Age 60 Back Again!!!!

[stratocoaster]

I believe you'll see that the future 60+ YO pilots will be much healthier, safer, and in the know about the newest technology out there. This combination should continue to contribute to the best safety record in the world.

I'm curious why you think older pilots in the future will be any healthier, on aggregate, than older pilots of the present? And for that matter, why do you think they will be any more up to date on the "newest" technology than current older pilots are up-to-date on today's "newest" technology?

From the technology standpoint, every pilot at every airline is held to the same standard of technological proficiency, since time immemorial. From a health standpoint, the available airport/fast food, sleep/rest opportunities, and local air pollution issues for airline pilots aren't forecast to improve in the future. that leaves the biggest variable, individual pilot attention to their own health. given that human nature has managed to outlast any technological innovation or health craze, why do you think the bell curve of health in airline pilots will skew more toward the healthy side at some future time?

 

[lostplnetairman]

You need to realize that some age discrimination is GOOD for society. The people that really benefit from age discrimination lawsuits are the lawyers. Are you married to one by chance?


Bye Bye--General Lee

Wow, discrimination is good for society! The Supreme Court doesn't make decisions or decline to make decisions based on the idea that there would be a rash of lawsuits as a result!

No, silly one. I'm the lawyer. I'm married to a pilot!

HR Diva

 

[canyonblue]

But you don't think safety is an issue? Where do you make the cut off? 60, 65, 70, 90?

I do agree, it is, especially if my family or I are riding on the plane. But I could see where safety based on age could be flawed. SWA pilot Hoot Gibson, who was a Shuttle Commander and still participates in the Reno Air Races, is scheduled to retire next year. If any one has ever met Hoot or flown with him they could discount the "unsafe at 60" theory. But like I have said, I really don't care if it stays or goes, I have never planned my life off of it anyway. It is obviously different at other airlines though with furloughs, etc.

 

[ferlo]

Bump..

Call your congressman!!!!

 

[General Lee]

Wow, discrimination is good for society! The Supreme Court doesn't make decisions or decline to make decisions based on the idea that there would be a rash of lawsuits as a result!

No, silly one. I'm the lawyer. I'm married to a pilot!

HR Diva

I knew it! Without stating that fact in the beginning, now negates everything you have said. If you would have started by stating "Well, I am a lawyer and I think....." we all would have skipped ahead. Just joking!

Seriously though, age limits are a must. If your life depended on it, you would agree. By not ruling on it, so did the Supreme Court.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Flopgut]

Wow, discrimination is good for society! The Supreme Court doesn't make decisions or decline to make decisions based on the idea that there would be a rash of lawsuits as a result!

No, silly one. I'm the lawyer. I'm married to a pilot!

HR Diva

Who said anything about discrimination? We go this entire thread without using that ugly term and, sure enough, a lawyer brings it up.

OK HR attorney, do you have a number in mind? Because whatever number we come up with will have the same problem. Furthermore, if we are endeavoring to consider how a change to this issue can be done so as to enhance safety, why are we not considering lowering the age as a possibility? Air traffic controllers retire earlier than pilots; Maybe we are going in the wrong direction?

The major difference is that ATC personnel have secure retirements and pilots do not. No, we are only considering raising the age and 90% of the reason we are doing that is financial. Those are not generally ingredients for securing a safer operation.

My thesis is this: It has to be a number and we have it--60! If we change it once we'll be asked to change it again. These greed wracked squanderers won't take care of themselves and will be right back wanting/needing more. And our legacy carriers need some renewal! We are very close to sending a generation of pilots out to pasture that need to go! Keeping them is NOT good business. For the most part, they already have more than their fair share.

 

[michael707767]

be careful what you ask for...the lawmakers do cite safety as a reason to keep the rule...so if you change the rule to a different age...it stands to reason they will add safeguards to cover their bee-hinds. that could mean someone stuffing a microscope up your rear on all future physicals...just to keep flying. the consequence here could be a lot of pilots having to retire well before age 60. .

thats my biggest fear and one I think will come to pass. The price for a small number of guys to fly to 65 will be a large number of guys who fail the new physical standards and loose their job long before they even get to 60.

 

[TinGoose1]

This is a question for the lawyer. How can the age 60 rule be discrimination when all the other age requirements aren't? 16 to drive, 18 to vote, 21 to drink, 23 ATP, 25 State Representative, 30 yrs old to be a State Senator, and the grand daddy of 35 to be President. When will you folks just let go and retire. Hell, I'm not only OK with being retired at 60 I'm excited about it. When I turn 60 I'm going quit aviation, throw a party and become a lawyer.

