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
This specific case has been taking years. In fact, way before May. Now it's actionable. FAR 91/135 users/employers can now insist their concerns be addressed and are less likely to be sued. They spend 15k/hr they don't want a 80yo pilot.

Yeah, not holding my breath, but things will continue to evolve. And it won't be a blank check for old pilots. The result of this case is proof.
 
Good news; good case precedent established now. If NJA (or other 91Ks with a sh*t-ton of old bastards that simply won't go away) wants to horse trade something in their negotiations, how about embracing "mandatory retirement age" language. Heck- I recall NJA (during the whole 15mo I was there before being furloughed) REALLY trying to emulate the airlines in standardization, safety, etc. Put this one under the safety column...as well as the cost-savings one. How about pilots eating their OLD for a change, instead of their young.
 
and how many +65 accidents have we had as opposed to the -65 age group?
 
and how many +65 accidents have we had as opposed to the -65 age group?

By the grace of God; and the intentional pairing of younger (<=40) pilots with these guys..at least at NJA. Think about it; how often have you seen two +65 fractional guys (at least NJA) walk out to an airplane together as crew? Mgmt is dumb, but smart enough to know not to pair them together. I was paired with a few during my not-so-long 'tenure' at NJA, and it took every ounce of energy I had to continuously babysit them and the airplane; and I was 35 at the time. They were horrible and fundamentally unsafe. Not because they were necessarily bad pilots, but because their piloting skills had been increasingly degraded by the effects of aging. I won't escape it either, and hope I can retire BEFORE 65.
 
The age-65 option was the best thing to happen to airline pilots. Pay has always been and still is under constant attack. Unfortunately, pilots have been continually loosing the pay battle. The option of flying to age 65 is the only way many pilots, especially Regional Pilots, have a chance of "retiring" with any kind of 401k.
 
Gimme a break. Age 65 happened in the middle of the biggest airline industry furlough since Orville Wright! Thousands of pilots were on the street and all of the sudden it's ok to go another five years?! Do you have any idea how much that unprecedented greed cost those of us who were on the street?
 
Age 65 screwed thousands of pilots by keeping them in the regionals an extra 5 years! It delayed upgrade of FOs over 5 years costing over $300,000 in today's dollars. It caused countless others to be furloughed and drain their savings and 401s to survive. But your points are true and probably necessary because age 65 was enacted.
 
Gimme a break. Age 65 happened in the middle of the biggest airline industry furlough since Orville Wright! Thousands of pilots were on the street and all of the sudden it's ok to go another five years?! Do you have any idea how much that unprecedented greed cost those of us who were on the street?

The age change was difficult for many pilots; yes, you are right. But in the long term the greater money to be earned and the increased retirement potential is there now. The Age-65 change was only correcting for the mistakes of 1959 when age 60 became law without any scientific study.

Personally, I was forced to retire at age 60. My pension was cut from $135K to $35K with the PBGC. I would like to have had the opportunity to work longer, but even as is, because the Market has risen so much, I've been OK. And yes, I did enjoy those extra 5-years of retirement. I took my 20-year old son on a 45-day driving/camping trip across the country. I wouldn't trade that experience for anything. If I had to work to 65, that trip wouldn't have happened.

So, if you have the money to retire early, do it. Otherwise, it's nice to now have the option to work to age-65.
 
What a selfish piece of sh!t.
 
The only people that benifited by the age 65 were the ones that were soon to turn 60. It was destructive to every other pilot. It hit the RJ FO's the hardest. They will never recover what they lost.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top