you know Christmas? Why are you carrying on here like this?! There is no debating the issue. You got the age change and now it is over! Quit trying to rub salt in these guys' wound. You want to be treated like you're "senior and experienced?" Act like it! My God, is it completely out of the realm of possibility that at least ONE of you guys that wanted this change might get on here and have something to say other than a very disingenuous "you're welcome"

I doubt you could describe my comments as "carrying on". At least not accurately. Why am on I here? Because I dislike the snotty comments made and I dislike, even more, the factless recitations of what too many think happened, rather than educate themselves on what actually happened. I am in no sense rubbing salt in any wounds. This has been a hard change for many. Too hard by far. But if you or anyone else think it's cool to say "get the f--k out", well, tough. I'll pack salt in your would all day; Christmas or no.

I literally have not heard a single feel good story come out of this rule change. Not one. I have not heard anything like a sick family member was cared for, a child was adopted, or ANYTHING good. I've heard plenty from the furloughed guys who lost homes, marriages, and who's finances were destroyed.

There are plenty of good stories. Frankly, not being on the lower end of the seniority list, it would be trite, foolish and obnoxious on my part to begin discussing those. I would, however, say that it's one thing to FREEZE retirements and another entirely to begin blaming a freeze for all the harm done- certainly not when the industry was hammered by a deep recession. It is the loss of growth, the decrease in flights and aircraft, etc. that cause recessions and job loss. Not lack of upward movement in a seniority list.

The age change might be a convenient scapegoat, but not an accurate one.

 

[laker4284]

Before Flop began castigating me, the idea of getting back on here was to impart some understanding of how the rule came to be in the form that was implemented. It was, as I noted earlier, not changedovernight. It took about 15 years of continuous effort to get it done. ALPA beat it back successfully until it lost control of the issue in '06.

Along the way there were many changes in the language. By the time the issue got to '04 or so, the proposed legislative language had undergone a pile of changes - in large part to make its acceptance easier and less painful for, yes, younger guys. There was a transition idea, there was the idea of fixing retirement to the Social Security age, etc. None of those stuck, in large part because ALPA was diligent in stopping anything from moving forward.

The last bill was simply a flat change. Done is done. One day 60, the other 65. That legislation also dropped language looking back at pilots who were already off the property. A compromise, one not favorable to the hard core change guys. Congress doesn't like complicated stuff when it comes to technical things. Make it simple. asy to explain, easier to pass.

In that respect ALPA fought itself into a corner. Some of the earlier language had stuff that was better for the younger guys. How it was simple: change the age. The EEOC supported change because they saw 60 as discriminatory (they accepted as still discriminatory but better than nothing at all). ICAO changed to 65, reflected the fact that many (not a few, many) of their member countries have had pilots flying past 60 for decades. The science was clear real-world statistics backed it up. In the meantime the grass roots campaign waged by APAAD and SWAPA had rolled up hundreds of co-sponsors. ALPA caved in May 2007 when it was explained to their governing board (at that monster meeting they have every year) that the train was leaving the station, that the rule was going to change with ALPA's input, that ALPA was beaten and that ALPA's suppporters in DC told ALPA that if they wanted any they needed to change their position and get in the game. They did, in a controversial vote. They stuffed in some stuff that made it a little more palatable for them but they were driven to it, not because they wanted to do it.

It's ironic, because had them dealt fairly with the issue years before they could have had better language than they got in the final bill.

 

[laker4284]

And finally -

I'd be the first to say that it was a disruptive change, hard on many people.
Most of the guys I know thought it would slow things down (a freeze in retirements does not, with but perhaps a few exceptions, make things move backward). Slow is annoying. It's not a killer. But the recession was an ass kicker. Now it wasn't a matter of pace because as airlines reacted to the crappy market our pilot lists were impacted. It was a reversal, one that no one saw coming. Younger/junior pilots were most severely impacted. And that sucked.

However, as I acknowledge that younger pilots got hammered due to their lack of advancement or security, it would nice to hear that some younger folks understand that many older pilots were hurt over the years as well.

It's not so easy to plan if your airline vanishes. It's disingenuous to think that if someone has a pension they should assume in their plannig that it will go away. Oh, maybe recently people feel like that but it wasn't a common thing (for a pension to vanish) not all that long ago.

But it's not all about pensions. There was the discrimination aspect, which was acknowledged by many pilots, the EEOC, many in Congress and even within the FAA. You can say anything you want, but you can't change that reality. You also cannot say that someone should not, if he is healthy and competent, stay to continue doing what he likes to do, what he loves to do. It's not a matter of "getting a life". Most of us have tons of other activities we do or can do. But FLYING! That is and always has been special to most of us.

The rule sucked the day it was passed. It sucked even more 47 years later. It was ripe to change, almost changed numerous times, and finally was
changed in '07. It was a ********************-y surprise to have the recession hammer us. No one wanted the age change to happen the way it did. It just did.

Some guys got hurt. It's a setback for some, an annoyance for others, a disaster to more than a few. But one of the driving ideas all along, an idea that got more and more support as pensions vanished and our airlines changed, is that if a guy was healthy and competent he should not be forced to leave his cockpit. That's what drove SWAPA all the way back in 1994.

So, today, our careers have been extended five years. It will not benefit some. Their position on their seniority list was akin to being in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, as a class, pilots benefit from age 65 snce our lives and careers are longer. Five years matters - for the principle, joy of flying and pensions. That's it in a nutshell.

I have an aging mother in need of surgery, a move for her to move to assisted living to organize, a friend who has recurring cancer. It's time for me to let this dog lie and, yes, Flop...celebrate Christmas with prayers for those in trouble.

 

[gutshotdraw]

Interesting points Laker but let me ask you this: Do you agree or disagree that the change from 60 to 65 should have included an age-based limit on ALL compensated flying?

Most of the participants on this board haven't flown with pilots older than 65. Those of us in the fractional world have. Repeatedly. Current airline pilots can only speculate on age-related decline. We see it first hand. There IS a decline in ability as we age and it is patently obvious in most and less obvious in a select few.

I have said before that there is "old" 60 and "young" 60. "Old" 70 and "young" 70. But the decline is both mental AND physical and it is more obvious in our operations because of various issues including irregular schedules, baggage handling, or aircraft cleaning that are rarely, if ever, part of a 121 pilot's work life. Are there exceptions? Certainly. I'm sure there are plenty of 65 year olds that can kick my arse in a cockpit or in a 10k run. But we legislate based on the AVERAGE because we HAVE to.

Ultimately, my biggest complaint about the age 60/65 issue is the selective enforcement of the rule. Once again, why is it unsafe to fly a 737 for Southwest the day after you turn 65 but it's safe to go fly a BBJ around the planet for Rupert Murdock the next day?

And before Yip decides I just "want them out of my seat," I have been a Captain for 12 years at my company and am senior to the vast majority of the age 60+ pilots here. Many of them retired from the 121 world and came here because, sadly, financial realities forced them to. My wife is a medically retired NWA pilot. Trust me, I get it.

Bottom line for me, either it is safe to fly past 65 or it isn't. Pick one and apply it EQUALLY.