 

[lostplnetairman]

This is a question for the lawyer. How can the age 60 rule be discrimination when all the other age requirements aren't? 16 to drive, 18 to vote, 21 to drink, 23 ATP, 25 State Representative, 30 yrs old to be a State Senator, and the grand daddy of 35 to be President. When will you folks just let go and retire. Hell, I'm not only OK with being retired at 60 I'm excited about it. When I turn 60 I'm going quit aviation, throw a party and become a lawyer.

Because the ADEA protects people OVER the age of 40 from discrimination. Some states, like NJ, are more protective. The NJ Law Against Discrimination protects all workers over the age of 18. Driving would not count--it's a priviledge, not a right.

HR Diva

 

[TinGoose1]

Driving would not count--it's a priviledge, not a right.

That's a DOT slogan, not a fact. Rights are freedoms. I would think that the Ninth amendment of the constitution would make it a right, not a priviledge. Anyway, tell your pilot spouse to hang up the hat and call it a career. Everyone knew the rules when we started playing. Now that your game is coming to an end, you would like to change the rules. I would tell my boys that this simply isn't how you play. Take care, and enjoy your future time together.

 

[TinGoose1]

The NJ Law Against Discrimination protects all workers over the age of 18.

So a Senator from NJ could sue because there is an age requirement for his job?


Oooops, these two posts got turned around. You get the point.

 

[lostplnetairman]

You sir, presume a lot and are rude. My pilot husband is not near retirement.

Have a good day.

HR Diva

 

[Chiller]

Regardless of how old or how young you are, the age 60 law is not appropriate and should be repealed.

 

[TinGoose1]

HR Diva,

I apologize if you took my post personally. I wasn't trying to be rude, only direct. I really would like to know how some age requirements are legal, and others are questionable. You stated that NJ protected age discrimination for adults over 18. If this is true, why would NJ have an age requirement for public office? Once again I'm not trying to offend you, I'm only trying to ask an attorney why we can be selective on certain age requirements?

 

[FNG_that's me]

I'm not a lawyer, but here's my guess:

Those ages for the Pres and congress are in the Constitution, which is the basis for all of our laws. Hence the term 'unconstitutional.' I think that's what makes them OK.

Furthermore, age is typically legislated with rational scrutiny in terms of equal protection, the most liberal of all scrutinies. Therefore, the reasoning for imposing an age limit for an issue is not as difficult to defend as say a race restriction(strict scrutiny) or gender restriction(intermediate scrutiny).

What I think this all means is that it would be tough for the courts to strike down the age restriction, since they would apply rational scrutiny...but it wouldn't be too difficult, from a legal perspective, for legislators to change it to some other number because they don't have to have a lot of evidence to change the age. It could be a political problem for them...some 62y/o has a heart attack while flying and everyone then want to know why congress upped the age.

Again, I don't think it will change until the airlines want it to change, and right now it is not to their benefit.

Any judges out there care to chime in and add to or correct my horrible recollection of equal protection?

 

[SuperFLUF]

............ being an international pilot, how the rest of the world views it ........

Being an international pilot, do you know that Italy and France do NOT allow PIC's over 59 into their airspace?

KLM pilots retire at 54.

How does the rest of the world view it?

 

[Spooky 1]

Being an international pilot, do you know that Italy and France do NOT allow PIC's over 59 into their airspace?

KLM pilots retire at 54.

How does the rest of the world view it?

I am assuming you mean "airline pilots" when you make this assertion? Been flying in and out of both countries without incident and I am well over 59. Never been challenged or asked about my age by anyone. There is language in the ICAO Annex 1 that discusses the nuances of flying in the certain countries if both pilots are over age 60. The Dutch are certainly role models for the rest of the world! Where do I sign up for this sorry excuse of a country. PS my grandparents are from Holland, a fact that I seldom admit.

 

[FoxHunter]

Being an international pilot, do you know that Italy and France do NOT allow PIC's over 59 into their airspace?

KLM pilots retire at 54.

How does the rest of the world view it?

Actually according to the folks on PPRUNE Italy allows overflight with no landing, in the case of France you are correct. This will all change on 1 October 2006 when an EU law becomes effective. At that time the limit will change to age 65 in accordance with JAA and ICAO standards.

The rest of the world is going to at least age 65, with the exception of countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand which have no limit.

 

[Jim Smyth]

Actually according to the folks on PPRUNE Italy allows overflight with no landing, in the case of France you are correct. This will all change on 1 October 2006 when an EU law becomes effective. At that time the limit will change to age 65 in accordance with JAA and ICAO standards.

The rest of the world is going to at least age 65, with the exception of countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand which have no limit.

Shouldnt be much longer. Has to change sometime with life expectancy going up by leaps and bounds since 1959! It would be nice if they tied it in with Social Security and Medicare benefits.